# Premium increase after Claim



## tigershark (21 Feb 2017)

My Father who is 80 was involved in an accident in 2015. His Policy fell due for renewal in July 2016. His renewal quote was €1200 which he paid. They then wrote to him a few weeks later telling him that they were notified of a claim on his policy due to the accident in 2015 and that he had to pay an extra €2300 because of this claim.He didnt pay and cancelled his policy.

I didnt think they could do this. I thought once a policy is bought that the premium cannot be increased due to a subsequent claim, Am I Correct? They state on a letter to him its "because the claim occurred before the renewal date." This is incorrect, the incident leading to the claim occurred before the renewal date, the claim itself was made  after the renewal date.


----------



## peteb (22 Feb 2017)

It wasnt a subsequent claim.  It happened prior to the renewal date.  Did you not inform them of the accident prior to 1st July?


----------



## tigershark (22 Feb 2017)

read the last sentence of my first post


----------



## peteb (22 Feb 2017)

I did.  An accident that could give rise to a claim occurred before the renewal date.  in december 2014 you said.  Your father was obliged to inform his insurance company of the accident at the time it occured.


----------



## Leo (22 Feb 2017)

In effect, your father's failure to disclose this event as soon as possible meant his insurance was void. If he was involved in an incident after the first one, he could have been in serious trouble.


----------



## tigershark (23 Feb 2017)

peteb said:


> I did.  An accident that could give rise to a claim occurred before the renewal date.  in december 2014 you said.  Your father was obliged to inform his insurance company of the accident at the time it occured.


are you saying that if someone is in an accident they lose their NCB at the next renewal even if there have been no claims made at that point?


----------



## peteb (23 Feb 2017)

I'm saying that your father was obliged to notify his insurers prior to renewal of the incident.  

I'm not commenting on the other part as you haven't given any details as to the claim.  But one would assume it was personal injury.  And the likelihood is that it should have been apparent from the accident that a claim would proceed.


----------



## DirectDevil (23 Feb 2017)

It is not clear to me if the policyholder did notify the accident before renewal. OP could you please clarify this.

If he did *not* notify then Leo's observations come in to play. Failure to notify is an offence under the RTA and it is a breach of contract.
The general duty to disclose material facts revives at renewal and does not just apply to a first application for insurance.

If he *did* notify the accident there is a good argument against the actions of the insurer in contract law.


----------



## tigershark (23 Feb 2017)

The insurer wrote to him stating the premium increase was due to a claim being made on his policy before renewal which is incorrect, the claim was made after he renewed. They mention nothing about the increase being due to non notification of the claim, he cannot actually remember if he did or not.


----------



## major (23 Feb 2017)

The claim on his insurance  would start  on the day of the accident


----------



## tigershark (23 Feb 2017)

major said:


> The claim on his insurance  would start  on the day of the accident


How can it? There was no claim until months afterwards


----------



## tigershark (23 Feb 2017)

peteb said:


> I'm saying that your father was obliged to notify his insurers prior to renewal of the incident.
> 
> I'm not commenting on the other part as you haven't given any details as to the claim.  But one would assume it was personal injury.  And the likelihood is that it should have been apparent from the accident that a claim would proceed.


So are You saying that if someone is in an accident and notifies their insurance company and it appears that they are at fault they will lose their NCB at the next renewal even if no claim has been made at that point? What happens then if a Claim is never made?


----------



## peno (23 Feb 2017)

The accident happened 6 months before renewal and yet no claim was made until after a few weeks after the  renewal date in July?

All very suspect.

I think the insurance company has a very valid case that the claim should have been made before the renewal date and that the policyholder was aware a claim would be made and did not disclose it.


----------



## twofor1 (23 Feb 2017)

My understanding is a claim can be made up to 2 years after the accident, your Dad’s insurers would have suspended his ncd from renewal, resulting in a much higher premium if they knew about the accident,

 I can only guess your Dad did not notify his insurers of the accident, otherwise his premium would have increased substantially at renewal.

If no claim is made after 2 years, I don’t know what happens regarding the increased premiums one might have paid, would also be interested to hear what happens in this case.


----------



## peno (23 Feb 2017)

tigershark said:


> So are You saying that if someone is in an accident and notifies their insurance company and it appears that they are at fault they will lose their NCB at the next renewal even if no claim has been made at that point? What happens then if a Claim is never made?


 
But in your case a claim was made within weeks of the renewal. It's not a similar situation.

Without further details nobody is going to agree with you. Explain the details of the accident and why no claim was made for so long and people may understand.


----------



## emeralds (23 Feb 2017)

So when he was renewing what did he say when he was asked if he had any accidents, claims or convictions? Or did he just let the renewal roll over so no conversation took place?
Is he currently insured with a different company?


----------



## major (23 Feb 2017)

tigershark said:


> How can it? There was no claim until months afterwards


If a claim was lodged against your fathers insurance, its as a result of the accident that occurred before your fathers insurance renewal date,it would state on the claim form the date and nature of accident  against your fathers insurance ,its the accident on that day/night that would activate a claim


----------



## peteb (24 Feb 2017)

In any case, there isnt anything in the policy wording that says they can't or wont.


----------



## DirectDevil (24 Feb 2017)

tigershark said:


> How can it? There was no claim until months afterwards



There may be a conceptual confusion here between an accident occurring and a claim being made.

CONTRACT.


The contractual obligation lies with the policyholder to notify any incident or accident or event that may give rise to a claim under the policy. The actual contract wording will define the exact obligation.
There is no discretion for the policyholder to decide whether or not to notify such an event or to decide whether or not the event might or might not give rise to a claim.
Equally, there is no right to wait and see if a claim arises out of some event.

STATUTE.

The RTA 1961 obligation to give notice to an insurer speaks of an "event". - S.71. 


INSURANCE.


*IF*  the event was *not* notified to insurers before renewal date and renewal took place that is effective non-disclosure.
Non-disclosure _may_ render a policy voidable.
If renewal took place automatically - as many renewals do - that does not negate the obligation to notify the accident prior to the renewal date. 
*IF* the event *was* notified properly to insurers - by the policyholder - as required and they issued a renewal offer of €1,200 which OP's father accepted and paid I do not see any right accruing to the insurers to retrospectively increase the premium. I base this view on the simple contractual concept of offer and acceptance.
In summary, the presence or absence of a claim or the likelihood of a claim arising has no relevance to the obligation to report an accident to insurers. They are separate issues that should not be conflated.


----------



## tigershark (26 Feb 2017)

In a letter to my Father detailing their reasons for retrospectively cancelling his NCB, the Insurers say nothing about it being due to him not notifying the Event. A number of posters seem to be of the opinion that because someone is involved in an accident which may give rise to a Claim, The Insurance Company is entitled to cancel their NCB before a Claim is actually made. This is unjust in my view as the possibility exists that a Claim may never be made. I would also wonder about the legality of it. But then of course Insurance Companies seem to be a law onto themselves.


----------



## DirectDevil (27 Feb 2017)

tigershark said:


> In a letter to my Father detailing their reasons for retrospectively cancelling his NCB, the Insurers say nothing about it being due to him not notifying the Event. A number of posters seem to be of the opinion that because someone is involved in an accident which may give rise to a Claim, The Insurance Company is entitled to cancel their NCB before a Claim is actually made. This is unjust in my view as the possibility exists that a Claim may never be made. I would also wonder about the legality of it. But then of course Insurance Companies seem to be a law onto themselves.



If you notify a claim the facts of which suggest reasonably that there is a prospect of a claim that will incur a financial liability it is perfectly reasonable to stop or step back the NCB.

Consider the converse scenario where a claim is notified but a third party claim is not yet lodged and the NCB is allowed. If a claim then arises that has probably worked to the disadvantage of the insurer as they will have effectively failed to stop or step back the NCB when they could and should have.

"No claim" would not always seem to mean no claim intimated against the policyholder.


----------



## tigershark (27 Feb 2017)

DirectDevil said:


> If you notify a claim the facts of which suggest reasonably that there is a prospect of a claim that will incur a financial liability it is perfectly reasonable to stop or step back the NCB.
> 
> Consider the converse scenario where a claim is notified but a third party claim is not yet lodged and the NCB is allowed. If a claim then arises that has probably worked to the disadvantage of the insurer as they will have effectively failed to stop or step back the NCB when they could and should have.
> 
> "No claim" would not always seem to mean no claim intimated against the policyholder.



And what would happen if the NCB is stopped and there never is a claim? Would the insurance company refund the extra paid by the policy holder? Probably just make up some excuse not to I would imagine


----------



## Leo (27 Feb 2017)

tigershark said:


> In a letter to my Father detailing their reasons for retrospectively cancelling his NCB...



What were those reasons and do you consider them reasonable?


----------



## Jimbobp (27 Feb 2017)

tigershark said:


> And what would happen if the NCB is stopped and there never is a claim? Would the insurance company refund the extra paid by the policy holder? Probably just make up some excuse not to I would imagine



In our experience, if a claim isn't paid out and a bonus has been suspended, generally the insurer reinstates the no claim bonus and pays back any additional premium that was taken (mind you, they often need to be 'reminded')


----------

