Theft claim paid out of own policy!🤔

peaceboi

Our car was stolen from our driveway, few months ago. And was never recovered. We had third party fire and theft insurance coverage that time, with Liberty insurance. They paid out of our own policy. But since we had only step back cover on the no claims bonus, 7 years no claims bonus was affected, and gone to 2 now.
I was wondering abour why did the insurance company pay out of our own policy, since the theft was not our fault? Your opinions please

cruizer101

Whose policy did you think they would pay out of?
At the end of the day you had a claim so no claims bonus is gone

tedpan

cruizer101 wrote:

Whose policy did you think they would pay out of? At the end of the day you had a claim so no claims bonus is gone

The thief was definitely at fault here. Surely their insurance would have covered it..??

CeilingFly

Check with a broker. Some insurers treat theft claims differently.

Shame that a fixed theft claim can have same affect on no claims discount than a €200,000 accident claim.

Possibly there should be two parts of a no claims bonus - "fire/theft" and "driving" and maybe some companies do look at it that way?

Peregrinus

peaceboi wrote: »

Our car was stolen from our driveway, few months ago. And was never recovered. We had third party fire and theft insurance coverage that time, with Liberty insurance. They paid out of our own policy. But since we had only step back cover on the no claims bonus, 7 years no claims bonus was affected, and gone to 2 now.
I was wondering abour why did the insurance company pay out of our own policy, since the theft was not our fault? Your opinions please

When you insured your car against theft, what cover exactly did you think you were buying? The whole point of a theft policy is that, if the insured property is stolen, the insurer will pay you the value of the stolen property.

When you get a third party, fire and theft policy, you are insuring against three risks:

1. Liablity you may incur to third parties as a result of your own fault

2. Losses due to fire damaging the insured property.

3. Losses due to theft of the insured property.

Claims for either of the last two losses don't involve any fault on your part, but they are still claims. And the no-claims bonus is a no-claims bonus, not a no-fault bonus. If you claim, you lose your no-claims bonus.

Some insurers do write policies with separate no claims bonus for each element of the premium, so that if you make a claim for theft, you lose the no-claims bonus on the theft element of your premium but not on the fire and third party elements, and so forth for other claims. Obviously, you didn't have a policy like this.

peaceboi

So, if it was a fully comprehensive one, but with only step back no claims bonus protection, would I still would have lost my 7 years no claims bonus? Though the theft was not my fault?

mickdw

Yes, step back allows them to drop off a few year no claims so that would be the same whether you had comprehensive or not. You should really have fully protected bonus as the cost difference between the worst and best policies are often very small when viewed against the scenario you are now faced with.

Peregrinus

As I say, it's not a bonus for not being at fault; it's a bonus for not making any claims. The insurer isn't concerned with the morality of the situation; just the economics.

As to exactly how much of your NCB you lose as a result of any claim, insurers can write different terms, and you can factor that into your choice of insurer. Presumably, the more generous the NCB policy towards the policyholder, the more expensive the policy will tend to be in the first place, so there's likely to be a trade-off there.

lawred2

peaceboi wrote: »

Our car was stolen from our driveway, few months ago. And was never recovered. We had third party fire and theft insurance coverage that time, with Liberty insurance. They paid out of our own policy. But since we had only step back cover on the no claims bonus, 7 years no claims bonus was affected, and gone to 2 now.
I was wondering abour why did the insurance company pay out of our own policy, since the theft was not our fault? Your opinions please

what policy did you think you were claiming off?

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

As I say, it's not a bonus for not being at fault; it's a bonus for not making any claims. The insurer isn't concerned with the morality of the situation; just the economics.

As to exactly how much of your NCB you lose as a result of any claim, insurers can write different terms, and you can factor that into your choice of insurer. Presumably, the more generous the NCB policy towards the policyholder, the more expensive the policy will tend to be in the first place, so there's likely to be a trade-off there.

And just to add to this, many believe that a protected NCB means there will be no affect on the premium at renewal following a claim which is incorrect.

A NCB offers a percentage reduction on the premium, that percentage can be protected, but a claim will usually affect the loading of the premium even when the NCB is fully protected meaning an increase in premium anyway.

NUTLEY BOY

Fault has no bearing on the issue of your NCD.

What interferes with NCD is the making of a claim whereby the insurer incurs a financial outlay or an estimated but likely outlay.

If there was a source from whom you could otherwise have recovered your loss your insurer would be pursuing that recovery by way of subrogation rights.