Involved in Motor accident_Making a claim

ailbhe said:

His dad will have that claim hanging over him for a long time.

Click to expand...

Thing is though it wouldn't appear as such. As I said already the motor insurance never rose significantly the following year while muggins here was being fleeced for careful ************************* driving. Whether or not the set up was fraudulent on my friends part I strongly believe that particular insurance policy should have subsequently being loaded.

ailbhe said:

Breaking the law to save money is still breaking the law and even if insurance co.s "have the resources", where do they get these resources? From premiums!!! And who pays the premiums? Everyone.

When your insurance premium goes up next year (not because of the claim but because of an increase in claims generally which is resulting in all companies increasing their rates), you might think about all that.

Click to expand...

There is something I have a issue with here. Yes premiums are going up across the board these times, thats a well known fact at this stage. They are going up for the reason you outline but this is not the only reason. Are you aware that motor insurance premiums are also going up because insurance insurance companies are attempting to recoup losses from bad investments through motor insurance premiums. Would you consider this behaviour acceptable and should it be allowed? I certainly wouldn't think so. Should those who don't have such investments be made to suffer? Its one of the reasons among others that I for one would like to see stricter regulation in the insurance industry.

annet said:

Putting in a claim for what injury exactly?

Click to expand...

Discomfort which I have in my neck.

annet said:

Have your been to the doctor, have they diagnosed you with anything (other than the obvious) and whats the prognosis?

Click to expand...

Will be doing so tomorrow. Will keep you posted annet

annet said:

Acting with Integrity - this cuts both ways?

Click to expand...

Agreed. If somebody is straight with me then I'll be straight with them but if not well....

annet said:

your accident happened last Friday didnt it... your claim wouldnt amount to much bud!

Click to expand...

Thats where you you might find that you are incorrect. Certain injuries such as injures to soft tissue injuries may not surface immediately and hence you are given up to 2 years to make a claim.

Good thing you are going to get yourself seen to then - did you get the referral to a specialist? Just to let you know the process of Injury claims - you be paying for all medical consultations, medico-legal reports, professional accountancy, actuarial fees for loss of earnings, engineering fees, vocational assessors. That doesnt even take into account the money you will spend in going to doctors and undergoing diagnostics like MRI and CT (they are not cheap). You will have to take time out to visit specialists, vocational assessors etc. from the opposing side. Depending on the nature of your injury your claim can be in the system for years. But if its what you want go ahead - see how you get along....

stevie said:

Thing is though it wouldn't appear as such. As I said already the motor insurance never rose significantly the following year while muggins here was being fleeced for careful ************************* driving. Whether or not the set up was fraudulent on my friends part I strongly believe that particular insurance policy should have subsequently being loaded..

Click to expand...

The claim occurred within the first year of the policy. There was no discount for no claims at the point where the incident ocurred therefore the policy wouldn't have risen much at renewal. It would have then gone down as the no claims discount was built up in subsequent years. A loading is usually only applied after a conviction or a series of claims. You hardly think it would be fair of a company to apply a "one strike and you're out" approach and load everyone who has ever had a claim? Was the driver who caused the accident convicted of dangerous driving or of careless driving?

stevie said:

There is something I have a issue with here. Yes premiums are going up across the board these times, thats a well known fact at this stage. They are going up for the reason you outline but this is not the only reason. Are you aware that motor insurance premiums are also going up because insurance insurance companies are attempting to recoup losses from bad investments through motor insurance premiums. Would you consider this behaviour acceptable and should it be allowed? I certainly wouldn't think so. Should those who don't have such investments be made to suffer? Its one of the reasons among others that I for one would like to see stricter regulation in the insurance industry.

Click to expand...

And were you or anyone else complaining when these "bad investments" were yielding profit and meaning insurance premiums were dropping dramatically in the last 10 years? Although premiums are rising they are absolutley down compared to a decade or so ago. Due to the investment of premiums in various different areas, meaning an increase in profit and therefore a decrease in premiums.
If insurance companies hadn't invested premiums and were relying on premiums from customers alone we would be back in an age where insurance was sky high and people couldn't afford to pay insurance.
No investment is risk free. Ask any investor.

Strict regulation in the insurance industry is already there. And it has also contributed to increased insurance costs. Not that I am against regulation as it is essential. There were far too many cowboys in insurance in the past. I don't think you realise how strict regulation is and the changes to the operating of insurance companies in the last few years. Things have changed dramatically and compliance is a huge part of that.

That regulation also applies to Joe Soap too. PIAB will investigate all claims in depth. It is no longer as easy to make a fraudulent claim. Insurance fraud is being taken very seriously. You can thank the regulations for that too.

just so everyone is clear - PIAB investigate nothing, let alone investigating claims "in depth".

PIAB in my view would in fact make it easier to make a fraudulent claim (not that it wouldn't still be a crime however). It's only when a personal injuries summons in issued (after the PIAB process) that people have to swear affidavits of verification.

annet said:

Good thing you are going to get yourself seen to then - did you get the referral to a specialist? Just to let you know the process of Injury claims - you be paying for all medical consultations, medico-legal reports, professional accountancy, actuarial fees for loss of earnings, engineering fees, vocational assessors. That doesnt even take into account the money you will spend in going to doctors and undergoing diagnostics like MRI and CT (they are not cheap). You will have to take time out to visit specialists, vocational assessors etc. from the opposing side. Depending on the nature of your injury your claim can be in the system for years. But if its what you want go ahead - see how you get along....

Click to expand...

annet I know for a fact that much of what you have outlined above is absolutely unfounded and incorrect.

ailbhe said:

The claim occurred within the first year of the policy. There was no discount for no claims at the point where the incident ocurred therefore the policy wouldn't have risen much at renewal. It would have then gone down as the no claims discount was built up in subsequent years. A loading is usually only applied after a conviction or a series of claims. You hardly think it would be fair of a company to apply a "one strike and you're out" approach and load everyone who has ever had a claim? Was the driver who caused the accident convicted of dangerous driving or of careless driving?

Click to expand...

The claim occurred in his second year of driving as I previously outlined. I strongly disagree with you there on your thinking. Firstly the case did go to court and he was done for dangerous driving. That insurance policy should have being loaded after that accident as his blatant negligence caused it. Yes indeed accidents can and do happen. No doubt that the vast majority of people will have a fender bender which is their fault after a prolonged period of driving. However, where you cause a serious accident due to carelessness, being wreckless such as that I which I outlined the insurance policy should be loaded if not even the "one strike and your out". Just to ask you again...You are of the opinion that it was right that I paid close to 2 grand in my second and third year of driving and the other chap continued to pay little over a grand under his fathers name after causing a serious accident due to negligence? Is that motor insurance working as it should?

ailbhe said:

And were you or anyone else complaining when these "bad investments" were yielding profit and meaning insurance premiums were dropping dramatically in the last 10 years? Although premiums are rising they are absolutley down compared to a decade or so ago. Due to the investment of premiums in various different areas, meaning an increase in profit and therefore a decrease in premiums.
If insurance companies hadn't invested premiums and were relying on premiums from customers alone we would be back in an age where insurance was sky high and people couldn't afford to pay insurance.
No investment is risk free. Ask any investor.

Oh I don't see it as insurance companies ever did me any favours. So you are fairly sure that the increase in profits led to decreased premiums. I don't share your confidence. Bear in mind also that there is inter alia gross mismanagement of resources in the insurance industry. What really annoys me are the inconsistiencies in how motor insurance premiums are calculated. They do make an absolute fortune out of young accident free male drivers and do not play ball when it comes renewal time.

ailbhe said:

I don't think you realise how strict regulation is and the changes to the operating of insurance companies in the last few years.

Click to expand...

If regulations are as strict as you suggest they certainly either incorrectly derived, inappropraite or just downright ignored with no consequences (as in the role of the financial regulator in the banking crisis)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

stevie said:

annet I know for a fact that much of what you have outlined above is absolutely unfounded and incorrect.

Click to expand...

Stevie... small and big cases!

Key observations

1. In the normal course of events, the immediate priority should be to establish the nature and extent of the injury. Deciding on whether to sue should be secondary at this stage.
2. The poster seems 100% intent on putting in a claim.
3. Attempting to justify a claim, by comparing your accident with that of your friend where he seriously injured a person, highlighting what is your opinion are the shortcomings in the insurance sector and how young drivers are screwed, some of which are totally valid points, and the level integrity employed by insurance companies. This is all immaterial to your case of personal injuries.
4. The replacement value of the car is the book value.
5. The poster obviously has knowledge and makes valid points about the shortcomings in the insurance sector.... again they are immaterial to your particular claim. There is vast potential for knowledge to be applied in more constructive and positive ways.
7. A close acquaintance was involved in a personal injuries case. The personal injuries caused personal injuries that also affected his personal, home and working life. In taking his case, he had to pay for medical legal reports, accounting and actuarial fees and cos his job was no longer viable he was assessed by a vocational assessor and paid these fees up front. These were reimbursed on settlement of the case.
8. Consider the likelihood of being involved in a future road traffic incident in your lifetime and being unfortunate enough to be seriously injured? If this accident causes you serious injuries the actual value of this claim can be reduced. The reason is because the first claim for your neck injury is the actual pre-existing injury and if the second accident causes serious injury to your neck you can be sure that the insurance company will rightly dispute whether the second accident makes them 100% liable for your existing injuries.... something to think about. If you are making a false claim it costs all of us who pay car insurance but it can also cost you in the future.