Excess on 3rd party car insurance?

[Commander Kinsey]

I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a £650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.

So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have £650?

[Fredxx]

On 20/06/2022 14:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a Ł650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>
> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have Ł650?

That would depend on whether you want insurance again. Some aspects of
insurance are shared though not sure if this aspect is.

I would trust your parents were smart enough to put your bungalow into a
trust so that no creditor would be able to force a sale or place a
charge on the property.

BTW, it is normally £650 on each and every claim for each section of
cover. There could be multiple £650 excesses that might need paying.

I would strongly suggest you think this one through.

[Jerome Fandor]

"Fredxx" <fre...@spam.uk> wrote in message
news:t8q4ne$4e2$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 20/06/2022 14:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a

>> L650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>>
>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have L650?

>
> That would depend on whether you want insurance again. Some aspects of
> insurance are shared though not sure if this aspect is.
>
> I would trust your parents were smart enough to put your bungalow into a
> trust so that no creditor would be able to force a sale or place a charge
> on the property.
>
> BTW, it is normally £650 on each and every claim for each section of
> cover. There could be multiple £650 excesses that might need paying.
>
> I would strongly suggest you think this one through.

As it's third party car insurance that £650 would be paid by you, to your
insurance company, if you were judged to be liable for a car accident. If
you were not at fault then this is irrelevant making a claim against another
car driver's insurance.

By making the excess £650 you will have reduced your premium somewhat.

JF

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 16:45:49 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 20/06/2022 14:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a Ł650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>>
>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have Ł650?
>
> That would depend on whether you want insurance again. Some aspects of
> insurance are shared though not sure if this aspect is.

Shared with who?

> I would trust your parents were smart enough to put your bungalow into a
> trust so that no creditor would be able to force a sale or place a
> charge on the property.

No idea what that means, but I'm 46.

> BTW, it is normally £650 on each and every claim for each section of
> cover. There could be multiple £650 excesses that might need paying.

Section? Do you mean if I hit two cars I have to pay £650 each?

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 18:00:00 +0100, Jerome Fandor <Jerome....@totoploy.com> wrote:

> "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.uk> wrote in message
> news:t8q4ne$4e2$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 20/06/2022 14:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a
>>> L650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>>>
>>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have L650?
>>
>> That would depend on whether you want insurance again. Some aspects of
>> insurance are shared though not sure if this aspect is.
>>
>> I would trust your parents were smart enough to put your bungalow into a
>> trust so that no creditor would be able to force a sale or place a charge
>> on the property.
>>
>> BTW, it is normally £650 on each and every claim for each section of

>> cover. There could be multiple £650 excesses that might need paying..

>>
>> I would strongly suggest you think this one through.
>
> As it's third party car insurance that £650 would be paid by you, to your
> insurance company, if you were judged to be liable for a car accident. If
> you were not at fault then this is irrelevant making a claim against another
> car driver's insurance.

If I was not at fault the premium apparently goes up anyway. [rolls eyes] Doesn't seem to matter whose fault an accident is nowadays.

> By making the excess £650 you will have reduced your premium somewhat.

Not by much. It reduced it from £147 to £117 a year by changing the excess from £150 to £650.

[JNugent]

That sounds like a *terrible* bargain.

If I were faced with it, I'd pay the £147.

Anyone might hit your car, even when it's parked and you're nowhere near it.

[Martin Brown]

Although in practice you may need drivers legal protection insurance and
solicitors letters to extract the final part of the payment from them.
Insurers seem to prefer knock for knock if they can get away with it
even when one party is very clearly at fault.

What's not to like from their point of view? Both insured parties lose
their NCB so end up with much higher premiums and they have much less
admin. Most of my claims have been for run into from behind whilst
stationary queuing on a motorway, at a junction or roadworks. Two
required DLP involvement to force the other party to pay up for their
very obvious mistake!

>> If I was not at fault the premium apparently goes up anyway.  [rolls
>> eyes]  Doesn't seem to matter whose fault an accident is nowadays.
>>
>>> By making the excess £650 you will have reduced your premium somewhat.
>>
>> Not by much.  It reduced it from £147 to £117 a year by changing the
>> excess from £150 to £650.
>
> That sounds like a *terrible* bargain.
>
> If I were faced with it, I'd pay the £147.
>
> Anyone might hit your car, even when it's parked and you're nowhere near
> it.

His car might actually be worth less than the new excess.

Recently I haven't seen much of a price difference between third party
cover and fully comprehensive for a small runabout and shopping around
found one (introductory) first year deal that was actually cheapest!

So I insured it with them fully comprehensive with a £200 excess.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[RustyHinge]

My no claims stretches back to when I first got astride a pop-pop in
1959. Third party insurance for a 350cc solo was £3 p/a and for the same
machine with a sidecar, 30s (£1.50 to you youngsters).

Nowadays, not driving is the order of the day: I gave up when my heart
started playing silly so-and-sos, later found to be 'drop-outs' where
the heart stopped for more than just several beats. Even though
medicine(s) and a pacemaker have sorted the problem I don't expect I'll
ride/drive again.

I hate to think what the insurance cost would be for my BMW R80...

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:41:56 +0100, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:22:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a £650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>

> How "including"? Third party cover only pays for claims by other people.

When I said "3rd party car insurance", I meant the 3rd party part of it. I.e. a claim by the guy I hit. I assumed excess was only on your own car's damage.

>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have £650?
>

> If the driver at fault is not you then your damage claims will be settled
> fully and without any excess deductions by their insurer (or by the Motor
> Insurers' Bureau if they are uninsured or untraced) and the terms in your
> own policy will be irrelevant.
>
> But if you are "the guilty driver" (i.e. at the one at fault), then you will
> need to fund that excess for any claims by others in addition to all of the
> expenses for damage to your own vehicle and injuries to yourself.

As I thought, I'm just surprised it's allowed, since the innocent driver could be out of pocket. Or do I owe my own insurance not them?

[Commander Kinsey]

I never claim on insurance. It's cheaper to fix the damage yourself. BOTH premiums go up if there's a crash and a claim is made.

I have car insurance only to satisfy the law.

A woman rear ended me and broke her radiator, headlight, and bonnet. My car was undamaged. I told her to get it sorted privately, or her insurance would be through the roof (she was quite young).

I reversed into someone in a car park and handed him £50.

[JNugent]

On 21/06/2022 01:20 pm, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> Jerome Fandor <Jerome....@totoploy.com> wrote:

>>>> "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:

>>>>>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a
>>>>>> L650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>>>>>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have L650?
>
>>>>> That would depend on whether you want insurance again. Some aspects of
>>>>> insurance are shared though not sure if this aspect is.
>
>>>>> I would trust your parents were smart enough to put your bungalow into a
>>>>> trust so that no creditor would be able to force a sale or place a charge
>>>>> on the property.
>
>>>>> BTW, it is normally £650 on each and every claim for each section of
>>>>> cover. There could be multiple £650 excesses that might need paying..
>
>>>>> I would strongly suggest you think this one through.
>
>>>> As it's third party car insurance that £650 would be paid by you, to your
>>>> insurance company, if you were judged to be liable for a car accident. If
>>>> you were not at fault then this is irrelevant making a claim against another
>>>> car driver's insurance.
>
>>> If I was not at fault the premium apparently goes up anyway. [rolls eyes] Doesn't seem to matter whose fault an accident is nowadays.
>
>>>> By making the excess £650 you will have reduced your premium somewhat.
>
>>> Not by much. It reduced it from £147 to £117 a year by changing the excess from £150 to £650.
>
>> That sounds like a *terrible* bargain.
>> If I were faced with it, I'd pay the £147.
>> Anyone might hit your car, even when it's parked and you're nowhere near it.
>

> How would such an incident be related to the OP's insurance policy covering
> only third part claims and its voluntary excess?

Where did he say that?

Someone else said that, but he said (verbatim):

QUOTE:

I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a
L650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.

ENDQUOTE

That was "including claims by other people", not "limited to claims by
other people".

[Fredxx]

On 21/06/2022 00:33, JNugent wrote:

> On 20/06/2022 08:20 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 18:00:00 +0100, Jerome Fandor

<snip>

>>> By making the excess £650 you will have reduced your premium somewhat.
>>
>> Not by much.  It reduced it from £147 to £117 a year by changing the
>> excess from £150 to £650.
>
> That sounds like a *terrible* bargain.
>
> If I were faced with it, I'd pay the £147.
>
> Anyone might hit your car, even when it's parked and you're nowhere near
> it.

What it shows is the type of person willing to take third party only
insurance is a higher risk. Some might say a case in point?

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:28:54 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a £650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>
> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have £650?

Under current law the insurer has to pay third [and second - e.g. passengers] party losses - end of.

The insurer can then [try to] recover the excess from the insured.

Some policies allow this if say the insured is drunk and responsible for an accident.

[notya...@gmail.com]

As above the insurer pays and recovers excess from the insured.

I suppose this might even happen in a fully comp' policy if there were a claim from a third party, but no damage to your own vehicle.

[notya...@gmail.com]

The other thing that is silly is that sometimes third party only is more than fully comp' for the same risk!

[Norman Wells]

On 21/06/2022 13:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:41:56 +0100, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:22:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a Ł650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.

>>
>> How "including"? Third party cover only pays for claims by other people.
>
> When I said "3rd party car insurance", I meant the 3rd party part of it. I.e. a claim by the guy I hit. I assumed excess was only on your own car's damage.
>

>>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have Ł650?

>>
>> If the driver at fault is not you then your damage claims will be settled
>> fully and without any excess deductions by their insurer (or by the Motor
>> Insurers' Bureau if they are uninsured or untraced) and the terms in your
>> own policy will be irrelevant.
>>
>> But if you are "the guilty driver" (i.e. at the one at fault), then you will
>> need to fund that excess for any claims by others in addition to all of the
>> expenses for damage to your own vehicle and injuries to yourself.
>
> As I thought, I'm just surprised it's allowed, since the innocent driver could be out of pocket. Or do I owe my own insurance not them?

Any claim by someone else will legally be against *you* personally, but
your insurance company has agreed with you that that they will pay
anything except the first £650 of any claim.

Insurance companies have generally agreed between themselves that,
rather than spend loads of money arguing the toss about who was actually
at fault, often inconclusively, they will each bear their own client's
costs, less any excess they have agreed to remain liable for. That's
called 'knock-for-knock' and it generally works pretty well to keep the
overall cost of premiums down.

Where a client objects to the potential loss of his no claims bonus,
though, and it's clear that the other party was wholly at fault, they
will sometime waive the loss of no claims bonus in order to retain your
business.

Where you have agreed an excess, your insurance company will knock that
off any claim you make so, effectively, you are responsible for the
first £650 of any damage you or your car sustains on any particular claim.

[Norman Wells]

On 21/06/2022 13:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 00:33:08 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> On 20/06/2022 08:20 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 18:00:00 +0100, Jerome Fandor <Jerome....@totoploy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:t8q4ne$4e2$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 20/06/2022 14:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a
>>>>>> L650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have L650?
>>>>>
>>>>> That would depend on whether you want insurance again. Some aspects of
>>>>> insurance are shared though not sure if this aspect is.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would trust your parents were smart enough to put your bungalow into a
>>>>> trust so that no creditor would be able to force a sale or place a charge
>>>>> on the property.
>>>>>

>>>>> BTW, it is normally Ł650 on each and every claim for each section of
>>>>> cover. There could be multiple Ł650 excesses that might need paying..

>>>>>
>>>>> I would strongly suggest you think this one through.
>>>>

>>>> As it's third party car insurance that Ł650 would be paid by you, to your

>>>> insurance company, if you were judged to be liable for a car accident. If
>>>> you were not at fault then this is irrelevant making a claim against another
>>>> car driver's insurance.
>>>
>>> If I was not at fault the premium apparently goes up anyway. [rolls eyes] Doesn't seem to matter whose fault an accident is nowadays.
>>>

>>>> By making the excess Ł650 you will have reduced your premium somewhat.
>>>
>>> Not by much. It reduced it from Ł147 to Ł117 a year by changing the excess from Ł150 to Ł650.

>>
>> That sounds like a *terrible* bargain.
>>

>> If I were faced with it, I'd pay the Ł147.

>>
>> Anyone might hit your car, even when it's parked and you're nowhere near it.
>
> I never claim on insurance. It's cheaper to fix the damage yourself.

So, you hit someone in the prime of life and they end up paralysed from
the neck down. You can pay the millions of pounds it will cost to 'fix
the damage' can you?

The insurance you buy isn't just for repairing your car.

[RustyHinge]

What? I have around 50 years of no claims, most of it with 3rd party
only and I'm high risk?

To whom?

[JNugent]

On 21/06/2022 05:53 pm, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> He said it in his Subject: line.

But something incompatible with that in the body text.

[Martin Brown]

And you will have to pay that every time there is a claim against you.
It is an interesting question as to whether hitting a first car and as a
result totalling another parked car on the same street is one single
incident or two separate but related ones?

There have been several on our local fast junction where the initial
collision on the main road created a fast projectile vehicle that hit
one or more parked cars in a layby (the thing is in exactly the wrong
place). Is that scenario two claims or one and does it depend on which
of the insured vehicles subsequently hits them?
(assuming here that the one with £650 excess *is* at fault)

> Insurance companies have generally agreed between themselves that,
> rather than spend loads of money arguing the toss about who was actually
> at fault, often inconclusively, they will each bear their own client's
> costs, less any excess they have agreed to remain liable for.  That's
> called 'knock-for-knock' and it generally works pretty well to keep the
> overall cost of premiums down.
>
> Where a client objects to the potential loss of his no claims bonus,
> though, and it's clear that the other party was wholly at fault, they
> will sometime waive the loss of no claims bonus in order to retain your
> business.

But you have to be very persistent and/or solicitors letters before they
will budge from the knock for knock scenario even in something as clear
cut as hit from behind at speed whilst stationary in a traffic queue!

You can also insure "protect" your NCB which to me seems a bit odd...
(I suspect the people likely to do this are also the most risk averse)

> Where you have agreed an excess, your insurance company will knock that
> off any claim you make so, effectively, you are responsible for the
> first £650 of any damage you or your car sustains on any particular claim.

I have my excess at £200 which seemed to be the sweet spot to me.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 08:15:59 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 21/06/2022 16:28, Norman Wells wrote:
> > On 21/06/2022 13:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:

SNIP

> > Any claim by someone else will legally be against *you* personally, but
> > your insurance company has agreed with you that that they will pay
> > anything except the first £650 of any claim.
> And you will have to pay that every time there is a claim against you.
> It is an interesting question as to whether hitting a first car and as a
> result totalling another parked car on the same street is one single
> incident or two separate but related ones?

Consequential loss, bit complicated, but manageable.

SNIP

> But you have to be very persistent and/or solicitors letters before they
> will budge from the knock for knock scenario even in something as clear
> cut as hit from behind at speed whilst stationary in a traffic queue!

Indeed. I had one underwriters' syndicate issue an LBA after their driver had lost control, hit my stationary car pulled over on the other side of the road to let oncoming vehicles pass and admitted fault afterwards, I sued them and their side was so stupid they paid £100 less into court than the [main dealer] estimate, but by then I had had the repair done by a body shop for much less, so actually made a "profit", although the car now had repaired bodywork.

>
> You can also insure "protect" your NCB which to me seems a bit odd...
> (I suspect the people likely to do this are also the most risk averse)
> > Where you have agreed an excess, your insurance company will knock that
> > off any claim you make so, effectively, you are responsible for the
> > first £650 of any damage you or your car sustains on any particular claim.
> I have my excess at £200 which seemed to be the sweet spot to me.

Indeed - very low excess results in disproportionately high premiums, probably because the insurers assume you will claim for minor damage, whereas if you bend a bumper or crack a light with a £200 excess you probably won't bother.

It IS important however that if you do have a prang that is not your fault, then you report it anyway, since the other party can lie and or not fulfil promises to pay for your damage.

>
> --
> Regards,
> Martin Brown

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:28:40 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> On 21/06/2022 13:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:41:56 +0100, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:22:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a Ł650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>>>
>>> How "including"? Third party cover only pays for claims by other people.
>>
>> When I said "3rd party car insurance", I meant the 3rd party part of it. I.e. a claim by the guy I hit. I assumed excess was only on your own car's damage.
>>
>>>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have Ł650?
>>>
>>> If the driver at fault is not you then your damage claims will be settled
>>> fully and without any excess deductions by their insurer (or by the Motor
>>> Insurers' Bureau if they are uninsured or untraced) and the terms in your
>>> own policy will be irrelevant.
>>>
>>> But if you are "the guilty driver" (i.e. at the one at fault), then you will
>>> need to fund that excess for any claims by others in addition to all of the
>>> expenses for damage to your own vehicle and injuries to yourself.
>>
>> As I thought, I'm just surprised it's allowed, since the innocent driver could be out of pocket. Or do I owe my own insurance not them?
>
> Any claim by someone else will legally be against *you* personally, but
> your insurance company has agreed with you that that they will pay
> anything except the first £650 of any claim.

Say I refused to pay up when I crashed into you. What would you have to do to get your £650? I thought there was never an excess on 3rd party claims so innocent drivers didn't have to go through a legal battle to get their cash.

> Insurance companies have generally agreed between themselves that,
> rather than spend loads of money arguing the toss about who was actually
> at fault, often inconclusively, they will each bear their own client's
> costs, less any excess they have agreed to remain liable for. That's
> called 'knock-for-knock' and it generally works pretty well to keep the
> overall cost of premiums down.

But it means when I crash into you and cause both cars £1000 damage, that your premium goes up as much as mine does! Are you being punished for not avoiding me?

[Commander Kinsey]

I'd say its obviously one accident. If you slid on some ice and scraped along the side of 10 cars, I doubt that would be on your record as 10 previous accidents.

> There have been several on our local fast junction where the initial
> collision on the main road created a fast projectile vehicle that hit
> one or more parked cars in a layby (the thing is in exactly the wrong
> place). Is that scenario two claims or one and does it depend on which
> of the insured vehicles subsequently hits them?
> (assuming here that the one with £650 excess *is* at fault)

Who cares who hits who? The vehicle which caused the collisions is the insurance that should be claimed against. If I slam into the back of Mr Smith who then hits the back of you, why should Mr Smith's insurance receive a claim?

>> Insurance companies have generally agreed between themselves that,
>> rather than spend loads of money arguing the toss about who was actually
>> at fault, often inconclusively, they will each bear their own client's
>> costs, less any excess they have agreed to remain liable for. That's
>> called 'knock-for-knock' and it generally works pretty well to keep the
>> overall cost of premiums down.
>>
>> Where a client objects to the potential loss of his no claims bonus,
>> though, and it's clear that the other party was wholly at fault, they
>> will sometime waive the loss of no claims bonus in order to retain your
>> business.
>
> But you have to be very persistent and/or solicitors letters before they
> will budge from the knock for knock scenario even in something as clear
> cut as hit from behind at speed whilst stationary in a traffic queue!

That is not clear cut. I was almost reversed into by a woman in front of me who half pulled out of a junction, realised something was coming, then reversed back in. She stopped when I hooted. It seems she didn't know I was there either. So a "rear shunt" does not imply the vehicle at the back was moving.

> You can also insure "protect" your NCB which to me seems a bit odd...
> (I suspect the people likely to do this are also the most risk averse)

I do it, as for me it's only a tenner. Although it only half protects you, you're still subject to a higher premium for having previous accidents.

>> Where you have agreed an excess, your insurance company will knock that
>> off any claim you make so, effectively, you are responsible for the
>> first £650 of any damage you or your car sustains on any particular claim.
>
> I have my excess at £200 which seemed to be the sweet spot to me.

Since insurance companies make a profit, I find it best to insure as little as possible. Only what is legally required, or you couldn't possibly want to pay for if it should happen.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:52:07 +0100, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 08:15:59 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 21/06/2022 16:28, Norman Wells wrote:
>> > On 21/06/2022 13:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> SNIP
>> > Any claim by someone else will legally be against *you* personally, but
>> > your insurance company has agreed with you that that they will pay
>> > anything except the first £650 of any claim.

>> And you will have to pay that every time there is a claim against you..

>> It is an interesting question as to whether hitting a first car and as a
>> result totalling another parked car on the same street is one single
>> incident or two separate but related ones?
>
> Consequential loss, bit complicated, but manageable.
>
> SNIP
>
>> But you have to be very persistent and/or solicitors letters before they
>> will budge from the knock for knock scenario even in something as clear
>> cut as hit from behind at speed whilst stationary in a traffic queue!
>
> Indeed. I had one underwriters' syndicate issue an LBA after their driver had lost control, hit my stationary car pulled over on the other side of the road to let oncoming vehicles pass and admitted fault afterwards, I sued them and their side was so stupid they paid £100 less into court than the [main dealer] estimate, but by then I had had the repair done by a body shop for much less, so actually made a "profit", although the car now had repaired bodywork.

Do insurance companies still pay out a large sum then let you get it repaired yourself cheaper? I once got paid £700 to do a £70 repair. I should have thanked the woman personally, she was my colleague's wife's colleague leaving the work car park.

>> You can also insure "protect" your NCB which to me seems a bit odd...
>> (I suspect the people likely to do this are also the most risk averse)
>> > Where you have agreed an excess, your insurance company will knock that
>> > off any claim you make so, effectively, you are responsible for the
>> > first £650 of any damage you or your car sustains on any particular claim.

>> I have my excess at £200 which seemed to be the sweet spot to me..

>
> Indeed - very low excess results in disproportionately high premiums, probably because the insurers assume you will claim for minor damage, whereas if you bend a bumper or crack a light with a £200 excess you probably won't bother.
>
> It IS important however that if you do have a prang that is not your fault, then you report it anyway, since the other party can lie and or not fulfil promises to pay for your damage.

But then it's down as an accident you've had, which raises your premium. If neither party tells the insurance, it's not on record.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 19:36:11 +0100, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 15:45:51 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:41:56 +0100, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:

>> > On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:22:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam..com>

>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a £650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>> >
>> > How "including"? Third party cover only pays for claims by other people.
>>
>> When I said "3rd party car insurance", I meant the 3rd party part of it. I.e. a claim by the guy I hit. I assumed excess was only on your own car's damage.
>> >> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have £650?
>> >
>> > If the driver at fault is not you then your damage claims will be settled
>> > fully and without any excess deductions by their insurer (or by the Motor
>> > Insurers' Bureau if they are uninsured or untraced) and the terms in your
>> > own policy will be irrelevant.
>> >
>> > But if you are "the guilty driver" (i.e. at the one at fault), then you will
>> > need to fund that excess for any claims by others in addition to all of the
>> > expenses for damage to your own vehicle and injuries to yourself.
>>
>> As I thought, I'm just surprised it's allowed, since the innocent driver could be out of pocket. Or do I owe my own insurance not them?
>
> As above the insurer pays and recovers excess from the insured.
>
> I suppose this might even happen in a fully comp' policy if there were a claim from a third party, but no damage to your own vehicle.

Mine is fully comp and I was surprised when I wasn't allowed to put the excess higher than the value of my own car. That is surely irrelevant if the main damage is to another vehicle worth a lot more. Or do they want my car as a deposit?

[Commander Kinsey]

Why would I have to be drunk to have to pay the excess?

[Commander Kinsey]

I said "I never claim on insurance". What part of that is anything to do with someone else claiming on my insurance?

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 17:57:54 +0100, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:39:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com>

> I am confused by your Subject line. Is your cover only Third Party or
> Comprehensive?

Comprehensive, but I'm talking about the excess on damage to a third party.

> As to a successful third part claimant, they are not affected by your choice
> of excess. They will be made good by your underwriter (or by their own on a
> knock-for-knock basis) and your insurer will ask you to make good on your
> excess.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 17:53:07 +0100, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:53:57 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>

> He said it in his Subject: line.

My subject line was brief and omitted some words. Put "claims on" before "car".

[Max Demian]

So you didn't mean third party only insurance. People used to take out
that or "third party, fire and theft" insurance when the car wasn't
worth much, to save on the premium. The last time I tried that it wasn't
available. Perhaps there's no saving as people wanting it might have
bangers that they don't maintain properly, increasing the risk of a claim.

--
Max Demian

[RustyHinge]

You are obliged to disclose an accident involving an insured vehicle.

[RustyHinge]

On 22/06/2022 13:13, Commander Kinsey wrote:

>> (assuming here that the one with £650 excess*is* at fault)

> Who cares who hits who? The vehicle which caused the collisions is the insurance that should be claimed against. If I slam into the back of Mr Smith who then hits the back of you, why should Mr Smith's insurance receive a claim?

Unfortunately (perhaps) that's the way it works.

[Norman Wells]

On 22/06/2022 13:06, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:28:40 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> On 21/06/2022 13:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:41:56 +0100, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:22:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a Ł650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>>>>
>>>> How "including"? Third party cover only pays for claims by other people.
>>>
>>> When I said "3rd party car insurance", I meant the 3rd party part of it. I.e. a claim by the guy I hit. I assumed excess was only on your own car's damage.
>>>
>>>>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have Ł650?
>>>>
>>>> If the driver at fault is not you then your damage claims will be settled
>>>> fully and without any excess deductions by their insurer (or by the Motor
>>>> Insurers' Bureau if they are uninsured or untraced) and the terms in your
>>>> own policy will be irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> But if you are "the guilty driver" (i.e. at the one at fault), then you will
>>>> need to fund that excess for any claims by others in addition to all of the
>>>> expenses for damage to your own vehicle and injuries to yourself.
>>>
>>> As I thought, I'm just surprised it's allowed, since the innocent driver could be out of pocket. Or do I owe my own insurance not them?
>>
>> Any claim by someone else will legally be against *you* personally, but
>> your insurance company has agreed with you that that they will pay
>> anything except the first £650 of any claim.
>
> Say I refused to pay up when I crashed into you. What would you have to do to get your £650?

Actually, I'd be claiming off my insurance and will be receiving from
them the amount I claim less any excess *I* have agreed with them, so
what you've agreed as your excess on your policy is irrelevant. That
only affects what *you* might get back.

Ultimately, to recoup *my* excess, I would have to sue you for it,
probably quite simply through money claim online. If I won, which I
would expect to do on the facts, a court order would be made for you to
pay it to me. If you continued to refuse, you'd be in breach of a
county court order with all the consequences that entails.

> I thought there was never an excess on 3rd party claims so innocent drivers didn't have to go through a legal battle to get their cash.
>
>> Insurance companies have generally agreed between themselves that,
>> rather than spend loads of money arguing the toss about who was actually
>> at fault, often inconclusively, they will each bear their own client's
>> costs, less any excess they have agreed to remain liable for. That's
>> called 'knock-for-knock' and it generally works pretty well to keep the
>> overall cost of premiums down.
>
> But it means when I crash into you and cause both cars £1000 damage, that your premium goes up as much as mine does! Are you being punished for not avoiding me?

Indeed.

"knock-for-knock agreements between insurers have been criticised as
unfair on the party not responsible for an accident"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-for-knock_agreement

But any reputable insurance company should be prepared to waive any loss
of no claims bonus in an accident where responsibility is clearly the
other person's fault.

[Norman Wells]

They don't 'claim on your insurance' even though that is how it's often
colloquially put. Legally, they claim against you personally for the
negligence you have displayed in causing the accident. The insurance
contract you have is between you and your insurer, not between your
insurer and any third party you care to hit. So, you are at liberty to
say to your insurance company that you do not wish them to be involved
but that you'll deal with it yourself. And that's of course what
happens with many minor shunts.

If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
have caused personal injury.

[Commander Kinsey]

I (about 2/3rds of the time) take comprehensive because it's cheaper (!). The insurance company knows how old your car is, and is quite happy when phoning them to let you choose the cheaper comprehensive. They can't be that stupid....

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:16:52 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> On 22/06/2022 13:06, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:28:40 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/06/2022 13:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:41:56 +0100, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:22:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam..com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a Ł650 excess on everything, including claims by other people..

>>>>>
>>>>> How "including"? Third party cover only pays for claims by other people.
>>>>
>>>> When I said "3rd party car insurance", I meant the 3rd party part of it. I.e. a claim by the guy I hit. I assumed excess was only on your own car's damage.
>>>>
>>>>>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have Ł650?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the driver at fault is not you then your damage claims will be settled
>>>>> fully and without any excess deductions by their insurer (or by the Motor
>>>>> Insurers' Bureau if they are uninsured or untraced) and the terms in your
>>>>> own policy will be irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if you are "the guilty driver" (i.e. at the one at fault), then you will
>>>>> need to fund that excess for any claims by others in addition to all of the
>>>>> expenses for damage to your own vehicle and injuries to yourself.
>>>>
>>>> As I thought, I'm just surprised it's allowed, since the innocent driver could be out of pocket. Or do I owe my own insurance not them?
>>>
>>> Any claim by someone else will legally be against *you* personally, but
>>> your insurance company has agreed with you that that they will pay
>>> anything except the first £650 of any claim.
>>
>> Say I refused to pay up when I crashed into you. What would you have to do to get your £650?
>
> Actually, I'd be claiming off my insurance and will be receiving from
> them the amount I claim less any excess *I* have agreed with them, so
> what you've agreed as your excess on your policy is irrelevant. That
> only affects what *you* might get back.
>
> Ultimately, to recoup *my* excess, I would have to sue you for it,
> probably quite simply through money claim online. If I won, which I
> would expect to do on the facts, a court order would be made for you to
> pay it to me. If you continued to refuse, you'd be in breach of a
> county court order with all the consequences that entails.

That contradicts what others have said in here that my insurance pays my excess to you, and I owe it to them.

>> I thought there was never an excess on 3rd party claims so innocent drivers didn't have to go through a legal battle to get their cash.
>>
>>> Insurance companies have generally agreed between themselves that,
>>> rather than spend loads of money arguing the toss about who was actually
>>> at fault, often inconclusively, they will each bear their own client's
>>> costs, less any excess they have agreed to remain liable for. That's
>>> called 'knock-for-knock' and it generally works pretty well to keep the
>>> overall cost of premiums down.
>>
>> But it means when I crash into you and cause both cars £1000 damage, that your premium goes up as much as mine does! Are you being punished for not avoiding me?
>
> Indeed.
>
> "knock-for-knock agreements between insurers have been criticised as
> unfair on the party not responsible for an accident"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-for-knock_agreement
>
> But any reputable insurance company should be prepared to waive any loss
> of no claims bonus in an accident where responsibility is clearly the
> other person's fault.

So you're saying the agreement is cancelled by you just asking them?

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:58:09 +0100, RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22/06/2022 13:16, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:52:07 +0100, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> It IS important however that if you do have a prang that is not your fault, then you report it anyway, since the other party can lie and or not fulfil promises to pay for your damage.
>>
>> But then it's down as an accident you've had, which raises your premium. If neither party tells the insurance, it's not on record.
>
> You are obliged to disclose an accident involving an insured vehicle.

Never heard of that before. So I bump into you in a car park and hand you £50 for a little dent, and we've both broken the law? I guess I've broken the law many times then, and so have people I've hit or have hit me. Little bumps, cash.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 15:39:11 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:28:40 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
> > On 21/06/2022 13:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:41:56 +0100, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:22:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a Ł650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
> >>>
> >>> How "including"? Third party cover only pays for claims by other people.
> >>
> >> When I said "3rd party car insurance", I meant the 3rd party part of it. I.e. a claim by the guy I hit. I assumed excess was only on your own car's damage.
> >>
> >>>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have Ł650?
> >>>
> >>> If the driver at fault is not you then your damage claims will be settled
> >>> fully and without any excess deductions by their insurer (or by the Motor
> >>> Insurers' Bureau if they are uninsured or untraced) and the terms in your
> >>> own policy will be irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>> But if you are "the guilty driver" (i.e. at the one at fault), then you will
> >>> need to fund that excess for any claims by others in addition to all of the
> >>> expenses for damage to your own vehicle and injuries to yourself.
> >>
> >> As I thought, I'm just surprised it's allowed, since the innocent driver could be out of pocket. Or do I owe my own insurance not them?
> >
> > Any claim by someone else will legally be against *you* personally, but
> > your insurance company has agreed with you that that they will pay
> > anything except the first £650 of any claim.
> Say I refused to pay up when I crashed into you. What would you have to do to get your £650? I thought there was never an excess on 3rd party claims so innocent drivers didn't have to go through a legal battle to get their cash.

Sue your insurer, if you were. If not sue you unless a man of straw. More likely they will just pay up. In my most recent shunt (white van drove into the rear of my stationary car) his insurers took my car to be repaired, fixed it and brought it back. I declined their offer of a hire car as I did not need it. I told my insurer [of course] but did not claim.

> > Insurance companies have generally agreed between themselves that,
> > rather than spend loads of money arguing the toss about who was actually
> > at fault, often inconclusively, they will each bear their own client's
> > costs, less any excess they have agreed to remain liable for. That's
> > called 'knock-for-knock' and it generally works pretty well to keep the
> > overall cost of premiums down.
> But it means when I crash into you and cause both cars £1000 damage, that your premium goes up as much as mine does! Are you being punished for not avoiding me?

If you recover your excess from the other party it should not affect your NCD.

[notya...@gmail.com]

True, but you might be in breach of your contract with your insurer (minor bumps sometimes result in spurious PI claims) and you have admitted liability.

Later when you next propose, if you do not disclose "incidents" as obliged to do so "in the utmost good faith"" then you insurer can void the contract and decline claims.

[RustyHinge]

You seem remarkabl careless: just hope your insurance company doesn't
see your posts here - they have a way of spreading the word...

[Fredxx]

More's the point, both sides will simply cut you out of any negotiations
even if you tell them you don't want them involved. Insurance companies
are ultimately liable through the RTA act.

[Commander Kinsey]

Yet someone else in here says I have to notify them of every accident. So which is it?

And what is the optional "legal cover" I never take out?

> If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
> involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
> expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
> have caused personal injury.

Who decided on the value of a human life? There must be a figure somewhere.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1n6e2...@ryzen.home>, at 19:02:31 on Wed, 22 Jun
2022, Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> remarked:

>> If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
>> involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
>> expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
>> have caused personal injury.
>
>Who decided on the value of a human life? There must be a figure somewhere.

The civil courts who decide such claims. Apparently it costs the NHS up
to 20 million when they mess up a birthing (lifetime inflation-linked
care for the victim).

There's a different figure for the amount you can spend on better safety
measures to save one life, at around five million.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1n6c8...@ryzen.home>, at 18:22:53 on Wed, 22 Jun

2022, Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> remarked:

>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:58:09 +0100, RustyHinge
><rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 22/06/2022 13:16, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:52:07 +0100, notya...@gmail.com
>>><notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> It IS important however that if you do have a prang that is not
>>>>your fault, then you report it anyway, since the other party can lie
>>>>and or not fulfil promises to pay for your damage.
>>>
>>> But then it's down as an accident you've had, which raises your
>>>premium. If neither party tells the insurance, it's not on record.
>>
>> You are obliged to disclose an accident involving an insured vehicle.
>
>Never heard of that before.

It's part of your contract with the insurer.

>So I bump into you in a car park and hand you £50 for a little dent,
>and we've both broken the law? I guess I've broken the law many times
>then, and so have people I've hit or have hit me. Little bumps, cash.

--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

On 22 Jun 2022 at 21:11:56 BST, "notya...@gmail.com"

The "utmost good faith" obligation for (at least some) consumer insurance
agreements was cancelled by statute some years ago. Now the insurance company
can only decline cover if you answer an actual question in the insurance
proposal incorrectly or breach an explicit term in the contract, not merely
because you should have known something you didn't mention was relevant to
them. Not that it would make any difference in this case because every motor
insurance policy I have ever seen requires you to tell them about every event
that could result in a claim whether you actually make a claim or not.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <jhipa7...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:15:51 on Thu, 23
Jun 2022, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

FSVO "event", which probably doesn't include people pulling out in front
of you so you have to emergency brake.
--
Roland Perry

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 23:53:21 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:31:13 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>

SNIP

> Yet someone else in here says I have to notify them of every accident. So which is it?

I imagine if it involves anyone else or their property. I don't suppose you would need to tell them you scraped your own gate post.

>
> And what is the optional "legal cover" I never take out?

Third party only. It used not to cover passengers, but now does. Very rare, third party fire and theft is more common.

> > If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
> > involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
> > expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
> > have caused personal injury.
> Who decided on the value of a human life? There must be a figure somewhere.

Judges normally assess damages for personal injury where the parties (injured and insured usually) cannot agree. In my own case many years ago it was mostly loss of income as my injuries prevented me from working.

[Roger Hayter]

On 23 Jun 2022 at 10:48:02 BST, "notya...@gmail.com"

<notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 23:53:21 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:31:13 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
> SNIP
>
>> Yet someone else in here says I have to notify them of every accident. So
>> which is it?
>
> I imagine if it involves anyone else or their property. I don't suppose you
> would need to tell them you scraped your own gate post.

You could claim for it. As my policy is written, I would be obliged to tell
them. In practice they won't find out so perhaps it is moot, but I should say
one does have that obligation.

>
>>
>> And what is the optional "legal cover" I never take out?
>
> Third party only. It used not to cover passengers, but now does. Very rare,
> third party fire and theft is more common.
>
>>> If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
>>> involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
>>> expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
>>> have caused personal injury.
>> Who decided on the value of a human life? There must be a figure somewhere.
>
> Judges normally assess damages for personal injury where the parties (injured
> and insured usually) cannot agree. In my own case many years ago it was mostly
> loss of income as my injuries prevented me from working.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Could you make an insurance claim for that? Perhaps so if the tyres are
damaged? Otherwise you are probably right.


--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <jhit56...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:21:26 on Thu, 23

But it "could have resulted in a claim" if my reactions, and the brakes,
hadn't worked so well.
--
Roland Perry

[Martin Brown]

It could also result in damage to items inside the vehicle that are
loose in the cabin and don't take kindly to bouncing around. I damaged a
digital camera that way once avoiding a collision with a deer.

Emergency stop from 60mph. I even got it on camera but the g-forces were
sufficient to send the dashcam pointing skywards so that you only see
the whole animal up to the point where I react and brake hard. Its ears
remain visible sauntering along the bottom of the frame.

At the time it happened I'd have said it was all over in 6s. When I
reviewed the video there were just 50 frames with the deer on it (~2s).

I didn't bother to claim on my insurance since the camera's book value
was roughly the same as the excess on my policy.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Norman Wells]

Both. You have a duty of good faith towards your insurance company who
are entitled to know the extent of the risk they are taking on. So, you
need to report any significant accident you have, even if you decide to
meet the cost yourself. What is 'significant'? Dunno. You and the
insurance company are likely to have different views on that.

> And what is the optional "legal cover" I never take out?

That's to cover your legal costs in the event that you are sued by
another road user for something you think you are not responsible for.

>> If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
>> involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
>> expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
>> have caused personal injury.
>
> Who decided on the value of a human life?

Actuaries. It's their job.

> There must be a figure somewhere.

Not a single figure, as it depends on things like the age, potential
earning capacity etc of the injured party.

[Fredxx]

I think I would add their insurance company as co-defendant, but hey.

[Martin Brown]

On 22/06/2022 19:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:31:13 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> On 22/06/2022 13:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:04:19 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/06/2022 13:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:

>>>>> I never claim on insurance. It's cheaper to fix the damage yourself.
>>>>
>>>> So, you hit someone in the prime of life and they end up paralysed from
>>>> the neck down. You can pay the millions of pounds it will cost to 'fix
>>>> the damage' can you?
>>>>
>>>> The insurance you buy isn't just for repairing your car.
>>>
>>> I said "I never claim on insurance". What part of that is anything to do with someone else claiming on my insurance?
>>
>> They don't 'claim on your insurance' even though that is how it's often
>> colloquially put. Legally, they claim against you personally for the
>> negligence you have displayed in causing the accident. The insurance
>> contract you have is between you and your insurer, not between your
>> insurer and any third party you care to hit. So, you are at liberty to
>> say to your insurance company that you do not wish them to be involved
>> but that you'll deal with it yourself. And that's of course what
>> happens with many minor shunts.
>
> Yet someone else in here says I have to notify them of every accident. So which is it?

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/if-youre-in-an-accident

You are supposed to notify them if you are in a collision and obtain the
details of anyone that you have collided with. ISTR it is an offence not
to show your insurance certificate to the other party if asked to do so
after an RTA (even if you intend to settle a small claim privately).

First thing I used to do after a collision was write down the
registration of the other vehicle. I have never had someone drive of on
me (some had lost all their vital fluids) but someone I knew had been
stung that way and therefore had no way to obtain redress.

> And what is the optional "legal cover" I never take out?

It provides for easily taking legal action to obtain your excess back
from some clueless muppet that has run into you and where you were not
at fault. Basically it is a more convenient way of avoiding being done
knock for knock and having your premiums rise when you were not at
fault. You can DIY but the right form of words and in a solicitors
letter seems to speed things along somewhat. YMMV

>> If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
>> involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
>> expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
>> have caused personal injury.
>
> Who decided on the value of a human life? There must be a figure somewhere.

There was a ballpark heuristic from way back of £1M (or was it $1M).

This caused one US car company to monetise lives lost by a badly
designed fuel tank against cost of proper recall and repair. It did not
go well for them. On paper their approach was bean counter optimal but
the court didn't see it that way and neither did the relatives of those
killed.

Punitive damages awarded against them for design flaws one guy got $125M
in a claim and he wasn't killed by it (later reduced to $3.5M).
More details here:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a6700/top-automotive-engineering-failures-ford-pinto-fuel-tanks/

Today a working number of £10M is probably about right as a single
number (could be a lot more if young or less if elderly and the level of
damage done - remaining lifespan is a big part in the cost of support).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Roger Hayter]

No. Now it is contractural duty (though it is always in the contract). The
duty of good faith has been abolished for consumer insurance.

>> And what is the optional "legal cover" I never take out?
>
> That's to cover your legal costs in the event that you are sued by
> another road user for something you think you are not responsible for.

Normally the insurers cover these cots, as they are liable. A more common
value of legal cover is you need to sue another at fault party for your
uninsured losses, and thus reclaim your NCB>

>
>>> If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
>>> involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
>>> expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
>>> have caused personal injury.
>>
>> Who decided on the value of a human life?
>
> Actuaries. It's their job.

Judges, perhaps but not usually with some acturial evidence. Usually working
life for earnings is estimated by "common sense". And likely survival of the
badly injured and dependent uses expert evidence of doctors.

>
>> There must be a figure somewhere.
>
> Not a single figure, as it depends on things like the age, potential
> earning capacity etc of the injured party.

The valuation of a non-earning life or a child's life is set remarkably low by
British courts.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

You could have been struck by lightning, but there is generally no need to
tell anyone that.

--
Roger Hayter

[Martin Brown]

A lightning strike to the body shell of a modern carbon fibre and
plastic supercar could do a hell of a lot of expensive damage to it.

Old style metal skinned vehicles you just get minor scorching along peak
current tracks. Basically just cosmetic damage at entry and exit wounds.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 23 June 2022 at 11:19:31 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2022 at 10:48:02 BST, "notya...@gmail.com"
> <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 23:53:21 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:31:13 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> >>
> > SNIP
> >
> >> Yet someone else in here says I have to notify them of every accident. So
> >> which is it?
> >
> > I imagine if it involves anyone else or their property. I don't suppose you
> > would need to tell them you scraped your own gate post.
> You could claim for it. As my policy is written, I would be obliged to tell
> them. In practice they won't find out so perhaps it is moot, but I should say
> one does have that obligation.

You could, but you know you are not going to so don't need to tell them, OTOH scrape a neighbour's gate post and they could and you should notify them.

BTW beware the other party not notifying.

2009 I was hit from behind when stationary in traffic by a moped. I though the damage slight and the rider said his family would sort out any damage. Never the less I notified my insurer immediately. As it turned out [three weeks later] the whole bumper had been pushed in several centimeters and new bumper mountings were needed. Funnily enough the lad did not return calls, but my insurer told me he was insured and who with. The moped's insurer were not happy and took a while to accept liability because their insured had not notified them and they suspected fraud.

Sorted out in the end, without me paying my excess (£600 then, pretty much the same as the damage).

> Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <jhjcq0...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:48:32 on Thu, 23

Thus "every event that could result in a claim" is a best an over
simplification.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

His insurance company has no contract with you. Nor has it been
negligent. You therefore have no claim against it. It insures him, not
you.

[Norman Wells]

On 23/06/2022 15:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2022 at 08:36:00 BST, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 22/06/2022 19:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
happens with many minor shunts.

>>> Yet someone else in here says I have to notify them of every accident. So
>>> which is it?
>>
>> Both. You have a duty of good faith towards your insurance company who
>> are entitled to know the extent of the risk they are taking on. So, you
>> need to report any significant accident you have, even if you decide to
>> meet the cost yourself. What is 'significant'? Dunno. You and the
>> insurance company are likely to have different views on that.
>>
>
> No. Now it is contractural duty (though it is always in the contract). The
> duty of good faith has been abolished for consumer insurance.

Contractual duty is a duty of good faith, and applies to any contract
including insurance contracts, as it has for aeons.

What was abolished in the 2015 Act was the duty of *utmost* good faith
which placed an oppressive burden on the insured who could have been
disadvantaged by denial of claim if he had not disclosed something
'material' to the insurer, even though that may have had no bearing on
the actual incident.

There is still a good faith disclosure duty on the insured to give the
insurer 'a fair presentation of the risk'.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 20:16:27 +0100, RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22/06/2022 18:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:58:09 +0100, RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/06/2022 13:16, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:52:07 +0100, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It IS important however that if you do have a prang that is not your fault, then you report it anyway, since the other party can lie and or not fulfil promises to pay for your damage.
>>>>
>>>> But then it's down as an accident you've had, which raises your premium. If neither party tells the insurance, it's not on record.
>>>

>>> You are obliged to disclose an accident involving an insured vehicle..

>>
>> Never heard of that before. So I bump into you in a car park and hand you £50 for a little dent, and we've both broken the law? I guess I've broken the law many times then, and so have people I've hit or have hit me. Little bumps, cash.
>
> You seem remarkabl careless: just hope your insurance company doesn't
> see your posts here - they have a way of spreading the word...

I can't think of anyone who involves insurance over a little dent costing £50 or a touch of paint. They really don't need to know your kid bashed your door against another car.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 21:07:00 +0100, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 15:39:11 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:28:40 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>> > On 21/06/2022 13:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:41:56 +0100, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:22:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a Ł650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>> >>>
>> >>> How "including"? Third party cover only pays for claims by other people.
>> >>
>> >> When I said "3rd party car insurance", I meant the 3rd party part of it. I.e. a claim by the guy I hit. I assumed excess was only on your own car's damage.
>> >>
>> >>>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have Ł650?
>> >>>
>> >>> If the driver at fault is not you then your damage claims will be settled
>> >>> fully and without any excess deductions by their insurer (or by the Motor
>> >>> Insurers' Bureau if they are uninsured or untraced) and the terms in your
>> >>> own policy will be irrelevant.
>> >>>
>> >>> But if you are "the guilty driver" (i.e. at the one at fault), then you will
>> >>> need to fund that excess for any claims by others in addition to all of the
>> >>> expenses for damage to your own vehicle and injuries to yourself.
>> >>
>> >> As I thought, I'm just surprised it's allowed, since the innocent driver could be out of pocket. Or do I owe my own insurance not them?
>> >
>> > Any claim by someone else will legally be against *you* personally, but
>> > your insurance company has agreed with you that that they will pay
>> > anything except the first £650 of any claim.
>> Say I refused to pay up when I crashed into you. What would you have to do to get your £650? I thought there was never an excess on 3rd party claims so innocent drivers didn't have to go through a legal battle to get their cash.
>
> Sue your insurer, if you were. If not sue you unless a man of straw. More likely they will just pay up. In my most recent shunt (white van drove into the rear of my stationary car) his insurers took my car to be repaired, fixed it and brought it back. I declined their offer of a hire car as I did not need it. I told my insurer [of course] but did not claim.

Why tell your insurer if it's already being dealt with?

>> > Insurance companies have generally agreed between themselves that,
>> > rather than spend loads of money arguing the toss about who was actually
>> > at fault, often inconclusively, they will each bear their own client's
>> > costs, less any excess they have agreed to remain liable for. That's
>> > called 'knock-for-knock' and it generally works pretty well to keep the
>> > overall cost of premiums down.
>> But it means when I crash into you and cause both cars £1000 damage, that your premium goes up as much as mine does! Are you being punished for not avoiding me?
>
> If you recover your excess from the other party it should not affect your NCD.

Not what Which? says. Accidents increase on average the premium of the driver to blame by £130 a year and the not-to-blame driver by £110.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 07:59:31 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <op.1n6c8...@ryzen.home>, at 18:22:53 on Wed, 22 Jun
> 2022, Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> remarked:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:58:09 +0100, RustyHinge
>> <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/06/2022 13:16, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:52:07 +0100, notya...@gmail.com
>>>> <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It IS important however that if you do have a prang that is not
>>>>> your fault, then you report it anyway, since the other party can lie
>>>>> and or not fulfil promises to pay for your damage.
>>>>
>>>> But then it's down as an accident you've had, which raises your
>>>> premium. If neither party tells the insurance, it's not on record.
>>>
>>> You are obliged to disclose an accident involving an insured vehicle.
>>
>> Never heard of that before.
>
> It's part of your contract with the insurer.

I don't read Greek, so I never look at those things. I prefer common sense. If I haven't cost my insurer money, they don't need to know.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 08:36:00 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> On 22/06/2022 19:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:31:13 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/06/2022 13:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:04:19 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/06/2022 13:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:

>> Yet someone else in here says I have to notify them of every accident.. So which is it?

>
> Both. You have a duty of good faith towards your insurance company who
> are entitled to know the extent of the risk they are taking on. So, you
> need to report any significant accident you have, even if you decide to
> meet the cost yourself. What is 'significant'? Dunno. You and the
> insurance company are likely to have different views on that.

If it was significant it would have been cheaper for me to claim anyway. So anything I don't claim for is insignificant.

>> And what is the optional "legal cover" I never take out?
>
> That's to cover your legal costs in the event that you are sued by
> another road user for something you think you are not responsible for.

I would have thought that was part of 3rd party insurance. Say I ran over a pedestrian, can they not claim off my insurance in the same way you could claim for your dented car? So why would I contest it?

>>> If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
>>> involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
>>> expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
>>> have caused personal injury.
>>
>> Who decided on the value of a human life?
>
> Actuaries. It's their job.
>
>> There must be a figure somewhere.
>
> Not a single figure, as it depends on things like the age, potential
> earning capacity etc of the injured party.

It's a matter of opinion though. For example, would you increase the value of a person as they get older or decrease it? You could look at it two ways, killing a 1 year old has wasted 1 year of their life they had spent trying to grow up. Or killing a 90 year old only deprived them of 1 year.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 10:48:02 +0100, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 23:53:21 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:31:13 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
> SNIP
>
>> Yet someone else in here says I have to notify them of every accident. So which is it?
>
> I imagine if it involves anyone else or their property. I don't suppose you would need to tell them you scraped your own gate post.

But neither of those increases my risk of being a bad driver any more than the other.

>> And what is the optional "legal cover" I never take out?
>
> Third party only. It used not to cover passengers, but now does. Very rare, third party fire and theft is more common.

No, I was offered it on comprehensive.

>> > If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
>> > involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
>> > expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
>> > have caused personal injury.
>> Who decided on the value of a human life? There must be a figure somewhere.
>
> Judges normally assess damages for personal injury where the parties (injured and insured usually) cannot agree. In my own case many years ago it was mostly loss of income as my injuries prevented me from working.

I meant if you died. Would they assess how much money you could have earned and give that to your wife? Or presumably you're worth more than that to her and there should be some compensation other than just the loss of earnings.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 11:19:24 +0100, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:

> On 23 Jun 2022 at 10:48:02 BST, "notya...@gmail.com"
> <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 23:53:21 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:31:13 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>> SNIP
>>
>>> Yet someone else in here says I have to notify them of every accident. So
>>> which is it?
>>
>> I imagine if it involves anyone else or their property. I don't suppose you
>> would need to tell them you scraped your own gate post.
>
> You could claim for it. As my policy is written, I would be obliged to tell
> them. In practice they won't find out so perhaps it is moot, but I should say
> one does have that obligation.

How far would you go? What if you bumped your car door into something on your property and chipped the paint a bit?

[Commander Kinsey]

Why the discrepancy? And what do you mean by "mess up"? Was the mother harmed or the baby killed?

[Commander Kinsey]

Never go from driving a car with ABS to one without. That resulted in a big dent in the back of someone's Ford Escort.

[Commander Kinsey]

>> that could result in a claim whether you actually make a claim or not..

>
> FSVO "event", which probably doesn't include people pulling out in front
> of you so you have to emergency brake.

You don't HAVE to. You could ram into them then make a claim. But with the modern idea of both the premiums going up, that's not a good idea. Maybe that's why they did it? I take it Russia doesn't have the same idea, since there are many Youtube videos of "brake testing" where someone pulls in front of a vehicle like a lorry incapable of such hard braking.

[Commander Kinsey]

Shows you how much I read fineprint, I always assumed when they said "have you had an accident in the last 5 years" they meant "that was your fault". They never told me off. Just because a dangerous driver happens to hit me doesn't make me a higher risk!

[Commander Kinsey]

>> another road user for something you think you are not responsible for..

>
> Normally the insurers cover these cots, as they are liable. A more common
> value of legal cover is you need to sue another at fault party for your
> uninsured losses, and thus reclaim your NCB>

If your insurance company has deemed you to be not at fault, don't you get that from the other party's insurance anyway?

>>>> If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
>>>> involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
>>>> expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
>>>> have caused personal injury.
>>>
>>> Who decided on the value of a human life?
>>
>> Actuaries. It's their job.
>
> Judges, perhaps but not usually with some acturial evidence. Usually working
> life for earnings is estimated by "common sense". And likely survival of the
> badly injured and dependent uses expert evidence of doctors.

Surely someone is worth more than their possible earnings?

>>> There must be a figure somewhere.
>>
>> Not a single figure, as it depends on things like the age, potential
>> earning capacity etc of the injured party.
>
> The valuation of a non-earning life or a child's life is set remarkably low by
> British courts.

How low?

And won't that child eventually earn?

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:29:58 +0100, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 23 June 2022 at 11:19:31 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 23 Jun 2022 at 10:48:02 BST, "notya...@gmail.com"
>> <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 23:53:21 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:31:13 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> >>
>> > SNIP
>> >
>> >> Yet someone else in here says I have to notify them of every accident. So
>> >> which is it?
>> >
>> > I imagine if it involves anyone else or their property. I don't suppose you
>> > would need to tell them you scraped your own gate post.
>> You could claim for it. As my policy is written, I would be obliged to tell
>> them. In practice they won't find out so perhaps it is moot, but I should say
>> one does have that obligation.
>
> You could, but you know you are not going to so don't need to tell them, OTOH scrape a neighbour's gate post and they could and you should notify them.
>
> BTW beware the other party not notifying.
>

> 2009 I was hit from behind when stationary in traffic by a moped. I though the damage slight and the rider said his family would sort out any damage. Never the less I notified my insurer immediately. As it turned out [three weeks later] the whole bumper had been pushed in several centimeters and new bumper mountings were needed. Funnily enough the lad did not return calls, but my insurer told me he was insured and who with.. The moped's insurer were not happy and took a while to accept liability because their insured had not notified them and they suspected fraud.

>
> Sorted out in the end, without me paying my excess (£600 then, pretty much the same as the damage).

That's a pretty weak bumper if a little moped can damage it.

Why don't we have rubber bumpers?

[Commander Kinsey]

You might need to inform your life insurance if you regularly play golf in storms.

[The Todal]

On 22/06/2022 17:31, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 22/06/2022 13:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:

It used to be the case that you, as the victim of a negligent driver,
could not sue the driver's insurance company and had to sue the driver
(albeit that the insurance company was then obliged to indemnify the
driver).

However for some years the law has been changed and you actually can sue
the insurance company, not that it should make much difference in the
vast majority of cases.

>
> If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
> involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
> expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
> have caused personal injury.

And if you damage someone else's car and hand them fifty quid and assume
that it's all settled, they still have the right to sue you for the true
cost of repair and for loss of use while the vehicle was being repaired,
and for a whiplash injury that they now realise can be attributed to the
minor prang.

[The Todal]

Well, there actually is a figure.

If you kill someone through negligence, they die instantly and they
never financially supported anyone (eg the deceased was a child or young
person) the figure payable is "bereavement award" of 15,100 pounds.
Payable to spouse, civil partner or parent.

Plus funeral expenses.

If they suffered pain prior to death there will be an award for that
pain and suffering. If they did have dependants, the value of that
financial dependancy has to be calculated.

In other words, if you're a midwife then it's far, far cheaper to
accidentally kill a baby than to accidentally give it brain damage.

[The Todal]

Babies that are brain-damaged due to neligent hospital deliveries cost
the NHS many millions for the cost of future care.

Unfortunately midwives and doctors continue to cause these injuries -
but there is often a costly argument about whether or not there was
negligence and whether the decisions made were in accordance with a
respectable body of medical opinion.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 20:37:22 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:59:53 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>

>> Just because a dangerous driver happens to hit me doesn't make me a higher risk!
>

>Actuaries have a different opinion. In general people involved in
>collisions, regardless of fault, are at increased risk of future collisions.
>It's a statistics thing. Maybe the factors are where they tend to drive or
>when they tend to drive or how they tend to drive, but regardless of why -
>and even when no-one can figure out why - analyses of accident statistics
>point to that increase in risk and the need to charge a higher premium.

Indeed. It's well known in the industry that there are some people who never
have an accident that's adjudged to be their fault, and yet, somehow, have a lot
of accidents.

A lot of that is people who insist on asserting their right of way. Obviously,
if you have right of way and another car doesn't, and it hits you, it's their
fault, from a legal and insurance perspective. But if you hadn't been so
assertive about your right of way, and allowed them to get away with being in
the wrong, then the collision wouldn't have happened.

Equally, lack of observation and anticipation can turn other people's errors
into accidents. If you're pootling along within the speed limit on a clear day,
and someone pulls out of a side road right in front of you, then legally it's
their fault, not yours, when you t-bone them. But an experienced and observant
driver will sometimes feel their spidey sense tingling when they see a car at a
side road, and they just know that something isn't right. So they back off a bit
and watch more closely, so that if their intuition proves correct then they can
avoid being the victim of someone else's error. But not everyone has that
experience or level of focus.

In maritime and aviation law, this requirement to make allowances for other
people's mistakes is baked into the system. If you could have avoided a
collision but didn't, then, even if the other person is the one breaking the
rules, not you, you are considered partly to blame. There's no such legal
requirement on the roads. But the statistics reveal those who don't follow the
principle, and the insurers follow the statistics.

Mark

[The Todal]

On 21/06/2022 13:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:41:56 +0100, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>

>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:22:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't know this was allowed, but I've just taken out insurance with a Ł650 excess on everything, including claims by other people.
>>
>> How "including"? Third party cover only pays for claims by other people.
>
> When I said "3rd party car insurance", I meant the 3rd party part of it. I.e. a claim by the guy I hit. I assumed excess was only on your own car's damage.
>
>>> So how would that work if the guilty driver didn't have Ł650?
>>
>> If the driver at fault is not you then your damage claims will be settled
>> fully and without any excess deductions by their insurer (or by the Motor
>> Insurers' Bureau if they are uninsured or untraced) and the terms in your
>> own policy will be irrelevant.
>>
>> But if you are "the guilty driver" (i.e. at the one at fault), then you will
>> need to fund that excess for any claims by others in addition to all of the
>> expenses for damage to your own vehicle and injuries to yourself.
>
> As I thought, I'm just surprised it's allowed, since the innocent driver could be out of pocket. Or do I owe my own insurance not them?

Your insurers will have to compensate the claimant in full (assuming
your negligence is proved) and any excess will be paid by you to the
insurers.

If you breach an important policy term, likewise your insurers will have
to compensate the claimant in full and may then sue you for
reimbursement of their entire outlay.

[The Todal]

On 22/06/2022 18:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:58:09 +0100, RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 22/06/2022 13:16, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:52:07 +0100, notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> It IS important however that if you do have a prang that is not your fault, then you report it anyway, since the other party can lie and or not fulfil promises to pay for your damage.
>>>
>>> But then it's down as an accident you've had, which raises your premium. If neither party tells the insurance, it's not on record.
>>
>> You are obliged to disclose an accident involving an insured vehicle.
>

> Never heard of that before. So I bump into you in a car park and hand you Ł50 for a little dent, and we've both broken the law? I guess I've broken the law many times then, and so have people I've hit or have hit me. Little bumps, cash.

It's not a question of "broken the law". It's a breach of your contract
with your insurers which might conceivably result in them repudiating cover.

[Roger Hayter]

On 23 Jun 2022 at 16:04:28 BST, "Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
wrote:

But going outside and risking lightning causes no damage at all, just like
braking hard and avoiding an accident.


--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

All right, pedanticly, every event resulting in a loss to any party covered by
the insurance, that you could choose to make a claim in respect of, no matter
how small.


--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Actuarially, perhaps it does. It may mean that through no fault of your own
you habitually drive in higher risk situations.


--

Roger Hayter

[Norman Wells]

On 23/06/2022 14:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 08:36:00 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 22/06/2022 19:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:

>>> I said "I never claim on insurance". What part of that is anything
>>> to do with someone else claiming on my insurance?

>>> Yet someone else in here says I have to notify them of every accident.. So which is it?

>> Both. You have a duty of good faith towards your insurance company who
>> are entitled to know the extent of the risk they are taking on. So, you
>> need to report any significant accident you have, even if you decide to
>> meet the cost yourself. What is 'significant'? Dunno. You and the
>> insurance company are likely to have different views on that.
>
> If it was significant it would have been cheaper for me to claim anyway. So anything I don't claim for is insignificant.

You said 'I never claim on insurance'. I must have been mistaken when I
took that to mean you never claim on insurance.

>>> And what is the optional "legal cover" I never take out?
>>
>> That's to cover your legal costs in the event that you are sued by
>> another road user for something you think you are not responsible for.
>
> I would have thought that was part of 3rd party insurance.

Well, it isn't.

> Say I ran over a pedestrian, can they not claim off my insurance in the same way you could claim for your dented car? So why would I contest it?

They have no contractual relationship with your insurance company, so
legally they claim off you personally for your negligence. You insure
yourself, not them.

If you have no insurance at all, you are in principle liable for the
lot. If you have insurance, you pass your liability to your insurance
company under the terms of the contract you have with them. If you have
agreed a massive excess, you remain personally liable for that amount
with the insurance company picking up the tab for the rest.

>>>> If you cause a more major accident, however, you will certainly want to
>>>> involve your own insurance company so that you're not saddled with
>>>> expenses running into several thousand pounds or even millions if you
>>>> have caused personal injury.
>>>
>>> Who decided on the value of a human life?
>>
>> Actuaries. It's their job.
>>
>>> There must be a figure somewhere.
>>
>> Not a single figure, as it depends on things like the age, potential
>> earning capacity etc of the injured party.
>
> It's a matter of opinion though. For example, would you increase the value of a person as they get older or decrease it? You could look at it two ways, killing a 1 year old has wasted 1 year of their life they had spent trying to grow up. Or killing a 90 year old only deprived them of 1 year.

The courts will order you to pay the actuarial valuation that will take
all relevant factors into consideration. There are many precedents they
can draw on.

[RustyHinge]

On 23/06/2022 17:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> That's a pretty weak bumper if a little moped can damage it.
>
> Why don't we have rubber bumpers?

Vehicles latterly have been designed to crumple *during* a collision to
protect life and limb of people involved.

When I was on teaching practise in the 1960s three of us from the same
college shared expenses in the same car - a pre-Farina Austin Westminster.

Approaching a road junction we did an emergency stop when a woman
driving a VW minibus full of rioting kids pulled out in front of us.

We stopped without contact, but the engine stalled. Recovering composure
and restarting the engine took little time, but a little time for all that.

BANG!

Behind us was a very crumpled brand-new Rover 2000. The driver must have
been elsewhere (mentally) as before our stop he must have been 200 yards
behind us. He hadn't noticed the minibus, even.

Point is, there was a small dent in the boot of the Westminster which
sprang out with the application of a rubber mallet, some marks on the
Westminster's back bumper which were removed with a rag and some Solvol
Autosol, and a broken rearlight glass. The glass cost 5s. from a
scrapyard to replace. The Rover was a write-off. Both the Rover driver
and we were protected from harm by the Rover's crumpling.

As an aside, while we got the number of the minibus, the driver wasn't
impugned for causing the accident: she was the wife of a policeman...

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

[Martin Brown]

On 23/06/2022 20:37, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:59:53 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just because a dangerous driver happens to hit me doesn't make me a higher risk!
>

> Actuaries have a different opinion. In general people involved in
> collisions, regardless of fault, are at increased risk of future collisions.

It generally comes down to a heuristic that most serious traffic
collisions result from mistakes made by both drivers involved in it. It
takes two to tango. You may have a legal right of way but hitting
another vehicle to make a point is still a very bad idea.

The notable exception being when sat stationary at the tail end of a
motorway traffic queue when you have no degrees of freedom remaining to
get out of their way. In most other situations defensive driving has
some tactical measures that you can apply to minimise the damage.

Ultimately bent metal is always preferable to serious injury or death
and anything is preferable to a high speed head on collision.

> It's a statistics thing. Maybe the factors are where they tend to drive or
> when they tend to drive or how they tend to drive, but regardless of why -
> and even when no-one can figure out why - analyses of accident statistics
> point to that increase in risk and the need to charge a higher premium.

Single vehicle incidents involving drunks going through hedges,
flattening walls or street signs seldom get reported. A local farmer has
put an amusing sign on his frequently collided with fence and hedge to
the effect of "hedge restyling classes available apply within".

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

Presumably they *do* have to pay out to any third parties affected by
the collision but can tell the owner of the vehicle that they insured
that they are not going to pay out for his repairs or injuries.

The driver was insured (but had lied about their record) so they cannot
escape paying those people who their insured driver has harmed.

He won't get anything towards repairing his vehicle though and will very
likely be uninsurable in future as a result of such an incident.

Much like with the house insurers of our local LPG gas DIY explosion
home which remained as a charred burnt out roofless ruin for nearly a
decade before it was finally demolished and rebuilt.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 23/06/2022 14:17, Commander Kinsey wrote:

The worst case is pretty much the baby just about survives but has for
example severe cerebral palsy and is a lifelong invalid requiring 24/7
intensive medical care just to stay alive (more accurately not to die).

My previous neighbours very seriously disabled son (at birth) never
reached the capabilities of a healthy 4 year old (and is now 60+).

I'm not convinced that keeping someone alive suffering in that
unthinking state is a kind thing to do even if sophisticated modern
medicine facilitates it. These are *very* difficult ethical questions.
His mum still loves him, unclear what will happen when she dies...

My brother in law has high functioning cerebral palsy and is about the
same age. He has a respectable quality of life but is paralysed in one
leg. That is still a very serious handicap. I don't think payouts were
as generous back then. NHS used to pay for his handmade boots for
walking (but not any more - that service stopped several years ago).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 09:56:41 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk>
wrote:

>

>Ultimately bent metal is always preferable to serious injury or death
>and anything is preferable to a high speed head on collision.

And letting the numpty who pulled out in front of you without looking get away
with it is preferable to bent metal, even if it goes against the grain to do so.
Give them the finger and a few choice words if it makes you feel better, but
don't insist on your right of way if insisting on your right of way puts you at
risk of colliding with the numpty.

Mark

[Martin Brown]

It is a lot more "interesting" in priorite a droite countries like
Belgium and rural France where there are known traps for the unwary.
Traffic turning onto the main road from a side road has priority
provided that they don't slow down or hesitate (certifiable).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Commander Kinsey]

They should not have that right. Whiplash and "damage noticed later" will be made up lies.

[Commander Kinsey]

As someone currently making a complaint against the NHS, I can assure you they're full of negligent workers. I'm sure they'll cover their backs somehow.

[Commander Kinsey]

Are you really saying the cost of a human life (before lost earnings and future care) is only 15 grand?!

[Max Demian]

On 24/06/2022 13:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 20:57:51 +0100, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>> On 23/06/2022 08:36, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2022 19:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:31:13 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Who decided on the value of a human life?
>>>
>>> Actuaries.  It's their job.
>>>
>>>> There must be a figure somewhere.
>>>
>>> Not a single figure, as it depends on things like the age, potential
>>> earning capacity etc of the injured party.
>>
>>
>> Well, there actually is a figure.
>>
>> If you kill someone through negligence, they die instantly and they
>> never financially supported anyone (eg the deceased was a child or young
>> person) the figure payable is "bereavement award" of 15,100 pounds.
>> Payable to spouse, civil partner or parent.
>>
>> Plus funeral expenses.
>>
>> If they suffered pain prior to death there will be an award for that
>> pain and suffering. If they did have dependants, the value of that
>> financial dependancy has to be calculated.

It's rather perverse that their heirs should benefit, as they didn't
suffer the pain.

I recall there was a US case of relatives getting substantial damages
based on suffering experiences of people while their aircraft was coming
down to crash.

>> In other words, if you're a midwife then it's far, far cheaper to
>> accidentally kill a baby than to accidentally give it brain damage.
>
> Are you really saying the cost of a human life (before lost earnings and
> future care) is only 15 grand?!

If a child dies, the parents don't occur any additional expenses, in
fact save money. Unless they are farmers who expect them to help out on
the farm.

How else would you value a human life? Obviously the person who has died
loses out, but they aren't around to be compensated.

And the parents don't get to pass their genes on, but it's not clear
that has a monetary value.

--
Max Demian

[Fredxx]

On 23/06/2022 14:02, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 23/06/2022 08:19, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 22/06/2022 17:16, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2022 13:06, Commander Kinsey wrote:

>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:28:40 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/06/2022 13:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:41:56 +0100, Anthony R. Gold
>>>>>> <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:22:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>>>> <C...@nospam.com>

>>>>> Any claim by someone else will legally be against *you* personally,
>>>>> but
>>>>> your insurance company has agreed with you that that they will pay
>>>>> anything except the first £650 of any claim.
>>>>
>>>> Say I refused to pay up when I crashed into you.  What would you
>>>> have to do to get your £650?
>>>
>>> Actually, I'd be claiming off my insurance and will be receiving from
>>> them the amount I claim less any excess *I* have agreed with them, so
>>> what you've agreed as your excess on your policy is irrelevant.  That
>>> only affects what *you* might get back.
>>>
>>> Ultimately, to recoup *my* excess, I would have to sue you for it,
>>
>> I think I would add their insurance company as co-defendant, but hey.
>
> His insurance company has no contract with you.  Nor has it been
> negligent.  You therefore have no claim against it.  It insures him, not
> you.

Once again you're wrong. The law has since changed so you can sue the
insurance company. It was one of the joys of EU membership:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3061/regulation/3/made

[Commander Kinsey]

>> had an accident in the last 5 years" they meant "that was your fault".. They

>> never told me off. Just because a dangerous driver happens to hit me doesn't
>> make me a higher risk!
>
> Actuarially, perhaps it does. It may mean that through no fault of your own
> you habitually drive in higher risk situations.

And not telling them about an accident means I'm the sort of person likely to do so again, and not cost them money for small dents.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:29:16 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> On 23/06/2022 14:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 08:36:00 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2022 19:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>>>> I said "I never claim on insurance". What part of that is anything
>>>> to do with someone else claiming on my insurance?
>
>>>> Yet someone else in here says I have to notify them of every accident.. So which is it?
>
>>> Both. You have a duty of good faith towards your insurance company who
>>> are entitled to know the extent of the risk they are taking on. So, you
>>> need to report any significant accident you have, even if you decide to
>>> meet the cost yourself. What is 'significant'? Dunno. You and the
>>> insurance company are likely to have different views on that.
>>
>> If it was significant it would have been cheaper for me to claim anyway. So anything I don't claim for is insignificant.
>
> You said 'I never claim on insurance'. I must have been mistaken when I
> took that to mean you never claim on insurance.

I hadn't engaged my pedantry mode.

>>>> And what is the optional "legal cover" I never take out?
>>>
>>> That's to cover your legal costs in the event that you are sued by
>>> another road user for something you think you are not responsible for.
>>
>> I would have thought that was part of 3rd party insurance.
>
> Well, it isn't.

So if I crash into you and injure you aswell as damage your car, you're saying if I have 3rd party insurance, it's not all taken care of by my insurance, and that for your injury, you have to sue me personally?!

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 03:44:34 +0100, RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23/06/2022 17:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> That's a pretty weak bumper if a little moped can damage it.
>>
>> Why don't we have rubber bumpers?
>
> Vehicles latterly have been designed to crumple *during* a collision to
> protect life and limb of people involved.
>
> When I was on teaching practise in the 1960s three of us from the same
> college shared expenses in the same car - a pre-Farina Austin Westminster.
>
> Approaching a road junction we did an emergency stop when a woman
> driving a VW minibus full of rioting kids pulled out in front of us.
>
> We stopped without contact, but the engine stalled. Recovering composure
> and restarting the engine took little time, but a little time for all that.
>
> BANG!
>
> Behind us was a very crumpled brand-new Rover 2000. The driver must have
> been elsewhere (mentally) as before our stop he must have been 200 yards
> behind us. He hadn't noticed the minibus, even.
>
> Point is, there was a small dent in the boot of the Westminster which
> sprang out with the application of a rubber mallet, some marks on the
> Westminster's back bumper which were removed with a rag and some Solvol
> Autosol, and a broken rearlight glass. The glass cost 5s. from a
> scrapyard to replace. The Rover was a write-off. Both the Rover driver
> and we were protected from harm by the Rover's crumpling.

But rubber DOES crumple, it's just that it regains composure afterwards. Why not have rubber as the first thing to absorb shock, and only destroy metalwork if absolutely necessary?

> As an aside, while we got the number of the minibus, the driver wasn't
> impugned for causing the accident: she was the wife of a policeman...

MHIP.

[Commander Kinsey]

It's obvious to me, forcing someone to live a disadvantaged life (they didn't ask for) is wrong. They should be put down.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:00:23 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 20:37:22 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:59:53 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just because a dangerous driver happens to hit me doesn't make me a higher risk!
>>
>> Actuaries have a different opinion. In general people involved in
>> collisions, regardless of fault, are at increased risk of future collisions.
>> It's a statistics thing. Maybe the factors are where they tend to drive or
>> when they tend to drive or how they tend to drive, but regardless of why -
>> and even when no-one can figure out why - analyses of accident statistics
>> point to that increase in risk and the need to charge a higher premium.
>
> Indeed. It's well known in the industry that there are some people who never
> have an accident that's adjudged to be their fault, and yet, somehow, have a lot
> of accidents.
>
> A lot of that is people who insist on asserting their right of way. Obviously,
> if you have right of way and another car doesn't, and it hits you, it's their
> fault, from a legal and insurance perspective. But if you hadn't been so
> assertive about your right of way, and allowed them to get away with being in
> the wrong, then the collision wouldn't have happened.

That's what the horn is for. Or skillfully narrowly miss them to scare them out of doing it again.

> Equally, lack of observation and anticipation can turn other people's errors
> into accidents. If you're pootling along within the speed limit on a clear day,
> and someone pulls out of a side road right in front of you, then legally it's
> their fault, not yours, when you t-bone them. But an experienced and observant
> driver will sometimes feel their spidey sense tingling when they see a car at a
> side road, and they just know that something isn't right. So they back off a bit
> and watch more closely, so that if their intuition proves correct then they can
> avoid being the victim of someone else's error. But not everyone has that
> experience or level of focus.
>
> In maritime and aviation law, this requirement to make allowances for other
> people's mistakes is baked into the system. If you could have avoided a
> collision but didn't, then, even if the other person is the one breaking the
> rules, not you, you are considered partly to blame. There's no such legal
> requirement on the roads. But the statistics reveal those who don't follow the
> principle, and the insurers follow the statistics.

Aviation is kinda different, a collision in mid air can be fatal for all parties.