I personally question knock-for-knock in a rear shunt. In this instance with rear camera footage liability is unequivocally on the 3rd party. The member's insurance company will label this as non-fault and all repairs and personal injury claims will be recovered from the 3rd party's insurer. So why would they adopt a knock-for-knock approach?Insurance companies have this knock for knock idea. A sort of old boys way of stuffing us - the public. If you register the claim and she does then each pays it's own costs with some sort of internal balancing scam.
There is a way to avoid this. Sue the other driver privately for repair and costs using a solicitor. It's a little more complicated but I've done this before to avoid any penalty. You have to be 100% sure it was the other parties fault!
However it depends on how your insurance company word their renewal. You have been involved in an accident whether you claim or not.
I got penalised because some low life 'keyed' the wing whilst out shopping......
The sad thing is that if there is structural damage on the chassis it is likey to be written off if repairs are deemed uneconomical (typically if repair costs are 50% or so of the vehicle's market value).I don't think she did any braking as no screaching tyre noises before impact so was probably doing 20 to 30mph. Fast enough I can assure you when I was stationary!
Although I agree that where it is clear that there is no fault then 'knock for knock' seems ridiculous. Doesn't mean it isn't applied though as an easy way to do business.The sad thing is that if there is structural damage on the chassis it is likey to be written off if repairs are deemed uneconomical (typically if repair costs are 50% or so of the vehicle's market value).
This total loss scenario f*cks up a policyholder. They pay out their market value assessment and it does not replace the loss.
Real b#mmer with insurance quick to write-off rather than repair.
No you won't, this has happened to me twice in the last 4 years , mustang was £400 this year , mercedes £320Yes, you will be screwed. Its about making a claim, not establishing blame. This insurance stuff is a scam. The whole lot of them need government scrutiny and regulation. Last week, I was rear ended when driving the wife's Nissan Micra by some * when I was stationary at a roundabout. The car has been written off as deemed uneconomical to repair and they gave my wife a packet of Cadbury's Buttons as CAP Retail Value of her car. Insurance scam! I hate the lot of them.
Thank you for that last sentence - of course there cannot be a knock for knock where it can be clearly blamed on one party without dispute. The Protected NCD has limits - usually 2 claims in 3 years or 2 claims in 5 years before the protection is reduced along with NCD is reduced.Just to clarify some points here.
In event of an accident, even if you are not at fault, if either insurer is notified they automatically contact the other insurer for information purposes or to recover losses. The claim goes onto the "Claims underwriting Exchange" (CUE) and both policyholders and drivers details are recorded. In most cases even if you are the innocent party your premium will increase because there has been an incident. Not fair, but it is a fact. Even if your car is parked and unattended it will go up.
Protected bonus will stop the no claim bonus being reduced which will minimise the increase if you have it.
Zep is spot on about statistical reasons for increase.
Most insurers will check the CUE when you take out a new policy so any incident will get flagged up.
If not at fault give it to a claims management company if other insurer is not playing ball. They make their money from supplying you with a hire car which they charge to the other insurer at huge rates. Often contacting the other insurer directly, if liability is not in dispute, results in them keen to deal with your claim rather than using a claims management company and they will supply you with a vehicle for duration of repairs and pay for you repair costs at the same time.
There is no "knock for knock" arrangement between insurers where one party is to blame and liability is admitted.
Thank you for that last sentence - of course there cannot be a knock for knock where it can be clearly blamed on one party without dispute. The Protected NCD has limits - usually 2 claims in 3 years or 2 claims in 5 years before the protection is reduced along with NCD is reduced.
Given the value estimate for the vehicle, it is unlikely to be written off - unless there is structural damage. The Nissan Micra insurer - some budget policy underwritten by Aegeas on reporting the incident stated the vehicle would be collected and transported to Copart where "an engineer will assess it for damage and likely repairs required". Of course that is total and utter b&llsht because they made the decision to write it off as soon as I reported it - Coparts is a graveyard for dead cars - the one in Chester has over 4000 scrap vehicles!I need to clear all my stuff out tomorrow for it's being collected early next week to go to the BMW body shop. Will get the opportunity to see if any obvious chassis damage, boot area etc.
I hope not, it is worth more to me than a write off payout.
However without chassis damage it will want a new rear bumper and any crash structure, new tailgate, and front new grills and front bumper paint as a minimum. So it all adds up. The car is probably worth £18k as a payout.
I'm with BMW's insurance and get a car while mine is in the body shop. However as the TP insurance has admitted liability, they immediately offered a better car being supplied by them instead, apparently because it is cheaper for them to supply (I guess at cost), rather than my BMW insurance back charging to the TP insurance company.
The same if any personal injury claims, they wish to deal direct rather than through my BMW insurance.
They would even repair the car, however one reason why I went with BMW insurance is that it is under the control of BMW and their body shop and future guarantee, so sticking with them.
I wouldn't agree it is a "scam".The whole of this volume motor insurance is an outright scam. All of them bar stewards.
Specialist brokers on the other hand are likely to be very different with limited mileage and agreed value policies on high value prestige cars. But I have not had to test that as yet.
Totally agreed.I wouldn't agree it is a "scam".
What it is is the vast majority of the public buying purely on price. 30 years ago people bought from a reputable Insurer or through a broker because service and cover was important to them. Now it is down to price only for most.
So the only way Insurers can compete on price alone is cut their overheads. Statistically your chances of an accident in your car are the same whoever you insure it with so what you now have is a call centre somewhere manned by sales people whose knowledge of insurance is basic at best and they are there to sell you the product or the addon. Their claims departments are minimal or non existent and they simply haven't the resources to pursue your claim.
Like most things in life products or services that are "cheap" are cheap for a reason.
It is the same as buying on the internet rather than your high street store.
Any good broker's priority is service. That is correct cover at a competitive price and most importantly when a claim arises ensures everything goes as smoothly as possible and gets the right outcome for their customer. I have handled many hundreds of motor claims over the years and I could count on one hand with fingers to spare the number of times a customer/client has been unhappy with the way the claim was handled or the outcome. There has been the odd "mistake" because an engineer picked the wrong year or model of car when making an offer but the tales on likes of here about low offers and haggling are totally unknown in my world. The Insurers we use do not have time to play games with claims. It is non productive for everyone. Someone mentioned Ageas in a previous post. We had a claim with them last month where our client reversed into a parked car and both were written off. They settled BOTH parties claims and they had a BACS payment into their accounts within 72 hours of the incident. Both were offered several hundreds of pounds more than they expected to get as a trade in.
People need to be realistic about what service they expect to get buying on price. Fact is the buying public are determining the market place.
I do not agree with much of your sentiment so we agree to disagree. Aegeas wrote off a car on reporting the incident and once at Copart, would not release the (fictitious) engineers report that the car was structurally damaged and repair costs were in excess of £3k msking a repair uneconomical. Then they gavd us 2 working days to consider/accept their write off offer which I rejected and in a few hours raised it from first offer. Scammers. Then they stated I could reject the final offer but lose the excess and make it a fault claim. Bully tactics scammers.I wouldn't agree it is a "scam".
What it is is the vast majority of the public buying purely on price. 30 years ago people bought from a reputable Insurer or through a broker because service and cover was important to them. Now it is down to price only for most.
So the only way Insurers can compete on price alone is cut their overheads. Statistically your chances of an accident in your car are the same whoever you insure it with so what you now have is a call centre somewhere manned by sales people whose knowledge of insurance is basic at best and they are there to sell you the product or the addon. Their claims departments are minimal or non existent and they simply haven't the resources to pursue your claim.
Like most things in life products or services that are "cheap" are cheap for a reason.
It is the same as buying on the internet rather than your high street store.
Any good broker's priority is service. That is correct cover at a competitive price and most importantly when a claim arises ensures everything goes as smoothly as possible and gets the right outcome for their customer. I have handled many hundreds of motor claims over the years and I could count on one hand with fingers to spare the number of times a customer/client has been unhappy with the way the claim was handled or the outcome. There has been the odd "mistake" because an engineer picked the wrong year or model of car when making an offer but the tales on likes of here about low offers and haggling are totally unknown in my world. The Insurers we use do not have time to play games with claims. It is non productive for everyone. Someone mentioned Ageas in a previous post. We had a claim with them last month where our client reversed into a parked car and both were written off. They settled BOTH parties claims and they had a BACS payment into their accounts within 72 hours of the incident. Both were offered several hundreds of pounds more than they expected to get as a trade in.
People need to be realistic about what service they expect to get buying on price. Fact is the buying public are determining the market place.
They're called pimps - so a friend tells meJust wished there had been a local broker for women over the years too
Protected no claims bonus is a scam to make more money for insurance companies.I've protected no claims but it wouldn't be effected anyway being a no fault claim.
I think if you are at fault in an accident you are screwed whether you have protected no claims or not.