Insurance claim took 2 years to process

[rustbucket]

My wife reversed into Neighbours car a few years ago. Minor damage to door. Totally her fault. Acknowledged. Neighbour claimed of my wife’s insurance policy. Received notification of claim and amount. All done and dusted.

Received 2 subsequent renewals with no adjustment to no claims bonus and no premium increase. Thought nothing of it as assumed it was covered under step back protection.

Received latest renewal recently and her premium has more than doubled and ncd reduced to 2 years.

When queries they said it was because of the claim on her policy which took 2 years to settle as it was third party and had to go to claims court. The amount was 1300 euro.

I’m not disputing the claim. It just seems odd that this sort of thing takes 2 years to process and finalise and for it not to be reflected on her policy for 2 years.

Is this normal? I would understand if the claim was disputed or if there was an injury but why wouldn’t they have adjusted her ncd 2 years ago when it occurred?

 

[elcato]

On your renewal you get asked do you have any cases pending. Your wife didn't declare this. Hence it kicks off when they hear about it.

 

[mathepac]

Mrs Rustbucket never disputed the claim against her insurance, nor from my reading of the OP were her underwriters kept in the dark about it. Did some anonymous paper pusher decide she'd misled the insurers because she didn't tick some box or other?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

which took 2 years to settle as it was third party and had to go to claims court.

What does claims court mean?

Your wife may not have disputed it, but maybe the neighbour disputed the amount offered?

It's probably best to settle these bills yourself. The car repair places charge less if there is no insurance company involved.

Brendan

 

[rustbucket]

To be honest I don’t know what claims court means. That’s just the terminology used by the customer service representative. He said RSA told him that all third party claims went through this process.

I’m not sure if the neighbour disputed the amount. We received a notification of a claim payment of 1300. We didn’t dispute it. It was what it was. Between the neighbour and their/our insurance.

Ms Rustbucket didn’t deceive or hide it from anyone. We actually notified our insurance of the incident.

As for claims pending by the time our renewal came around we assumed it was not pending. We assumed it had already been dealt with. The neighbours car was sorted about 3 weeks after the incident and we had been notified of the claim.

As in original post thought it was covered under step back protection. Turns out over two years later it wasn’t.

 

[rustbucket]

On your renewal you get asked do you have any cases pending. Your wife didn't declare this. Hence it kicks off when they hear about it.

Understood but it wasn’t pending. It had already been reported and we were notified of the claim amount by our own insurance company. They just took two years to process it (or so it appears)

 

[Leo]

I wonder was this a disagreement between the two insurance companies involved? Just because one driver admits liability does not mean that's how the insurers will settle it, the T&Cs you sign allow them full authority there.

I've heard there are some general cross-industry agreements on how blame is attributed on certain kinds of claims to save them on investigation costs, but perhaps they just took their time sorting this one between themselves?

I've posted on here before about witnessing a minor accident where a car was reversing out of a space, but stopped mid-manoeuvre as they spotted another car approaching. The driver of the other car had a map stretched across the steering wheel, and not looking where they were going, hit the stationary car. The map reading driver admitted full liability and I gave my details as a witness. The driver who had been reversing contacted me later to thank me for offering to be a witness, but that the matter was now closed with the two insurers agreeing that the reversing driver takes full responsibility as was their standard practice.

 

[rustbucket]

I wonder was this a disagreement between the two insurance companies involved? Just because one driver admits liability does not mean that's how the insurers will settle it, the T&Cs you sign allow them full authority there.

I've heard there are some general cross-industry agreements on how blame is attributed on certain kinds of claims to save them on investigation costs, but perhaps they just took their time sorting this one between themselves?

I've posted on here before about witnessing a minor accident where a car was reversing out of a space, but stopped mid-manoeuvre as they spotted another car approaching. The driver of the other car had a map stretched across the steering wheel, and not looking where they were going, hit the stationary car. The map reading driver admitted full liability and I gave my details as a witness. The driver who had been reversing contacted me later to thank me for offering to be a witness, but that the matter was now closed with the two insurers agreeing that the reversing driver takes full responsibility as was their standard practice.

That’s terrible. I wonder if they lost their ncd as a result.

 

[Cervelo]

My wife reversed into Neighbours car a few years ago.

When queries they said it was because of the claim on her policy which took 2 years to settle as it was third party and had to go to claims court. The amount was 1300 euro.

Are the neighbours still living close by, if so presuming you're still on talking terms, ask them if they went to court to settle??

My feeling is there was a clerical error that was only noticed this renewal and the phone rep made up an excuse for the error

the matter was now closed with the two insurers agreeing that the reversing driver takes full responsibility as was their standard practice.

So the insurance company completely ignored an admission of liability and a witness and settled against the injured party
Think I would had fought that one, there's something not right and fair with that outcome

 

[Leo]

That’s terrible. I wonder if they lost their ncd as a result.

It was a settlement against their policy, so they would have.

 

[Leo]

So the insurance company completely ignored an admission of liability and a witness and settled against the injured party
Think I would had fought that one, there's something not right and fair with that outcome

Yes, they said that was a standard approach for all claims of that nature as investigating and negotiating each one would cost a lot more overall.

The problem is you don't have that choice, read the terms of any motor insurance policy and they are fully entitled to settle as they choose. It might be possible to fulling indemnify the insurance company yourself and take your chances in court, but that's not going to be free or cost or considerable risk.

 

[Cervelo]

Yes, they said that was a standard approach for all claims of that nature as investigating and negotiating each one would cost a lot more overall.

The problem is you don't have that choice, read the terms of any motor insurance policy and they are fully entitled to settle as they choose. It might be possible to fulling indemnify the insurance company yourself and take your chances in court, but that's not going to be free or cost or considerable risk.

Rather then going to court can you not refer the matter to the FSPO and let him fight it for you without cost or risk??

 

[rustbucket]

The driver of the other car had a map stretched across the steering wheel, and not looking where they were going, hit the stationary car.

Regardless of the way it was settled by insurance he should have been charged with dangerous driving. Perhaps if the gardai were called he may have been. I wonder if that would have impacted the decision on liability.

Anyway I suspect @Cervelo is probably right. It appears likely that it’s a clerical error that’s only getting rectified now.

 

[Leo]

Rather then going to court can you not refer the matter to the FSPO and let him fight it for you without cost or risk??

I don't know to be honest, in purchasing insurance you are granting them the authority to settle how they wish and that is standard practice across the industry. If open to challenge I wonder has anyone done so before now?

 

[Leo]

Regardless of the way it was settled by insurance he should have been charged with dangerous driving. Perhaps if the gardai were called he may have been. I wonder if that would have impacted the decision on liability.

Perhaps, but in my experience Gardai aren't interested, offer them video of reckless driving and they'll happily ignore it. Even if they were to show interest, any charge or subsequent court appearance would have happened long after this one was settled.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

The problem is you don't have that choice, read the terms of any motor insurance policy and they are fully entitled to settle as they choose. I

Hi Leo

In your friend's case, she should certainly dispute this.

Insurance companies have (or used to have) "knock for knock" agreements where each insurer settles the damage to their own insured's vehicle. That is sensible and avoids wasting money on legal fees.

The "reversing person to blame" is a very good general guide. But she was not reversing, she was stationary.

The contract is meant to stop idiots wasting the insurance company's time defending the indefensible.

It is not meant for cases like this.

She should seek to have it reversed and, if they refuse, she should go to the FSPO. The FSPO is not constrained by contracts and strict legal form.

Brendan

 

[daveinchcape]

SNIP SNIP
It's probably best to settle these bills yourself. The car repair places charge less if there is no insurance company involved.

Brendan

At a practical level I agree.

However, be careful about three specific issues ;

1. You must report the accident to your motor insurer anyhow.
This is a contractual requirement under the policy.
If the accident occurred in a public place there is also an RTA 1961 obligation to report it to your insurers.

2. You will also be probably required to declare any accidents during the current insurance year when you receive your renewal notice.
If you have not reported it and fail to do so at renewal that walks you in to a lot of trouble e.g. non-disclosure/misrepresentation.

3. Policy conditions usually prohibit direct admissions, negotiations or settlements with the other party.
However, if you get written consent from the insurers to negotiate directly that is alright.

 

[daveinchcape]

Generally, reversing is regarded as a strict liability scenario.
This is because reversing in to the face of oncoming traffic is a highly onerous manoeuvre to which a heavy duty of care applies.

However, where the motorist at #7 above had stopped in plenty of time there is utterly no way in which the map reading nitwit could be anything less than 100 % liable. Analogously, this is like to a situation where a car is stopped and the car behind crashes in to them because they [car behind] failed to keep a proper lookout. How the blue blazes could the insurers of the "reversing" car deem their client liable ?

 

[Leo]

How the blue blazes could the insurers of the "reversing" car deem their client liable ?

Who knows, and who knows what the parties involved told their insurers. I don't know the person, that's just what they told me. Neither insurer contacted me to hear my version of events.

 

[ClubMan]

1. You must report the accident to your motor insurer anyhow.
This is a contractual requirement under the policy.

I was curious about that so checked my (AIG) policy wording.

https://www.aig.ie/content/dam/aig/emea/ireland/documents/policy-documents/2023/aig-car-policy-04-2023.pdf

9. Your Duty in the Event of a Claim

• In the event of a claim you must:a) notify us as soon asreasonably possible with fulldetails of any incident, whichmay result in a claim and;
• ...

I guess that, in practice, that probably means any/all incidents/accidents since even if you and the other party agree at the time to settle it "privately" either party may change their mind and make a claim?

If the accident occurred in a public place there is also an RTA 1961 obligation to report it to your insurers.

I guess that this is the section to which you are referring?

Road Traffic Act, 1961

The electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB) comprises the Acts of the Oireachtas (Parliament), Statutory Instruments, Legislation Directory, Constitution and a limited number of pre-1922 Acts.

www.irishstatutebook.ie