Insurance claim - right to info

muffler

A few weeks back a mate of mine had a small accident - yes he was at fault as he pulled out in front of a car - but no major amount of damage done. Him and the other guy swapped the usual insurance details and he contacted the guy a day or two later and offered to pay for his car repairs (probably 4 or 5 hundred would have sorted it) but yer man was very "non committal". Said he would think about it and get back to my mate but never did.

My mate contacted his insurance company just to notify them but sometime later the insurance company phoned him back and said the other guy had a claim in for "injuries". Since that the mate wont make any contact with the other guy and has asked the insurance company for details of the claim but they are being very evasive and spinning the old "we'll be in touch shortly" spiel

Last week he got his renewal through and it has rocketed from €360 last year to €1040. The question I have now is has he any rights to demand copies of the claim made by the other guy?

Would appreciate any advice or comments.

Cheers

coylemj

Tell your friend to read his policy document, the insurance company has the right to settle without any reference to the policyholder. That's about the height of it - whether he has any 'right' to see details of the settlement is really neither here nor there but he probably doesn't

People developing whiplash after a seemingly incidental accident is par for the course here and in the UK. The insurance companies are seen as a soft touch so they will settle for a couple of grand and recoup the money from your friend in higher renewals. He won't get a quote from any other insurance company until the original crowd have milked him for the cash they paid to the other guy.

Sadly, that's how motor insurance works in this country.

muffler

Many thanks for the reply. I thought that may be the case alright.

As you say the system is their to be milked. Its just a pity though as the "other guy" is working away (self employed) so its unclear what he has sent in as part of his claim and thats why my mate was anxious to know if he had any right to see the guys claim documents.

On a side note he has 2 vehicles insured with the same company and the insurance on the other car is up in February. Would he also loose his no claims bonus in respect of that also?

amen

Can the insurance company charge for any claim that has not yet been settled ?

Del2005

muffler wrote: »

On a side note he has 2 vehicles insured with the same company and the insurance on the other car is up in February. Would he also loose his no claims bonus in respect of that also?

Usually if it's two separate policies he'll still have the NCD on the 2nd policy, not sure how it'll work if he's mirroring an NCD. If it's 2 cars on one policy he's lost the NCD.

His premium will most likely also go up on the 2nd policy as even though his NCD won't be affected he has made a claim so his risk has changed

coylemj

amen wrote: »

Can the insurance company charge for any claim that has not yet been settled ?

What typically happens is that as long as a claim is pending, they will treat you as if the claim was paid out. That means your renewal goes through the roof and nobody else will quote you. Effectively you're in limbo.

If the claim (from the other guy) is subsequently refused, they will refund you the extra you were charged i.e. they will retrospectively restore your NCD.

alan partridge aha

I know it's no help to your mate, but what goes around comes around. That pr**k will get his comeuppance. I had a friend in an accident which he told me was not his fault. 4 cars, he was 3rd stopped short of the 2nd but 4th car pushed him into back of 2nd. Insurance company paid out against his wishes and lost his NCD.

So just suck it up and in future never admit you are wrong.

muffler

Del2005 wrote: »

Usually if it's two separate policies he'll still have the NCD on the 2nd policy, not sure how it'll work if he's mirroring an NCD. If it's 2 cars on one policy he's lost the NCD.

He's the type of guy who just doesn't understand how insurance works. He tells me it's 2 separate policies and Id think that he's right as one vehicle is used for his work and the other private so unlikely to be under the same policy. I'll be looking at his renewal letter tomorrow so that should give me a better idea as to what's what.

In fact I didn't even know you could have both vehicles insured under one policy. If that turned out to be the case he would surely loose both bonuses as they would be attached to the same policy.

muffler

alan partridge aha wrote: »

I know it's no help to your mate, but what goes around comes around. That pr**k will get his comeuppance.

I sincerely hope so. I cant say too much other than the guy is self employed and provides a certain service. He verbally claimed / stated that he had to take painkillers for his injuries but didnt disclose if he attended the A & E or his GP. This was when my friend met him and offered to pay for the damage to his car.

I went to his premises and availed of the service he was providing and he was there working. I told my mate to pass this info on to the insurance company and honestly I have no idea if he did or not but as stated above the company could just go ahead and pay out without investigating it fully. He cant be claiming too much as he's in the full view of the public 5 days a week and would he take a chance on claiming that he's not working.

MarkAnthony

alan partridge aha wrote: »

I know it's no help to your mate, but what goes around comes around. That pr**k will get his comeuppance. I had a friend in an accident which he told me was not his fault. 4 cars, he was 3rd stopped short of the 2nd but 4th car pushed him into back of 2nd. Insurance company paid out against his wishes and lost his NCD.

So just suck it up and in future never admit you are wrong.

What 'come uppance' if the OP's friend hadn;t have caused an accident he wouldn't be in this situation. Unless you're a clairvoyant medical practitioner you've no way of knowing if the injuries are genuine.

alan partridge aha

MarkAnthony wrote: »

What 'come uppance' if the OP's friend hadn;t have caused an accident he wouldn't be in this situation. Unless you're a clairvoyant medical practitioner you've no way of knowing if the injuries are genuine.

Your not a fool, this kind of stuff is happening all the time, the OP has clearly stated that this guy is working full time, injuries my backside.

Pro Hoc Vice

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Your not a fool, this kind of stuff is happening all the time, the OP has clearly stated that this guy is working full time, injuries my backside.

Can you explain why a person who has suffered a injury but is able to work should not be eligible to make a claim.

alan partridge aha

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Can you explain why a person who has suffered a injury but is able to work should not be eligible to make a claim.

As the op has said, the system is there to be milked, yes of course there is genuine cases but in a lot of them it's handy money.

Wheelnut

If the other guy is self-employed and running a business, it's likely that his insurance is expensive and very important to him. So if someone lodged a claim against his policy he would stand to lose a lot more. Supposing the OP's friend felt a pain coming on and lodged a claim, the first claim might disappear by coincidence and the OP's friend might then feel well enough to withdraw the second claim. This is not advice, it's just supposing supposing.

muffler

Wheelnut wrote: »

If the other guy is self-employed and running a business, it's likely that his insurance is expensive and very important to him. So if someone lodged a claim against his policy he would stand to lose a lot more. Supposing the OP's friend felt a pain coming on and lodged a claim, the first claim might disappear by coincidence and the OP's friend might then feel well enough to withdraw the second claim. This is not advice, it's just supposing supposing.

And I suppose Im right in recalling that my mate mentioned this very point to me a few days ago after it was suggested to him by his wife.

MarkAnthony

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Your not a fool, this kind of stuff is happening all the time, the OP has clearly stated that this guy is working full time, injuries my backside.

It can be very easily avoided. Don't cause accidents. It doesn't matter if the plaintiff is claiming a few quid to fix a fender or €20K for whiplash the NCD is gone, there is the option on most policies to protect this if one wishes.

The injury claim is a matter for the insurance company and/or the courts, they will arbitrate whether or not the claim is valid. One man's 'applying common sense' is another man's 'jumping to conclusions'.

MarkAnthony

Wheelnut wrote: »

If the other guy is self-employed and running a business, it's likely that his insurance is expensive and very important to him. So if someone lodged a claim against his policy he would stand to lose a lot more. Supposing the OP's friend felt a pain coming on and lodged a claim, the first claim might disappear by coincidence and the OP's friend might then feel well enough to withdraw the second claim. This is not advice, it's just supposing supposing.

muffler wrote: »

And I suppose Im right in recalling that my mate mentioned this very point to me a few days ago after it was suggested to him by his wife.

How can the OPs friend make a claim against insurance for injuries caused by his own negligence? He claims against his own insurance.

Wheelnut

MarkAnthony wrote: »

How can the OPs friend make a claim against insurance for injuries caused by his own negligence? ...

I don't think he has admitted negligence. OK, he pulled out in front of the other car but maybe the other car could have stopped. He offered to pay for repairs in the belief that that there was only material damage to the value of €400 to €500. Some people might say that's an admission of negligence but he might say it was just to settle the matter quickly with the least fuss and expense, ie without admission of liability. Of course this is not clearcut but that's why we hire solicitors and barristers.

I don't want to get bogged down in the technicalities of where the liability might fall, I just hinted that he might lodge a counter claim as a strategic move and he could withdraw it later. Going by the OP's account his claim would be as strong as the other guy's.

MarkAnthony

Wheelnut wrote: »

I don't think he has admitted negligence. OK, he pulled out in front of the other car but maybe the other car could have stopped. He offered to pay for repairs in the belief that that there was only material damage to the value of €400 to €500. Some people might say that's an admission of negligence but he might say it was just to settle the matter quickly with the least fuss and expense, ie without admission of liability. Of course this is not clearcut but that's why we hire solicitors and barristers.

I don't want to get bogged down in the technicalities of where the liability might fall, I just hinted that he might lodge a counter claim as a strategic move and he could withdraw it later. Going by the OP's account his claim would be as strong as the other guy's.

I'm sorry that's absolute rubbish and frankly tantamount to fraud.

Not getting 'bogged down in the technicalities' is a cop out. If the OP wants to provide more information as to there being any doubt over liability then that's their prerogative, as it stands there has been an admission of liability.

muffler wrote: »

yes he was at fault as he pulled out in front of a car

Where this sort of thing happens you exchange details you go on your way and you let the insurance companies sort it out. There are mechanisms in place to deal with fraudulent claims from the otherside. If the OP's friend is unhappy with action his insurance company takes there are mechanisms in place there as well.

Accidents happen, but if you cause one man up and face the music. Don't try an weasel out of it; no one here is in a position to comment on how genuine the injured parties claim is.

Pat Mustard

Wheelnut wrote: »

If the other guy is self-employed and running a business, it's likely that his insurance is expensive and very important to him. So if someone lodged a claim against his policy he would stand to lose a lot more. Supposing the OP's friend felt a pain coming on and lodged a claim, the first claim might disappear by coincidence and the OP's friend might then feel well enough to withdraw the second claim. This is not advice, it's just supposing supposing.

Mod:

The OP did not mention that his friend was injured.

No advocating illegal or criminal activity, as per forum charter.

goz83

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It can be very easily avoided. Don't cause accidents. It doesn't matter if the plaintiff is claiming a few quid to fix a fender or €20K for whiplash the NCD is gone, there is the option on most policies to protect this if one wishes.

The injury claim is a matter for the insurance company and/or the courts, they will arbitrate whether or not the claim is valid. One man's 'applying common sense' is another man's 'jumping to conclusions'.

While it is possible to prevent many accidents, I would say that not all can be avoided. Sometimes, the precautions taken are actually the cause of an accident. Sometimes, a minor accident occurs when avoiding a major one etc.

It is understandable, as to why one might try to limit the amount of the insurance pay out. The NCD may well be gone, even if the damage is only €500, but it is quite frankly ridiculous to suggest that it doesn't matter if it's only a few quid, or 20k. The risk of a motorist is also calculated from the expense of the most recent insurance claim cost (within 5 years usually), so it makes a big difference. NCD does not protect you from a rising premium. It simply discounts from the standard premium cost.

Two examples, both assuming full NCD with full protection. It also assumes that the last policy renewal was €450, which included a 50% NCD. So original cost of €900:

1) Motorist had claim against his policy of €500 for property damage. Claim settled within a week. Next renewal quote is €2,000. NCD is applied, lowering to €1,000. The Motorists risk level has changed and so the premium goes up. The hike is insulated somewhat by the protected NCD.

2) Motorist had claims against his policy of €500 for property damage and €19,500 for a personal injury claim. Total claim €20,000 and both claims settled at 1 week and 8 months respectively. Next renewal quote is €4,000. NCD is applied, lowering to €2,000. The risk is higher and so the premium reflects this. Once again, the hike is only insulated by the NCD, but the premium will always go up.

The insurer will aim to recover as much of the cost (and in many cases, more than the cost) of the claim as possible. It gets messy when personal injury claims take years, as the motirist is effectively stuck with the one insurer with high premiums until the claim is settled and thereafter, a wait of up to 5 years before normal premiums can be seen. In my opinion, it's all a scam.

Wheelnut wrote: »

I don't think he has admitted negligence. OK, he pulled out in front of the other car but maybe the other car could have stopped. He offered to pay for repairs in the belief that that there was only material damage to the value of €400 to €500. Some people might say that's an admission of negligence but he might say it was just to settle the matter quickly with the least fuss and expense, ie without admission of liability. Of course this is not clearcut but that's why we hire solicitors and barristers.

I don't want to get bogged down in the technicalities of where the liability might fall, I just hinted that he might lodge a counter claim as a strategic move and he could withdraw it later. Going by the OP's account his claim would be as strong as the other guy's.

Strategically lodging a counter claim would be fraud.

kennM

Del2005 wrote: »

Usually if it's two separate policies he'll still have the NCD on the 2nd policy, not sure how it'll work if he's mirroring an NCD. If it's 2 cars on one policy he's lost the NCD.

His premium will most likely also go up on the 2nd policy as even though his NCD won't be affected he has made a claim so his risk has changed

Just want to reply to this post.... and make a general point, I think I might get flamed but been through the process.

With regards to above - I believe this is incorrect. You can only have your NCD bonus against a single policy. You can use named driver experience, if you have some against another policy, on a second policy in your own name. If you are the insured person on both policies then both will naturally go up as the insured person has a pending claim against them.


Believe me, insurance companies don't just roll over and write out a cheque for 20K. There are insufficient details to assess whether injury was caused or not, even if there were more details regarding speed/vehicles etc. there still wouldn't be enough information to ascertain. I know of people who have had accidents who, by rights, should be dead but walked away and others who have had relatively "minor looking" accidents and ended up very seriously injured. If injury was caused then the plaintiff needs it proved by medical experts via medico legal reports and the insurance company are entitled to have the plaintiff reviewed by their own medical experts.

The insurance company can make it very difficult for any legitimate claim, never mind a suspected fraudulent claim. I've been on the receiving end on the difficulties you can go through during a legitimate claim.

This mentality of "owwwwe me neck", break out the cheque book and give me €20K is rubbish. If it is whiplash it'd likely be less than half that.

And, at the end of the day..... the OP's friend was the one who was in the wrong and should have been more careful not to cause the accident in the first place. Where would the sympathy levels be if the person that was hit was a child???


Whilst I 100% condemn any sort of fraudulent claims and believe karma will bite them in the a$$ in due course lets have a little bit perspective if possible.

muffler

I'll post a wee update on this early next week as my mate is to meet up on Monday or Tuesday at the "scene of the crash" with a rep from the insurance company.