Motor 3rd-party claim outstanding against another insurance company at renewal
- Thread starter mathepac
- Start date
How is that material? You said above you were 100% that situation wouldn't arise...
Sorry PeteB but my experience with Aviva is the same as Leo's around open claims....They told me I would have to close the claim by renewal date or my NCB would be impacted. They said would adjust the premium after the renewal and give a refund if there was no claim to reflect the correct NCB but that doesn't help if I want to move insurers.
You've said if you had an accident with one insurer and then didnt claim at all and moved to another insurer taking your clean NCB with you, and then went back and claimed......well you still need to declare to your existing insurer at that point that you have now gone and made a claim elsewhere.
As i said you are mixing apples and oranges......
1. You are involved in an accident with another vehicle that has a passenger or driver in it. There is damage to both cars. You report it to your insurance company and there is a decent amount of damage to both cars. Your insurer is involved. They investigate and they determine the other party to be at fault. They rear-ended you, its pretty clear. Your insurer settles your claim under your comprehensive cover. In this instance they reflect this in your no claims bonus as your policy paid for the damage to your car. The matter is closed. There is no consideration for any future claim from the other party for personal injury as they've made a decision on liability and you werent liable.
2. Same scenario as above. Except you pursue your claim directly against the other party. You've notified your insurance company to comply with that requirement under the wording. Your claim is not against your own policy. Your bonus should show nothing. Or at worst the date of the incident with 0 beside in and the matter closed.
Different to what we are talking about with Mathepac. In this instance you went with option 1 above. You made a claim under your comprehensive policy and your insurer uses the subrogation rights under your policy to pursue the other party. So yes, until they can manage to recoup the money from the other party you have an outstanding claim on your policy. But Leo is talking about a claim with no damage or injury being recorded as outstanding. And yes it doesnt help if you want to move insurers. And its why a lot of brokers will recommend you go to a specialist recovery solcitor and never go near your own insurer. Because you are at their (the insurers) behest as to how quick they recover their outlay. Suits them if you can't move anywhere for another year.
No I didnt make any claim under my comprehensive insurance. I simply notified them I was in a no fault incident but I would be dealing directly with the other drivers insurance company. I did this after my wife's experience. So even though I didnt make an actual claim, the notification claim impacted my no claims bonus when it came to renewal time. I was told I needed to close out the claim once the other insurance company paid up or else it would impact my premium. As I said they would refund the difference but if I went to a new insurer I wouldn't have a full no claims bonus because of the notification claim.
So the wording of the policy about notifying them of any incident fault or no fault has the same implication, although no fault may have a temporary one, never the less, by merit of the fact you abide by the wording, you are captured for a longer time than you may have wanted.
I got my new insurance documents from chill.ie (RSA) in today's post. The news was so good they sent them twice!!!
The dates are 4/11 & 5/11 and in the pack dated 5/11 is a request on green paper to supply proof of my PPSN. I've never had to supply this to an insurer before and I assume it's got to do with the prevention of fronting and such-like but surely the copies of the front and back of my licence do this.
My claims history contains details of a broken windscreen from 6 years ago and my open claim against ALLIANZ initiated last month. Everything else seems in order.
The dates are 4/11 & 5/11 and in the pack dated 5/11 is a request on green paper to supply proof of my PPSN. I've never had to supply this to an insurer before and I assume it's got to do with the prevention of fronting and such-like but surely the copies of the front and back of my licence do this.
My claims history contains details of a broken windscreen from 6 years ago and my open claim against ALLIANZ initiated last month. Everything else seems in order.
So that is almost the scenario we've been talking about since the original post, but in this event, the claim hasn't been resolved by the time renewal becomes due, as per the thread title. From my thankfully limited experience, I stated that the potential for a claim against the OP's policy would be recorded on the NCB, and that couldn't be resolved until all parties close out that claim.
We're talking about renewal time, claim still outstanding. Of course if it all gets resolved and the other party pays up, their NCB status should be restored, but that doesn't help them now in trying to shop around before the claim is settled.
I rang ALLIANZ this afternoon. The idiot has been in touch with them and has admitted reversing into my car BUT he is disputing the cost of repairing my car. As a consequence ALLIANZ have decided to get an assessor to look at his car. I have no insight into why or how a presumed lay-man can dispute a claim already assessed and documented by ALLIANZ-appointed assessor and costed by ALLIANZ-appointed repairers.
I told the phone lady I wasn't happy I could not now proceed with my repair as liability was now admitted, and, if he chose to dispute the cost of the repair with his insurers, that had nothing to do with me. She informed me that they needed to appoint an assessor to look at his car and that they had no time-frame for when this "critical piece of work" would be complete. I told her as far as I was concerned these were simply delaying tactics on their part and that unless my claim was settled in full (car fixed to my satisfaction, car-hire if needed paid, miscellaneous costs paid, claim erased from my claims history, etc) by next Friday I'd be appointing solicitors, Dublin or maybe even trebling the costs to them.
I also told her that me and motorists like me were sick to the teeth of paying for the stupidities and inefficiencies of the motor insurance industry and that I couldn't understand the additional days they were imposing on a simple repair where blame was accepted by their insured. I also said that I had submitted photographs of the incident showing both cars. She said she had not seen them and they weren't part of the "file" she had access to. I also pointed out that the idiot hadn't viewed any damage to either car at the scene and remained in his car up to and including the time I left with Garda permission.
Annoying and pointless prevarication.
I told the phone lady I wasn't happy I could not now proceed with my repair as liability was now admitted, and, if he chose to dispute the cost of the repair with his insurers, that had nothing to do with me. She informed me that they needed to appoint an assessor to look at his car and that they had no time-frame for when this "critical piece of work" would be complete. I told her as far as I was concerned these were simply delaying tactics on their part and that unless my claim was settled in full (car fixed to my satisfaction, car-hire if needed paid, miscellaneous costs paid, claim erased from my claims history, etc) by next Friday I'd be appointing solicitors, Dublin or maybe even trebling the costs to them.
I also told her that me and motorists like me were sick to the teeth of paying for the stupidities and inefficiencies of the motor insurance industry and that I couldn't understand the additional days they were imposing on a simple repair where blame was accepted by their insured. I also said that I had submitted photographs of the incident showing both cars. She said she had not seen them and they weren't part of the "file" she had access to. I also pointed out that the idiot hadn't viewed any damage to either car at the scene and remained in his car up to and including the time I left with Garda permission.
Annoying and pointless prevarication.
Last edited:
The Allianz assessor is agreeing with the damage suffered to you car.. its whether it was all as a result of their client. Nothing too wrong with that. I say too wrong as, you would be amazed how often some folk try to milk a minor impact repair into a restoration job.
Most times, its a waste of time and money, but if they dont act upon it, its another issue then.
Btw, claims handlers getting an earful on the phone love to hear that you are going engage a solicitor, they can end the call there and then as its escalated to an other level, and they can get on with their lives
I rang ALLIANZ yesterday in the a.m. to get the same old sob story - their insured had requested that his car be examined in the light of the cost of my claim and they were awaiting word. I pointed out I had heard the same story the previous Friday week, 8 working days before, that the concern for the state of his car was irrelevant in respect to my claim and I'd like to hear back from someone senior in the organisation before noon.
To be fair they rang at 11:50 and again at 12:10 but I was away from the phone and missed the calls - you couldn't make it up! I rang back shortly after lunch and was told they had agreed to proceed with repairs and would instruct their repairer. I asked the call handler did she know how long the repair might take and she said they had no problem with a couple of day's replacement car hire. She said they'd notify the repairer and that I could deal with the garage directly from now on, including the car hire. I thanked her and rang off.
I followed up with the garage and they have parts, paint etc on order. They emailed me a fairly detailed "estimate" of works, saying other stuff might arise on dis-assembly of the broken bits. They asked me to email back my agreement to their "estimate" which I did.
Awaiting start-date from garage now and once repairs are complete all that remains is for me to claim 10% of the total repair cost as depreciation, and additional costs incurred by me as a direct result of the accident (trips to and from Gardai, trips to and from repairer, phone calls, insurance transfer fees, etc.) say €950/€1,000 in total.
This evening my son-in-law who is in the trade, rang to offer me a complete Toyota Avensis, a runner, the same age as mine, H/B like mine, identical colour, good interior, good original Toyota alloy wheels, very few dings or marks, but petrol rather than diesel. The price for the full car? €300 and the bumper repair is a DIY job I could do myself with the help of my next-door neighbour for the cost of a few pints or pocket-money for his kids.
To be fair they rang at 11:50 and again at 12:10 but I was away from the phone and missed the calls - you couldn't make it up! I rang back shortly after lunch and was told they had agreed to proceed with repairs and would instruct their repairer. I asked the call handler did she know how long the repair might take and she said they had no problem with a couple of day's replacement car hire. She said they'd notify the repairer and that I could deal with the garage directly from now on, including the car hire. I thanked her and rang off.
I followed up with the garage and they have parts, paint etc on order. They emailed me a fairly detailed "estimate" of works, saying other stuff might arise on dis-assembly of the broken bits. They asked me to email back my agreement to their "estimate" which I did.
Awaiting start-date from garage now and once repairs are complete all that remains is for me to claim 10% of the total repair cost as depreciation, and additional costs incurred by me as a direct result of the accident (trips to and from Gardai, trips to and from repairer, phone calls, insurance transfer fees, etc.) say €950/€1,000 in total.
This evening my son-in-law who is in the trade, rang to offer me a complete Toyota Avensis, a runner, the same age as mine, H/B like mine, identical colour, good interior, good original Toyota alloy wheels, very few dings or marks, but petrol rather than diesel. The price for the full car? €300 and the bumper repair is a DIY job I could do myself with the help of my next-door neighbour for the cost of a few pints or pocket-money for his kids.
Last edited:
I dropped my car into the repairers this morning after a call from them on Monday and was collected by car-hire reps to sign up for replacement A low-mileage 181 Skoda Superb diesel saloon was handed over to me after the usual formalities were observed. A nice car with lots of electronic gizmos to fiddle with over the next couple of days while my own gets fettled. Phone set up and connected hands-free instantly, reception excellent on the road.
Would such a car entice you to change ?
Did you transfer your own insurance to that car or did you just take the car as is? You could have taken the rentals own insurance (with the bells & whistles) for the few days, paid the excess and claimed that back from the insurance too.
Not to put a downer on the new(ish) car feeling, but the thing is, any "ding" in that rental, and you are liable for it, if your own insurance is on it!
I collected my car this morning the process was seamless - leave one set of keys with desk, collect another.
In fairness, once I got past the obstructionist insurance company and their insured, every other individual and organisation operated to the highest standards of professionalism. The Toyota dealer even installed software and other safety ugrades notified for my car, agreed beforehand with me.
In fairness, once I got past the obstructionist insurance company and their insured, every other individual and organisation operated to the highest standards of professionalism. The Toyota dealer even installed software and other safety ugrades notified for my car, agreed beforehand with me.
DirectDevil
Registered User
- Messages
- 903
Just a few observations on the general principles arising from this experience and NOT, under any circumstances, a criticism.
I am assuming that Blackrock1 omitted to mention to the new insurers the accident referred to where the other party was at fault.
Insurance contracts are a species written uberrima fides - utmost good faith.
That is actually supposed to apply both ways !
Inter alia this includes a duty of full disclosure of all material facts.
The duty of disclosure in insurance proposals and renewals is quite strict legally.
The issue of fault for the accident is irrelevant in this context. What was material was the fact of the accident having occurred.
Particular care needs to be taken to answer proposal questions in the form posed on a proposal form or on the assumptions which are made if you go the online or telephone route.
The duty of disclosure revives every year at renewal.
This probably arises because most motor insurance policies are only annual contracts.
Non-disclosure can render a contract of insurance void or voidable at the option of the insurers.
This can generate a world of grief if an insurer cancels a policy for non-disclosure as that cancellation then, of itself, becomes a material fact to be disclosed to any other insurer that you approach subsequently for a quote.
Q1. What is a material fact ?
A1. It is one which is capable of influencing a prudent insurance underwriter (assume for purposes of discussion that they still exist !) in deciding whether or not to accept a risk proposed for insurance and, if so, upon what terms and conditions.
Q2. Who decides if a fact is material ?
A2. The insurance underwriter.
It is never the right of the proposer to decide this issue - they must always disclose especially if they are doubtful.
In the event of a dispute the ultimate arbiter might be a judge...........
In relation to Blackrock1's experience it was fortunate that the insurers did complete the contract, albeit at a raised level of contractual consideration as, strictly speaking, they could have voided the contract ab initio for non-disclosure.
I expect that the insurers proceeded with the contract as the non-disclosure was clearly inadvertent and unintentional.
That said, the insurers would have been entitled to have taken a legally stricter line.
To paraphrase Michael Caine, not a lot of people know this but it is actually an offence under S.64. RTA 1961....... to make any representation or statement (whether in writing or verbally or by conduct) which is to his knowledge false or misleading in any material respect.
Link http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/64/enacted/en/html#sec64