Incident cited in no claims bonus.

born2bwild

I have a letter from my insurer stating that I have 4 years' no claims bonus.

Fine. However, in June of this year a bloke reversed into me, damaged the car, admitted responsibility and the repairs got done through his insurance.

Now, on my no claims bonus document the following sentence appears:

"The last incident to occur under this policy was on 24th June 2012"

What is this?

I think I phoned my insurer at the time to ask for advice about the incident in June but why have they put that sentence onto the document??

ABajaninCork

Just to show something happened to the car, but that you did not claim.

I wouldn't worry about it.

Del2005

born2bwild wrote: »

I have a letter from my insurer stating that I have 4 years' no claims bonus.

Fine. However, in June of this year a bloke reversed into me, damaged the car, admitted responsibility and the repairs got done through his insurance.

Now, on my no claims bonus document the following sentence appears:

"The last incident to occur under this policy was on 24th June 2012"

What is this?

I think I phoned my insurer at the time to ask for advice about the incident in June but why have they put that sentence onto the document??

Even though you where hit they record all your claims. The great thing about statistics is that it's proven that people who get hit a few times are more likely to be hit again, at no fault of their's, and are loaded due to this risk.

Valetta

Del2005 wrote: »

Even though you where hit they record all your claims. The great thing about statistics is that it's proven that people who get hit a few times are more likely to be hit again, at no fault of their's, and are loaded due to this risk.

This makes no sense.

Where is the risk if the stats show that they are more likely to be hit "at no fault of their's" (sic)?

djimi

Del2005 wrote: »

Even though you where hit they record all your claims. The great thing about statistics is that it's proven that people who get hit a few times are more likely to be hit again, at no fault of their's, and are loaded due to this risk.

Granted some people are unlucky, but if someone is getting repeatedly hit by others then the question has to be asked eventually what are they doing to contribute to this; in the normal course of driving its not usual that someone is an unlucky victim repeatedly...

born2bwild

Nuts. I was in a queue at the lights. Stationary. A bloke in a van reversed out from a parking space and hit me. He admitted culpability straight away and his insurance paid out.

Now, statistically, I am more likely to be in an accident.

I'm sure that this system does make some sense to someone, somewhere...

tobsey

Assuming it's true that you are more likely to be hit if you have been hit before, you are more likely to request your own insurzance to act on your behalf and claim against the liable party. This has a cost impact to your own insurance company so they are safeguarding against it.

Makes sense really.

Valetta

Surely insurance companies recover their costs when claiming on behalf of their clients.

If not, then they certainly should be.