Safe Speed Forums

Remember a while back I posted about a cyclist running right off the pavement and into the side of my car (here)? Well, this isn't about the collision as such but I thought it worth mentioning anyway. I had a phone call from the insurance company a short while ago. To cut a long story short this is going down as a "fault" accident instead of a "no fault" accident. That's in spite of the fact that they say they think that I wasn't at all to blame. ? Yeah, me too.

I asked a bit more and found out that, at least as far as my insurers are concerned but probably the rest of the industry as well, a fault accident is defined simply as one in which they cannot recover costs. So if it had been a car coming out of a driveway they'd have been able to claim off the other guy's insurance and it would have been a "no fault". Now, if this was just a matter of semantics I wouldn't be at all bothered. However, the terms of my protected no claims bonus is no more than 2 "fault" claims in three years, and those 2 must be in seperate policy years. So if the same thing happened tomorrow it's bye-bye discount for Gatsobait, and probably Mrs Gatsobait's premium goes up as well. In fact the same applies to any other claim where the insruance company can't recover costs from someone else. So if the car gets nicked or some oxygen thief vandalises it I lose my no claims. All because a cyclist is capable of causing damage or injury, but isn't required to get any insurance.

To be fair I can see it from the insurance company's point of view. For them it's probably simpler to define fault as liability and vice versa. But for the policyholder it seems unfair. In an ideal world perhaps cyclists would also have insurance and it wouldn't be a problem, but in reality I can't imagine how this could be achieved. You'd need all bicycles to have some kind of clearly visible registration number or other identifying mark, and that doesn't seem very practical. Perhaps if blanket 3rd party coverage ever happened, either by including it in VED or fuel, it could possibly be extended. Maybe a one-off charge on top of the price of a new bike, which would go into the same pot as the contributions from drivers and cover the bike for life. Then damage or injury caused by a cyclist could be treated as covered by the same blanket 3rd party insurance, and insurers could recover costs when a cyclist is found to be at fault. Still, I can see plenty of problems with that so I won't hold my breath.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Small claims court.

Sue the cyclist for your losses. All your losses. I don't know if it would be appropriate to repay the insurance company for the cost of repair or not. Ask a lawyer.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I think Paul is right ....only way you could recoup loss is to sue the cyclist. However, as I recall ... she was just a foreign kid ... so perhaps even that may not be viable.

Think that cyclists should pay a one off charge to cover insurance when they purchase bike... they seem to get away with far too much in real terms.

Sorry to hear this will affect your policy in terms of the protected no-claims.

I must admit, when I read the original post I remember thinking you were being amazingly generous with your NCB when you said you weren't bothered about claiming off the cyclist.

As far as Insurance Companies are concerned, blame isn't the issue, but whether it costs them anything is. In the general case, you will retain your no-claims as long as your insurance company gets it's losses repaid AND you recoup your excess.

With the typical cost of premiums these days, it generally isn't worth claiming for anything less than about £1000 or you'll just pay it back (and more) with increased premiums. If you've got protected No Claims then this of course shouldn't apply, but even then you can get caught as you have to remember that it is only your current company that will recognise the claim as being "protected", so if you try to switch companies next year other insurers will load you regardless. Of course your own company is well aware of this, so don't be surprised if your premium doesn't take a strange leap at the next renewal, now they know you are effectively locked into staying with them for a few years...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

it's bad enough losing NCB when it's your fault never mind when someone else is to blame. I think I'd be getting upon my high horse (it's a high one, about the size of a girafe) to the insurance company. They will be soon after your money come renewal time, so I rekon make the buggers earn you last premium.

I would need to re-read my policy to be sure but I'm sure that it said something about identifying the party at fault and nothing about recovering from the other party. So if I understand my policy correctly, provided I could identify the rider of the cycle I would not be at "fault".

Having said that, my daughter’s boyfriend (Scott) recently had a crash where he was T-Boned while stationary. There were no witnesses and the police did not attend. The other driver gave a statement indicating that Scott had cut in front of him along with a whole lot of other gibberish which was completely refuted by the physical evidence. The insurance companies agreed to pay their own on the basis of conflicting statements from the drivers so we had to pay the excess. They said it was cheaper than fighting it as even though they believed Scott, a magistrate could apply 80/20 and so the net costs could be a lot higher with legal fees and we would still have to pay the excess. At least they said that the rating would be unaffected.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Remember there are actually two (ill) effects that a claim will have on your policy. Firstly, if you claim then your "No Claims Bonus" will be reduced, usually by two years (though you also lose the amount you would have gained at the end of the current year, so the difference is really 3 years). This is nothing to do with blame, it is just the same as if your car were vandalised or stolen.

The second issue is whether your policy also receives a "loading". Now this does depend on blame. For example if you are involved in an accident and later held to blame for it then your policy will get loaded because you are now considered a worse risk, AND you will also lose 3 years worth of No Claims Discount.

This is where the "Protected No Claims" can come unstuck. Your Insurance Company may decide that because you were to blame for an accident they'll load your policy by 100% at next renewal. You still keep your full no claims but your policy doubles anyway! But if you go to a more competitive company that might only load you by 20% for the same accident then they won't recognise your "protected" no claims and will only give you three years less discount than your current company, so your're no better off. In fact you'd be worse off because you'd have been paying out every year for the NCB protection...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Insurance companies Bunch of sharks....told you about the fiasco I was dealing with after that chap drove into Wildy all those years ago. He was taken ill and drove into the back of her car, and even though she had left a good text book space between herself and the vehicle in front of her, and had engaged the hand brake... the force catapulted her car forwards into the vehicles in front of her. The chap who ran into Wildy died - we think as he entered her car via the rear window .... but we had to prove this as his insurance company tried all kinds of dirty tricks to get out of paying for the mega damages we were suing for at the time ..At that particular time in our lives - I was facing the horror of losing Wildy and bringing up 3 kids on my own, and she was looking at a future in a wheelchair if she survived it at the time. And all the insurance companies were doing to "help" us .... arguing about when the guy actually died and how this would impact on our claim.....

Have not a lot of time for insurance companies after that....

It did get sorted out eventually but our insurance premium was atronomical for a couple of years - especially when Wildy recovered and got herself mobile again. It has since returned to a more normal premium and takes account of our driving records....but we certainly are very wary of all the small print in our policy and we make them explain every last detail in plain English. Our broker now goes pale when we walk through the door (we do it the old fashioned way - in person via a known broker )

Two days with the computer stuff piled up in a corner with a dust sheet over the top... sheesh, what on earth was I thinking of when I decided that the study could do with a lick of paint just before Chrimbo. What a tw*t.

Anyhoo, yes, as InGear and others remembered the cyclist left no details and was also foreign, possibly not even UK resident and back home by now for all I know. This was a pain as my insurance company would have had a crack at claiming on her household insurance otherwise. And without any details the small claims court is a non-starter as well. I posted all this more for others to be aware of this particluar pitfall if they weren't already. And really, when you look at the grief the Mad Mog had over Wildy's accident my insurance aggro looks pretty insignificant. A pain in the (_!_) but no more than that.

Winge over. Happy Christmas all.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I am surprised your insurance company did not pursue this further, I am insured third party on my bike and just about anyone has public liability from there house insurance, even as a foreign kid was she not staying with someone or have holiday insurance, sounds a bit out of order

I dug out the reference to the original thread, (i.e. the one immediately following the accident):

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=939

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety