Been In A Car Crash

Chris85 · 15 Aug 2009 at 22:21

Tonight while stationary on the motorway some woman hit me from behind at about 30mph. Its crushed the bumper and twisted the boot. This is on a BMW E46 330Ci.

My dad was driving as we were going about 500 miles and taking it in turns. He is a named driver on my policy. I have witnesses to say my car was stopped and insurance companies have been rang.

I am slightly sore to say the least. However my insurance renewal is due in a couple of weeks. Will I have to insure with no no claims as I only had 3 and will I get them back when its shown as a non fault claim.

Thanks
Chris

peterattheboro · 15 Aug 2009 at 22:24

Your no claims should be intact but your premium may go up due to the accident, even though it wasn't your fault! Good eh?

Chris85 · 15 Aug 2009 at 22:27

Oh and another thing. This women in front of me claimed I hit her. However with the traffic been so slow I had stopped for a bit there was about 8 foot between us before the shunt and about 4 foot after. I have taken photos and there is no damage to her car at the back or the front of my car. She took my details. Where do I stand with this as she is clearly making it up.
Chris

peterattheboro · 15 Aug 2009 at 22:30

The insurance company will send out inspectors and they'll realise she's being a **** and then tell her to **** off

"andy" · 15 Aug 2009 at 22:31

when you inform your insurance of the accident just make sure you mention it and forward them copys of the photos. shes obviously trying to pull a dodgy one. cheeky

someone did this to my mate and tried to claim a respray of the full side of her car. he had photos showing no damage whatsoever... dunno what happened to them but his insurance certainly never paid up

of course there always the slim slim chance that you did actually hit her lightly but enough to make her roll 4ft forwards. would like to see her prove that though

Barks · 15 Aug 2009 at 22:36

peterattheboro said:
Your no claims should be intact but your premium may go up due to the accident, even though it wasn't your fault! Good eh?

Is this justified because people who have been in an accident are statistically more likely to be in another accident?

peterattheboro · 15 Aug 2009 at 22:42

scott212 said:
Is this justified because people who have been in an accident are statistically more likely to be in another accident?

Dunno how this works or why it should even matter.

Sucks though.

racerboy59 · 16 Aug 2009 at 00:51

Sorry to hear of your accident. I hope it all gets sorted smoothly.

Hxc · 16 Aug 2009 at 00:51

scott212 said:
Is this justified because people who have been in an accident are statistically more likely to be in another accident?

Yes.

Sin_Chase · 16 Aug 2009 at 00:53

scott212 said:
Is this justified because people who have been in an accident are statistically more likely to be in another accident?

Pretty much. "Justified" is just another insurance word for "Rob you for more"

How it is even conceivably possibly to assume that someone stationary who has been hit is more likely to be in another accident baffles me.

You can prove anything with statistics.

Hxc · 16 Aug 2009 at 00:56

The situation of the accident itself is not taken into account; that would be unbelivably complex and not a viable way to sell an insurance product on the market, as such, it's the fact that you have been in an accident which goes into the stats. The stats show that people who are involved in an accident are more likely to be involved in another one, thus you pay more....

BigglesPiP · 16 Aug 2009 at 00:58

scott212 said:
Is this justified because people who have been in an accident are statistically more likely to be in another accident?

Someone who practices defensive driving (what the IAM etc. push), is less likely to be involved in a non fault crash, but more interestingly to the insurer, less likely to be involved in a non fault crash with an uninsured driver, and less likely to be involved in a fault crash. That you have not been involved in a non fault crash is just a way of identifying a defensive driver.

Sounds like you'd have to be impossibly good to dodge the OP's crash, but should the good drivers who can drive defensively not get the break they deserve?

Sin_Chase · 16 Aug 2009 at 01:03

Hxc said:
The situation of the accident itself is not taken into account; that would be unbelivably complex and not a viable way to sell an insurance product on the market, as such, it's the fact that you have been in an accident which goes into the stats. The stats show that people who are involved in an accident are more likely to be involved in another one, thus you pay more....

Market?

You say that like "customers" buy it out of choice. It's not a market, its a group of people who are legally bound to buy a 'product'.

How is it complex? Its god awfully simple compared to FAR more complex industries.

Like I said, bizarre how being at the wrong place at the wrong time screws you over from an insurance perspective in such a black and white collision. God forbid you are at fault though, they'll come all guns blazing looking for something to invalidate your policy.

Nothing about insurance makes particular sense and certainly none of it is aimed at benefiting the customer. No Claims Bonuses encourage people to not claim. Just annoys the hell out of me to be honest. A legal requirement that is not particularly intelligent or regulated that gets you bulked in with your peers and risk groups for the sake of simplicity.

Chris85 · 16 Aug 2009 at 09:06

My neck is feeling even stiffer this morning. I am thinking a visit to A&E might be an idea. I know the woman who hit me though so arent even after any whiplash claim or anything. Would just like the insurance sorted out promptly.
Chris

Captain_Slick · 16 Aug 2009 at 09:10

Chris85 said:
I know the woman who hit me though so arent even after any whiplash claim or anything.

You know this woman and she's trying to say you hit her? Milk it for all it's dry, mate, she clearly would do the same whether she knows you or not.

Chris85 · 16 Aug 2009 at 09:15

No pal. I was in the middle. A women I know hit me from behind and another women in front claims I was pushed into her. However I wasnt. I also arent a fan of milking things. Yes I know it hurts a lot at the minute but dont want to over exagerate.
Chris

mattyprice4004 · 16 Aug 2009 at 09:23

Have you got the woman's address? Go and take a dump through her letterbox.

PhillyDee · 16 Aug 2009 at 09:32

Bugger that. At the end of the day its her insurance that pays for damage. Same goes for injuries. I was told to expect £250 per week for whiplash when someone crossed my path through a red light. I go £500. Hardly compensation for the time I had to take off work.

[TW]Fox · 16 Aug 2009 at 09:34

Sin_Chase said:
Market?

Thats right, a collection of products offered by different companies. A market.

You say that like "customers" buy it out of choice.

Which we do. We chose which insurer to use and we have the choice of which level of cover. We are only required to buy TPO cover. It is our choice to protect ourselves further with a comprehensive or theft policy.

Sirrel Squirrel · 16 Aug 2009 at 10:07

BigglesPiP said:
Someone who practices defensive driving (what the IAM etc. push), is less likely to be involved in a non fault crash, but more interestingly to the insurer, less likely to be involved in a non fault crash with an uninsured driver, and less likely to be involved in a fault crash. That you have not been involved in a non fault crash is just a way of identifying a defensive driver.

Sounds like you'd have to be impossibly good to dodge the OP's crash, but should the good drivers who can drive defensively not get the break they deserve?

Bugs me that someone can total my parked Discovery and it increases my premium, how the hell could I have any control over that.