Insurance Claim

[Rickosa]

Hi, I was involved in a collision last month. A 14 year old on a trail bike, going on and off pavements and onto a road, collided with my car as I turned right at a junction. I had checked my mirrors, looked behind me, and as I approached the junction there was no sign of anyone on a bike. He quite literally appeared out of nowhere. Plenty of witnesses advised there was absolutely nothing I could do, the Police appeared and also said I was blameless, but my insurance company have said I must pay £100 excess and an at fault logged against my policy. I've complained to the Ombudsman but they quote "On this occasion I don’t believe Ageas did anything wrong when they settled the claim as ‘fault.’ This is because the highway code says:

‘At junctions, drivers should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross on a road into which they are turning’.

‘Drivers should be especially careful when moving off, turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully’ for cyclists. " There was no way I could have anticipated this idiot doing what he did, I was driving at about 10 mph turning right, had indicated and was following the rules perfectly. I'm utterly appalled at this, is there anything I can do with regards to this excess and being declared at fault by the Insurance company?

[des8]

An "at fault" claim is recorded when the cost cannot be reclaimed by the insurers from a third party, even if their driver did not cause the incident.
Your insurers seem to have acted within industry norms.

[Rickosa]

Seems absolutely absurd to me that anyone can be deemed at fault in such a situation. What's the point in comprehensive insurance if it isn't comprehensive?

[atticus]

It is comprehensive, but on terms that include being subject to an excess.

[sandfordboy]

Absolutely as DES8. Has the Cyclist claimed anything ? (Cycle damage or Personal injury) ? or is this solely your vehicle repairs ? Be sure to understand the whole situation.

[Rickosa]

I can understand if it was at fault, fair enough have no problem with that, the Police said it wasn't my fault in any way - it's absurd to me that I can have an at fault logged against me by an insurance company when a greater authority says it wasn't.

[des8]

An "at fault" marker on your record only signifies to insurers that the insurer was unable to recover from a third party.

Making a claim where an insurer cannot recover the indemnity from a third party leads possibly to a loss or reduction of no Claim Discount for a period.

It would make no difference if the insurance industry changed their markers

[Manxman]

An "at fault" marker on your record only signifies to insurers that the insurer was unable to recover from a third party...

^^^ This. Despite the normal and everyday natural meaning of the phrase "at fault", in a motor insurance context it simply means that there was nobody from whom your insurer could recover their loss. It doesn't necessarily mean that you personally were at fault. It's a term of art. (ie it has a meaning in insurance circles that is nonsense outside of those circles.)

Was this your claim or the 14 year old trail bike rider's claim?

If it was your claim, there might be a question as to whether your insurer should be suing the 14 year old or their parents... (I'm not up to speed on the civil liability of 14 year olds or their parents).

[des8]

It would probably be a commercial decision by the insurers not to pursue the cyclist for reimbursement.

This does not prevent the OP trying to recover his uninsured losses from the cyclist (the parents are not liable) but whether or not it is worth proceeding as far as initiating court action ...............

[Rickosa]

The 14 year old was ripping through the streets and pavements prior to this (the Police said) on a motorbike (trail bike to be exact). It's certainly not worth taking it to court unfortunately for the hassles which would accompany it. Just seems absurd to me that despite being blameless I have an at fault and whilst I know it's not necessarily that, what kind of effect will this have on my premiums next year and it's a nonsense that I have to pay anything for something that's not my fault. Just seems contradictory to me. The 14 year old, as advised to me by the Police, faces quite a list of charges.

[des8]

You might be blameless, but you still made a claim against your insurers.
It is the fact that you made a claim that has the greatest effect on your premiums.

If you suffered a series of accidents, which were not caused by you and which did not cause your insurers any loss, you could still find your premiums affected

The excess is there to prevent small small claims, to reduce administrative costs and remember insurance is really to take on large risks, not minor daily events..
You can generally vary the size of your excess, but rarely remove it entirely.
I personally preferred the use of franchises, but I don't think any motor insurers offer that option now a days