|
I had an accident where I hit a sheep in the middle of a main road, and damaged my car. I had to claim on the insurance, however I found the farmer who agreed that it was his fault. Therefore do I have to tell other insurance companies of my claim or not? It's so confusing - in an ideal world, if the sheep hadn't been there I would never have hit the thing. PS I'm not a dizzy blonde either!!
|
If you claimed, then yes you do.
Did you, or your insurance company recover your losses from the Farmer ? If all losses, including uninsured losses, were recovered then make sure that you state this as it proves it was a non-fault accident.
If, however, your insurance company made no payments, then write to them withdrawing the claim and stating that you will deal with any further issues and away you go.
Was your NCD affected ?
|
|
The insurance was free with the car when I bought it. I have spoken to the insurance company (Ford) but they're not really very helpfull. I hope that it won't affect my no claims, especially as Ford will have recovered any payments that they will have made. It's frustrating really, and I don't see why I should be penalised for it, and I'm still waiting for my excess too!
|
|
|
|
>>and I'm still waiting for my excess too!
Now this is not good. Without this, most insurers will judge it as a claim paid out by your insurer, probably whether or not it actually was.
Also, without this, your bonus will be affected.
Are you claiming this yourself ? How much is it ?
What about the farmer ? Nice cooperative guy or doesn't want to know ?
|
|
|
No mention of the health of the sheep up till now?
KB.
|
|
Don't care. These ram-raiders deserve everything they get.
|
|
That lamb was due for the chop anyway...
|
|
|
|
"No claims" as we learned is not the same as "no fault", however many insurers will not take into account the no claims period with these free insurance offers so you only have to answer the question "have you made any claim in the last x years" when you next shop around for insurance.
Colin
|
|
|
Firstly, I totally agree with answering the questions specifically and exactly how they are asked.
However, don`t forget the catch all which usually exists which says something along the lines of having to disclose all relevant matters which may affect the rating of the risk.
Also, it can sometimes be to your advantage to offer extra information and get it noted, specifically in relation to usage, although some other factors as well.
In this case, however, she has notified her insurer of a claim, and therefore has only three possibilities;
Withdraw the claim
Disclose the claim
Fix the situation
Irrespective of anything else, if she can get her Excess back, then it will not affect her NCD. Now, disclosing it in the future is tricky.
Firstly, if someone had 10 accidents, even though no insurance claim was made for any of them, and even if not their fault, this would probably be considered as a material factor in the risk assessment.
One accident though ? Difficult to say. Probably not. And therefore, unless asked specifically, it would probably not need to be disclosed. (huge exemption clause here about why it isn`t my fault if you follow this advice).
Withdrawing a claim is something you always have to think about. Having withdrawn it, you cannot change your mind later. And if later the Farmer remembers it was his prize sheep and it bounced off her car and caused damage, and there was a witness to say it was her fault - it could get silly. Now this is ridiculous and extreme, but these things can happen.
It also depends on how large was her claim. If it was $50. Then pay the insurance company back.
If it was more, then look at the excess. If you have a letter from the farmer stating that he has paid your excess to you then the problem goes away because this will indicate to the insurer that your uninsured losses were recovered. (I phrased that paragraph very carefully)
For more meaningful advice, a lot more details are needed.
|
|
|
What's wrong with dizzy blondes?
My PA pretends to be one.
Example from her :- What do you call an intelligent natural blonde?
A - a retreiver.
(she drives - competently - around in an MX-5)
|
|
|
|
Bet ewe the insurance fleece her, anyway.
|
|
|
I'm afraid I don't really agree with mark (Brazil). The way insurance proposals in the UK are worded, you have to disclose how many accidents you have had, and THEN state whether your no-claims bonus was affected.
Even if you recovered everything, and it wasn't your fault, or if you didn't claim - you are still required to disclose this.
The only way in which Mark (Brazil) is correct is that, when cases have gone to the Insurance Ombudsman, he has only upheld insurers' refusal to pay up where they can demonstrate that if the incident had been disclosed, they would have either refused to insure, or charged an additional premium.
IMHO, it is stupid to take the risk - one accident will rarely make any difference so it doesn't cost anything to be honest. At the end of the day, insurance contracts are contracts of "utmost good faith" and you should disclose anything you think will interest the insurer, *whether or not* they specifically ask (my main point of divergence with Mark (Brazil)).
|
|
|
Mark,
Either you didn`t read what I wrote very carefully, or I didn`t write it very well.
I said this..............
>However, don`t forget the catch all which usually exists which says something along the lines of having to disclose all relevant matters which may
> affect the rating of the risk.
>I'm afraid I don't really agree with mark (Brazil). The way insurance
>proposals in the UK are worded, you have to disclose how many accidents
>you have had, and THEN state whether your no-claims bonus was affected.
I also said that you had to answer every question specifically, and give the details it requested. I even mentioned that it was true if the accidents were nto the insured's fault.
I doubt that you are familiar with all motor proposals, but you may well be familiar with several. Being so, you will have noticed that the way the question is asked varies depending on the basis in which that insurer treats claims history.
>The only way in which Mark (Brazil) is correct is that, when cases have gone
>to the Insurance Ombudsman, he has only upheld insurers' refusal to pay up
>where they can demonstrate that if the incident had been disclosed, they
>would have either refused to insure, or charged an additional premium.
Because, as I also said, you have to disclose any material facts. If they cannot show that it would have affected the Ts & Cs or the premium, or their willingness to accept the risk, then it is not a material fact.
>and you should disclose anything you think will interest the insurer, *whether
>or not* they specifically ask (my main point of divergence with Mark (Brazil)).
As, I believe, I stated rather specifically. So, unless you think I said differently, and I actually said "having to disclose all relevant matters which may affect the rating of the risk", then I am just a little confused.
So whilst what you say is reasonable and correct, it does rather seem to be the same as I said, so I am not sure exactly what you disagree on.
If I wrote it carelessly, then it apologise, but I don`t think so. Rather than having a long drawn out discussion, I suggest you read what I wrote again; if there really is an area of doubt or disagreement, then let me know and I will correct it.
Mark (Brazil)
|
|
|
|
I was forced to make a no fault claim, all moies recoverd, NCB not effected and excess returned from 3rd parties insurance co, however every year since insurance companys screw me over, just goes to show that NCB protection is a waste of money!! my no claims is intact but they don't care, a claim is a claim
|
|
|
