Repaying insurer for claim

51raa

I have seen written on this forum (and heard form others knowledge of the industry) that if you repay your insurer for a claim that has been made against you, it will essential be as if the claim never happened.

My question is, am I still obliged to notify a new issuer of said claim/accident?

I have seen conflicting information on this, what is the actual insurance law that dictates the legality of this? I would like to read it for myself.

Further to this, insurers will state that because you have been involved in an accident you are statistically at a higher risk of being involved in further accidents. I find it hard to believe that with every accident you are at increasing risk of additional accidents. Statistically, there must be a point at which the risk decreases.

If I can find evidence to support this, is there any way I can seek a fair judgement on the actual risk? Almost certainly not but food for taught.

Sue Pa Key Pa

If you repay the claim, your current insurer will reinstate any lost bonus and remove any loading they may have imposed. A potential new insurer is entitled to review the situation and decide either to agree to the bonus or refuse it (a no claims bonus is a marketing & pricing tool, it is not a legal document)

Of course you have to declare the accident to all insurers, it happened....

51raa

Okay but here's the thing, utmost good faith and all that but what someone isnt asked if theybe had an accident, but asked if theyve had any claims. Arguably theres nothing deceitful in saying no then, correct?

Insurance companies don't follow utmost good faith when it suits then so please don't argue this point.

Corvo

51raa wrote: »

Okay but here's the thing, utmost good faith and all that but what someone isnt asked if theybe had an accident, but asked if theyve had any claims. Arguably theres nothing deceitful in saying no then, correct?

Insurance companies don't follow utmost good faith when it suits then so please don't argue this point.

You are obliged to declare the claim, asked or not.

fepper

51raa wrote: »

Okay but here's the thing, utmost good faith and all that but what someone isnt asked if theybe had an accident, but asked if theyve had any claims. Arguably theres nothing deceitful in saying no then, correct?

Insurance companies don't follow utmost good faith when it suits then so please don't argue this point.

Your after answering your question there, if the insurance company processed a claim against you and paid out and your paying back company same claim value to protect your benefits with them,I don't think you can deny that your claim free

51raa

Okay but is not that the 'claim' becomes non-existent once repaid as the insurer did not suffer any loss?

fepper

51raa wrote: »

Okay but is not that the 'claim' becomes non-existent once repaid as the insurer did not suffer any loss?

You are buying back your benefits with the company ie.NCB ETC ,company paid out claim against you

Sue Pa Key Pa

51raa wrote: »

Okay but is not that the 'claim' becomes non-existent once repaid as the insurer did not suffer any loss?

The claim will be disregarded as far as your current insurer is concerned. The accident happened, you can't turn back time.

I'm very interested in this comment, can you provide an example?

"Insurance companies don't follow utmost good faith when it suits then so please don't argue this point"

51raa

It's a bit of grey area it seems, is there any part of insurance law that addresses this repaying if claims or is it something that insurers offer off there own bat?

From the replies it seems that it's only beneficial to do this if staying with the same insurer, correct?

51raa

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

The claim will be disregarded as far as your current insurer is concerned. The accident happened, you can't turn back time.

I'm very interested in this comment, can you provide an example?

"Insurance companies don't follow utmost good faith when it suits then so please don't argue this point"

I've seen threads from people on here saying there insurers have revoked certain aspects of there policy without providing reasons why.

A definition of utmost good faith I have found "...the phrase encompasses fairness and resoanbleness, and community standards of decency and fair dealing". I know plenty who argue insurers are anything but resonable.

Sue Pa Key Pa

It's not a grey area at all. You offer to repay your insurer and they will rescind any factors that the claim had on their premium. You approach potential insurers and ask them how they will treat it. Each will take their own position. Despite what you often read here, every insurer is independent and treat rating factors differently. I'll agree it is time consuming and confusing

51raa

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

It's not a grey area at all. You offer to repay your insurer and they will rescind any factors that the claim had on their premium. You approach potential insurers and ask them how they will treat it. Each will take their own position. Despite what you often read here, every insurer is independent and treat rating factors differently. I'll agree it is time consuming and confusing

It seems to me that if a claim is repaid and NCB is reinstated that upon approach to potential insurer you can state you have x years NCB but have had a claim in same x years. Thats grey in my opinion.

Is it the same if you had NCB protection, as in you'll still have to declare claim but still receive NCB?

Sue Pa Key Pa

51raa wrote: »

I've seen threads from people on here saying there insurers have revoked certain aspects of there policy without providing reasons why.

A definition of utmost good faith I have found "...the phrase encompasses fairness and resoanbleness, and community standards of decency and fair dealing". I know plenty who argue insurers are anything but resonable.

That is not the definition of Utmost Good Faith. A layman's interpretation can be found here
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/doctrineofutmostgoodfaith.asp

The only decision I am aware of where an insurer does not have to give a reason for their actions, is invoking the cancellation clause of the policy. All other aspects of the policy are enforceable by the policyholder under contract law

Sue Pa Key Pa

51raa wrote: »

Is it the same if you had NCB protection, as in you'll still have to declare claim but still receive NCB?

Yes of course you have to declare it. A claim is a claim, an accident is an accident. Because an insurer offers a policy feature where they will not remove a discount in the event of a claim does not mean it didn't happen. It's the same as windscreen cover. Insurers won't affect your premium if you have your windscreen replaced, but it is a claim. Any benefit received under your policy IS a claim

51raa

"...not mislead or withhold critical information from one another."

I find alot of the time the decision to not quote is not disclosed and they just state 'your application does not meet are acceptace criteria' and is very hard to get a solid answer as to why. Just from experience.

Sue Pa Key Pa

51raa wrote: »

"...not mislead or withhold critical information from one another."

I find alot of the time the decision to not quote is not disclosed and they just state 'your application does not meet are acceptace criteria' and is very hard to get a solid answer as to why. Just from experience.

But at that stage, you don't have any contract with them, so they are not breaching utmost good faith.

I agree you should be told what aspect of your risk is not to their liking, but it is rarely personal, it is usually down to the sector of the market they are trying to attract or deter.

51raa

Fair point. Its all stacked agains the motorist is what I'm getting at.

Thanks for the resposes all the same.

One more question, if I do enter a contract on say a high risk vehicle, do they have to disclose the statistics that determine the vehicle high risk?

Sue Pa Key Pa

51raa wrote: »

.

One more question, if I do enter a contract on say a high risk vehicle, do they have to disclose the statistics that determine the vehicle high risk?

Not at present, but it is proposed that insurers will have to be more open about the decisions they make. I doubt it will happen personally

51raa

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Not at present, but it is proposed that insurers will have to be more open about the decisions they make. I doubt it will happen personally

Is that not contra to utmost good faith.?Arguably, I say it is very much is. It's critical information that has determined the price of the premium

Sue Pa Key Pa

51raa wrote: »

Is that not contra to utmost good faith.?Arguably, I say it is very much is. It's critical information that has determined the price of the premium

It is not misrepresenting, or withholding, information on which you depend in order to make a decision on taking out the policy. If you discover that, for instance, they are applying a 100% load for the car colour being red, it is not affecting your decision. You will either accept their price, or move elsewhere. Your are not disadvantaged by their secrecy.

At present, there is no mechanism to enforce an insurer to review such an implausible loading, as it is a free and open market when it comes to pricing.

51raa

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

It is not misrepresenting, or withholding, information on which you depend in order to make a decision on taking out the policy. If you discover that, for instance, they are applying a 100% load for the car colour being red, it is not affecting your decision. You will either accept their price, or move elsewhere. Your are not disadvantaged by their secrecy.

But how does the consumer know its not miss representing for example, a certain model of vehicle with many levels of trim and performance where the insurer assess the premium based on the highest, most powerful level of trim?

If the shoe was on the other foot, the insured would be not be covered for misrepresenting should they state a lower level of trim. And yes I am referring to japanese imports which the insurance companies are or have been quite ignorant about and now have a blanket ban on certain models regards of trim/power.

The statistic for a certain level of trim simply wouldn't exist as there has probably been very few insured so they base the risk off the overall model or the high performance variant. That's misrepsentation to me l, am I wrong?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Their premium is their premium, it is not variable on you being aware of the method they use to calculate it. I can't say it any clearer than that.

9935452

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Yes of course you have to declare it. A claim is a claim, an accident is an accident. Because an insurer offers a policy feature where they will not remove a discount in the event of a claim does not mean it didn't happen. It's the same as windscreen cover. Insurers won't affect your premium if you have your windscreen replaced, but it is a claim. Any benefit received under your policy IS a claim

Out of curiosity does this include rescue?
If i break down and call the rescue crowd supplied by my insurance company does it count as a claim as it is a benefit recieved under my policy

Liam McPoyle

9935452 wrote: »

Out of curiosity does this include rescue?
If i break down and call the rescue crowd supplied by my insurance company does it count as a claim as it is a benefit recieved under my policy

Nope, road side assist is not considered a claim.

Sue Pa Key Pa

9935452 wrote: »

Out of curiosity does this include rescue?
If i break down and call the rescue crowd supplied by my insurance company does it count as a claim as it is a benefit recieved under my policy

Roadside Assistance is a service available to you in exchange for a fee, built in to the overall premium you pay. It is a separate benefit away from the insurance product and not declarable as a claim, as Rod says.