What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
Why are insurance companies loading insurance premiums for non-fault parties involved in accidents?
I believe that your advice to L.C. of Trowbridge is seriously flawed. In insurance law a "material fact" is any factor that might cause the insurer to increase premium or restrict cover. Failure to advise a material fact would allow the insurer to avoid the policy at a future date. This is most likely to happen following a future claim, whether during the currency of the present policy period or during any renewal of that policy (whether with the current insurer or some other). In the event that a policy is avoided the most that the insured could expect to receive is a return of the premium.
Asked on 16 June 2011 by BR, via email
Answered by
Honest John
The strict legal advice is that everyone has a legal liability to report an accident to their insurers, even if they don't intend to make a claim. This is because an insurance contract is one of 'uberrimae fidei' (utmost good faith) and if you cause an accident (as the neighbour did in this case) it is likely to affect the insurer's view of you as a risk and therefore the premium charged. If you conceal it and are then involved in a serious accident your insurer could deny cover on the grounds of non-disclosure.
But many insurers are loading the premiums of even 'no fault' parties to declared small bumps by as much as 40 per cent, which is completely contrary to 'uberrimae fidei' on the part of the insurer and common sense tells me that unless the cost of the claim is likely to exceed £500 each, both parties will be better off settling it between themselves. (£500 is the cost of a mere scratch these days.) The problem could then come two years later when one of them finds the other has welched on the deal and has used some shyster lawyer to make a personal injury claim. This urgently need to be taken to The Supreme Court and the extent of 'uberrimae fidei' defined because it is plainly ridiculous to penalise a driver involved in a £500 bump with £2,500 of extra premiums over five years, especially where they have an excess of £500 so have to pay for the repair themselves anyway.
But many insurers are loading the premiums of even 'no fault' parties to declared small bumps by as much as 40 per cent, which is completely contrary to 'uberrimae fidei' on the part of the insurer and common sense tells me that unless the cost of the claim is likely to exceed £500 each, both parties will be better off settling it between themselves. (£500 is the cost of a mere scratch these days.) The problem could then come two years later when one of them finds the other has welched on the deal and has used some shyster lawyer to make a personal injury claim. This urgently need to be taken to The Supreme Court and the extent of 'uberrimae fidei' defined because it is plainly ridiculous to penalise a driver involved in a £500 bump with £2,500 of extra premiums over five years, especially where they have an excess of £500 so have to pay for the repair themselves anyway.
We give you the low down on how to save on insurance, little-known tricks and tips, what insurance groups mean and how to use insurance aggregators to beat insurers.
Insurance group finder and how to save on insuranceSimilar questions
I was involved in a car accident last year and the other party admitted liability. His insurance company rang and confirmed liability both to me and my insurers. My insurance duly paid for all the repairs...
My wife's car was a 1995 Mazda 323 with 70,000 miles with FSH and in good condition. She loved it, put a personalised number plate on it and had intended to use it until she is too old to drive. Now it...
Is it any wonder car insurance is so expensive? A couple of days ago, my wife had a 50/50 door mirror clash on a narrow country lane. Both mirrors were broken but there were no other damage or injuries....
.jpg)
