Forum menu
Far from baseless, I was once privy to the data and stats of one of the UK’s biggest auto insurers.
What I mean is, in and of itself, having an accident doesn't affect one jot your likelihood of having another. What would affect that likelihood is why that incident occurred. If, for example, you live on a main road and been victim of a hit & run overnight, then you're statistically more likely to have another if you continue to park in the same place. OTOH, if you've been sat at traffic lights and someone behind you is on their phone and drives up your chuff, how can that possibly have any statistical bearing on potential future accidents?
No idea what relevance it is, it is completely inapplicable to the OP’s situation where there was a third party involved.
That's my point - there isn't a third party involved. It was damage caused by a third party but they're no more involved than I am, as far as insurers are concerned it's an at-fault claim. It's essentially vandalism.
And I mentioned that I personally wouldn’t deem stone chips as declarable.
Where do you draw the line?
Stone chips; a rock flying up and denting your door; self-inflicted accidental damage; someone pranging your door in a car park and driving off.
Not trolling, genuine question. When there's no third party to claim against, at what point do you deem repairing damage to your own car with your own money to become fraudulent?
Where do you draw the line?
It's the third time that's been asked. Don't hold your breath for an answer.
Personally I'd say anything so small that you don't make an insurance claim would seem like a reasonable place for that particular line and easy enough to check on.
sBob is technically correct in what he asserts; in that insurance companies ‘require’ us to agree to these conditions in order to remain insured. This fact does not take away the ridiculousness of the requirement to declare all damage; as demonstrated by the stone chip logical argument. If none of us would declare stone chip repair, then we are all made ‘dishonest’ by the insurance company’s terms, and it becomes a personal morality decision about where we would draw the line.
Yes, but if I want to own two cars I can only use my discount for not claiming on one.
Why am I less of a risk due to a history of careful driving in one car but not the other? I can only drive one at once and my (exemplary) driving history doesn’t suddenly change.
No. NCB is built up per policy -literally a bonus/discount for not making a claim on that policy. If you insure two cars/policies you can build up two sets of NCB. You can insure as many vehicles as you want, all with different NCBs on different policies. (Some companies will mirror the NCB onto a different policy but that’s just to get your business.)
You wouldn’t be a lesser risk on one car/policy compared to the other, you’d just have a different amount of NCB.
Yes, you can only drive one car at any one time but you can insure any number of vehicles and build up a discount for not claiming separately on each.
Am I making this clear?
It’s the third time that’s been asked. Don’t hold your breath for an answer.
I'm not an insurance company, where I'd draw the line is of no consequence.
Am I making this clear?
You don't need to, I already understand how it works, you're not telling me anything new. I'm still allowed to not like it. 🙂
I mean you're wrong, of course. 😆 I can use NCB built on one policy on a completely new policy with a completely new insurer, the policies have no relation to each other, other than recognising my excellent and safe driving. 😎
Cougar; you're trying to relate statistics to specific incidents. That's not how it works. You might keep your motor in a private underground car park but if you're in the wrong post code computer will say no to reduced premiums. With close to 40 million registered vehicles on the roads individual circumstances cannot realistically be catered for.