Car Insurance Renewal

MickCoady · 27-08-2009 4:11pm #1

My daughter was involved in a accident about three weeks ago. A child ran out in front of her, Garda has advised it was not her fault. Child only had minor injuries. The parents are claiming against her, but as of yet nothing has been settled or taken to court. Her insurance is due for renewal and the insurance company is saying that they have to raise her premium (an extra 500 euro per year:(), even though nothing has been finalised from the accident. Can they do this?

irisheddie85 · 27-08-2009 4:15pm

yes they can charge you what ever they want and with a pending claim she will have trouble getting a quote from any other insurer. If the gardai have said it was not her fault and you are sure she will win you could try a counter claim but not sure how this works when its a person not another car involved

Beta Ray Bill · 27-08-2009 4:17pm

MickCoady wrote: »

My daughter was involved in a accident about three weeks ago. A child ran out in front of her, Garda has advised it was not her fault. Child only had minor injuries. The parents are claiming against her, but as of yet nothing has been settled or taken to court. Her insurance is due for renewal and the insurance company is saying that they have to raise her premium (an extra 500 euro per year:(), even though nothing has been finalised from the accident. Can they do this?

I think they can if a claim is pending.

If it falls though though I believe they are obliged to refund you.

Not 100% sure on this.

Slightly off topic but it is my opinion that roads are for cars and footpaths are for people. And anyone hit by a car on a "MAIN" road (not a housing estate road) that they shouldn't have been on (not a zebra or pelican crossing) should be entitled to nothing.

that's just my opinion.

roosterman71 · 28-08-2009 8:10am

grahambo wrote: »

Slightly off topic but it is my opinion that roads are for cars and footpaths are for people. And anyone hit by a car on a "MAIN" road (not a housing estate road) that they shouldn't have been on (not a zebra or pelican crossing) should be entitled to nothing.

I like this

MickCoady · 28-08-2009 8:38am

Thanks for the info. It seems that the driver is always at fault. This child has a history of running out in front of cars, other claims. I am not biased just because she is my daughter, I do understand we have a problem with young drivers, but from the evidence of the accident she had no chance. There are three people who were there who also agree, but what I can gather, the insurance company will settle so there is no hassle. This leaves the driver with increased insurance cost's, loss of no claims and having a damaged car. I would feel different if the injuries to the child had been worse. :eek:

R.O.R · 28-08-2009 8:42am

MickCoady wrote: »

Thanks for the info. It seems that the driver is always at fault. This child has a history of running out in front of cars, other claims. I am not biased just because she is my daughter, I do understand we have a problem with young drivers, but from the evidence of the accident she had no chance. There are three people who were there who also agree, but what I can gather, the insurance company will settle so there is no hassle. This leaves the driver with increased insurance cost's, loss of no claims and having a damaged car. I would feel different if the injuries to the child had been worse. :eek:

If it were me (might sound a bit harsh) but I'd put in a counter claim against the parents of the child, to cover the cost of damage to the car.

Might make them think twice about proceeding with the claim against your daughter, if it wasn't her fault.

AugustusMaximus · 28-08-2009 8:47am

grahambo wrote: »

Slightly off topic but it is my opinion that roads are for cars and footpaths are for people. And anyone hit by a car on a "MAIN" road (not a housing estate road) that they shouldn't have been on (not a zebra or pelican crossing) should be entitled to nothing.

that's just my opinion.

The motorist always gets blamed for one reason. They are the only one with insurance.

The same goes for car - bicycle accident as the cyclists doesn't have Insurance.

What a great country we live in.

TwoShedsJackson · 28-08-2009 8:53am

Pedestrians have right of way according to the RotR so you are obliged to stop or slow to let them cross - that's why the car driver is automatically at fault if he hits someone.

MickCoady · 28-08-2009 9:21am

I am sure they have the right of way, thats if they wait or indicate that they are going to cross the road. But how do you stop a piece of metal at about a ton weight, travelling at 30kph (within the speed limit), if somebody decides to run out in front of you, I also may add that the child ran across two lanes of traffic and was lucky to get across the first lane.

28-08-2009 9:41am

Regardless of what the Garda said your daughter will be deemed to be at fault, one is supposed to be aware of potential hazards (ie children) and drive accordingly. I am amazed the Garda actually said your daughter was not at fault to be honest. Also if the child had ran across the first lane your daughter had time to react and stop, if she didn't see the child run across the first lane she wasn't paying attention. Apologies to be blunt but that's the way it will be viewed.

If she was travelling at 30kph I cannot understand how she would not notice a child run across the road from the opposite side and come to a halt in time.

zubair · 28-08-2009 10:21am

RoverJames wrote: »

Regardless of what the Garda said your daughter will be deemed to be at fault, one is supposed to be aware of potential hazards (ie children) and drive accordingly. I am amazed the Garda actually said your daughter was not at fault to be honest.

Agreed, The Garda cannot tell you if it was your fault or not, the courts will decide that.

To be honest your daughter is guilty of nothing at this time and I can't see how the insurance company can charge for this. Unless you have made a claim for the damage to the car already and digging in to your no claims bonus.

TwoShedsJackson · 28-08-2009 10:27am

MickCoady wrote: »

I am sure they have the right of way, thats if they wait or indicate that they are going to cross the road. But how do you stop a piece of metal at about a ton weight, travelling at 30kph (within the speed limit), if somebody decides to run out in front of you, I also may add that the child ran across two lanes of traffic and was lucky to get across the first lane.

I'm not trying to sound facetious here but the way you stop it is by travelling slowly enough in an area where children could run out (estates, lines of parked cars etc. etc.) that you can hit the brakes in time should someone run out. That and paying sufficient attention to hazards. Same reasons the person who hits someone else from behind is automatically at fault.

CoDy1 · 28-08-2009 12:16pm

zubair wrote: »

To be honest your daughter is guilty of nothing at this time and I can't see how the insurance company can charge for this. Unless you have made a claim for the damage to the car already and digging in to your no claims bonus.

The Insurance company is not charging an extra €500,they have just suspended her bonus until the courts decide who is at fault. If it is found out she is not at fault they will reinstate the NCB and issue a refund.

This is standard practice, at the moment the OP's daughter is not entitled to her bonus until the claim has been settled.

pred racer · 28-08-2009 1:16pm

CoDy1 wrote: »

The Insurance company is not charging an extra €500,they have just suspended her bonus until the courts decide who is at fault. If it is found out she is not at fault they will reinstate the NCB and issue a refund.

This is standard practice, at the moment the OP's daughter is not entitled to her bonus until the claim has been settled.

+1

pixbyjohn · 28-08-2009 1:20pm

A pedestrian ALWAYS gets compensated for injury. In the eyes of law the pedestrian or cyclist is never at fault when it comes to compensation. The insurance company ALWAYS pays out.

cruizer101 · 28-08-2009 2:06pm

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

I'm not trying to sound facetious here but the way you stop it is by travelling slowly enough in an area where children could run out (estates, lines of parked cars etc. etc.) that you can hit the brakes in time should someone run out. That and paying sufficient attention to hazards. Same reasons the person who hits someone else from behind is automatically at fault.

While I agree with the principle of that it isn't always a realistic option.

There are times when children who seem to be going along the path quite safely suddenly dash accross the road. No matter how slow you go there will sadly still be times when nothing can be done to slow down enough before the child.

metrovelvet · 28-08-2009 2:19pm

grahambo wrote: »

I think they can if a claim is pending.

If it falls though though I believe they are obliged to refund you.

Not 100% sure on this.

Slightly off topic but it is my opinion that roads are for cars and footpaths are for people. And anyone hit by a car on a "MAIN" road (not a housing estate road) that they shouldn't have been on (not a zebra or pelican crossing) should be entitled to nothing.

that's just my opinion.

That's all very fine but there are a lot of roads that don't have footpaths.

Long Onion · 28-08-2009 2:22pm

The insurance company will probably settle and the driver will lose NCB - not right really but such is commerce.

thebiglad · 28-08-2009 2:34pm

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

The motorist always gets blamed for one reason. They are the only one with insurance.

The same goes for car - bicycle accident as the cyclists doesn't have Insurance.

What a great country we live in.

You are correct the insured person always seen as easy target, like a victimless crime in the eyes of judges.

In many European countries they have 'Strict Liability' regardless of what you did, unless it can be proven that a pedestrian/cyclist set out to deliberately become injured you are automatically up to 100% liable (depends on country). I have seen some amazing situations quick example, fully stopped in traffic, pedestrian crosses in front and is hit by car passing on outside - found 50% liable as 'contributed to the accident by obscuring view of passing motorist' - seriously a pedestrian/cyclist can do no wrong...

EU are trying to introduce this in a new Directive (I think number 7) and Ireland will have to incorporate into our laws - will of course be much argument (especially from UK!) but who knows.

Anyway back to the question as it relates to an accident in Ireland - the Insurer will compensate at some level and likely NCB will be lost. There are few (if any Judges) who will not make an award so insurer will take the view that it is not worth the additional costs of running case into court.

The older the child the better chance you have but if below age 9, then forget it!

A counter claim will not be effective, only raise the stakes and increase your personal expenditure as you will need to instruct a Solicitor.

Car Insurance Renewal

Comments