HollowKnight
Registered User
- Messages
- 286
This was my experience also, even though I was not at fault, once you disclose the fact there's a previous claim (not your fault) some online quote systems will not quote you and some will increase the quote.Its not even just about the no claims bonus (My wife's was left untouched as the insurance company didn't have to pay anything). As mentioned, you have to declare it to other insurance companies and can impact your quote even though there was no fault and no cost to your insurance company so it limits your ability to leave move insurance companies in search of cheaper quotes....
Its not even just about the no claims bonus (My wife's was left untouched as the insurance company didn't have to pay anything). As mentioned, you have to declare it to other insurance companies and can impact your quote even though there was no fault and no cost to your insurance company so it limits your ability to leave move insurance companies in search of cheaper quotes....
its a nonsense, if they have suffered no loss how can you be a greater risk?
I'm not going to keep labouring the point. but it does matter who's claim the policy is against. A potential underwriters concern is only about claims made against the policy holders policy. The other party hasnt claimed against Mathepac.It doesn't matter whose policy the claim is made against. Until such time as all parties confirm the matter is closed in full, it's regarded as an open case with potential liability for both parties.
In this particular case, Allianz might come back and offer to cover 80% of the claim, suggesting the OP could then need to claim the remainder via his own insurer.
You were involved in an event that gave rise to a claim. It's likely that statistically, that means you are more likely to be involved in future such events. I don't have access to the data to assess, but that's the kind of logic that rules the quote engines.
I'm sorry Leo, with all due respect you are wrong on that front.
A potential underwriters concern is only about claims made against the policy holders policy. The other party hasnt claimed against Mathepac.
And it isn't regarded as "an open case".
so the fact that someone drove into the back of my wifes car through no fault of her own makes it more likely that someone else will do the same. thats not logic.
Insurance companies don't record that level of detail, just perform broad statistical analysis. That's why someone living on a street where other residents have had a few claims will pay more for their insurance than those living on a street with fewer claims.
But that's the issue. They shouldn't be recording a claim on my insurance. If someone drives into the back of my parked car and cause damage and the other person's insurance company pays for the damage, it should not be recorded as my claim. If they are going to do that, they need to be much clearer because I wouldn't make the initial claim. I would deal with the other insurance company myself. The only reason why my wife went through her own insurance company was that they told her, they would deal with the other insurance company and would be less hassle for her. They made it sound like it was just some administration. Not once did they mention that it would be recorded as a claim by her going forward. It didn't cost the insurance company one cent. It was all sorted within 2 weeks. And nearly all insurance companies will ask if you had a claim and not just about no claims bonus now. I certainly don't remember one that didn't.
They shouldn't be recording a claim on my insurance. If someone drives into the back of my parked car and cause damage and the other person's insurance company pays for the damage, it should not be recorded as my claim.
they aren't. Leo is wrong. Completely. And I'm not speaking anecdotally, I'm speaking factually. As i sit here in my desk. In an insurance brokers.
So you claim against the other party's insurance. For whatever reason, months later, they decline to pay out, or only accept partial liability. At that point, you are still entitled to claim against your own comprehensive policy, that is the potential claim they record.
Leo is wrong. Completely. And I'm not speaking anecdotally, I'm speaking factually.
Yes. 100%!So someone hits my car, I notify my insurance company as I am contractually obliged to do, and off I go to chase their insurer. You're saying that when my renewal comes up in the meantime, my insurer won't have that open case recorded on my file? They'll provide a confirmation of no claims that I can use to shop around with? All the while I will still be entitled to back and claim for the repairs under my own policy if for whatever reason I'm not satisfied with how the other party's insurers deal with it.
Yes. 100%!
And also why would Allianz come back and offer to cover 80% of the claim? If they accept liability for damage to a parked car they are on for 100% of the damage.
If the claim was investigated, and there were mitigating circumstances, ie ,the driver-less car was badly positioned on the road contributing to the accident.
Also, and although Im no broker, I have always been of the impression that when you report an accident to your insurance company, even stating "as far as you are concerned" you are not at fault, a claim number in generated, ie, open claim. That claim number will never go away...
So an insurer will issue a written statement that there are no outstanding claims when they know there is an active claim that they still have potential liability for? That's not how it worked with two on the two occasions I had such issues with different insurers, for the more recent one I still have the no claims discount cert that contained a reference to the claim with a status of open.
So if I have a claim, I should tell my insurers I'm going to claim off the other party, wait until they send me a confirmation of no claims then change insurer to one who just seeks the confirmation, then go back and claim from the original insurer?
You're attempting to mix apples with oranges here to try suit a thought you have in your head, or a misunderstood understading!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?