Nfu Car Insurance

[fatgaz]

Hi peeps, noticed the other day an advert foe NFU car insurance and at the bottom of the screen it said something along the lines of - excess and no claims discount will not be affected if hit by an uninsured driver who is at fault .....??? surely the uninsured driver is at fault by default for not having any insurance, sorry is it me or am I missing something, any explanation would be most welcome

[bednobs]

If the other driver is uninsured it's less likely your insurance Co will be able to claim costs back from them meaning it'll count as a claim on your insurance

[ToraToraTora]

"surely the uninsured driver is at fault by default for not having any insurance" - no, being illegal does not infer fault or liability.

[davebro]

I thought that claims against uninsured drivers at fault were met from a central fund contributed to by all the insurance companies?

[Arrods]

Isn't it saying that you won't be penalised (i.e. lose your NCD, have to pay an excess) if you are hit by an uninsured driver's negligence?

[fatgaz]

right ok..... first one to bednobs if your insurance is less likely to claim / get back any money why should you pay, that dont make sense,
No2 toTora the driver has to be at fault for taking the car onto a public high way in the first place with no insurance, therefore he should not have been on the road in the first place therefore no accident and NO3 to Arrods yes it is saying that but what happens if you hit him is that your fault as he should not have been on the road.
ok guy's this honestly isnt a rant just cant see any other way that the uninsured driver could be found innocent ????

[sandra4444]

What it really means and it shouldn't, is that an uninsured driver gets away more or less scot free other than a fine and a driving ban.

If the total cost of all claims were put on the shoulders of the uninsured, no matter how long it took them to pay back, you wouldn't see so many taking the risk of a life long debt.

[Arrods]

If you hit someone else (i.e. it's your fault) and damage something/injure someone, the fact that they shouldn't be on the road is irrelevant.

[barry1010]

If you have comprehensive insurance and your claim is for damage to your vehicle (not personal injury) you cannot claim from the MIB. You either pay for repairs yourself or claim from your own insurance

[fatgaz]

Ok ok, still dont agree with most comments but liked sandra 4444, what about this then 3 car shunt and the 2nd one is uninsured, the 3rd car cant claim cause the 2nd one was pushed ito the back of him so not his fault is that correct ?

[davebro]

how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!

[sandra4444]

The way the law stands at this time ( I think) is that if you run into the back of someone then you are to blame ( most times anyhow). So the insured person right at the back in this case would be to blame for running into the back of the uninsured and pushing him into the insured at the front. Hence the one at the back covers all claims?

[bednobs]

not true

[ToraToraTora]

"No2 toTora the driver has to be at fault for taking the car onto a public high way in the first place with no insurance, " - no not true, breaking the law does not infer fault.