Moneywise helps a reader with increased insurance premiums
My husband had a minor accident last year when a man opened his car door suddenly so my husband drove into him. But despite it not being his fault, the next year the insurer doubled his premiums.
Is it common practice for insurers to up the premiums after an accident when it isn’t the driver’s fault?
The situation seems very unfair, but I’m afraid innocent drivers often become a victim all over again when their insurance premium is hiked after a no-fault accident.
Having talked to insurance insiders, they point out that if someone has had an accident, even if it wasn’t their fault, it suggests that they may have been driving or been parked in an area where accidents are more likely to happen.
In other words, if you’ve been hit by someone else, insurers reckon the chances are higher than you could be involved in another accident in the future.
The higher they reckon the odds of you being in an accident, the more expensive your premium will be. It stinks, doesn’t it?
According to the Association of British Insurers: “Industry data shows that policyholders who have had a no-fault accident are 40% more likely to make a claim in the future, so some insurers will consider this when setting the price for customers.
“This is just one factor that insurers take into account when calculating a customer’s motor insurance premium and, as always, people should shop around to find the best deal.”
It’s worth noting that not all insurers do this.
OUTCOME: No joy for this ‘no fault’ driver
Industry data legit?
I notice the article says:
'According to the Association of British Insurers: “Industry data shows that policyholders who have had a no-fault accident are 40% more likely to make a claim in the future, so some insurers will consider this when setting the price for customers.'
How is the public to trust this 'industry data' if it comes from the insurers themselves? Should this be independently verified to avoid conflict of interest? How else is the public to trust that the methodology behind the statistical data they are basing this claim on is valid?