A FEMALE motorist in her 70s has successfully contested an insurance company's reduction of her no claims bonus after she was involved in a minor traffic collision.
The Financial Services Ombudsman, Joe Meade, directed the insurer to reinstate most of the reduction in her no-claims discount it imposed after the incident.
The company had reduced her no-claims discount from 50 per cent to 20 per cent, but Mr Meade, in a finding published yesterday, directed that the loss be reduced to 5 per cent, to be applied for one year only.
The decision will be of interest to anyone who has felt aggrieved with their insurance company over incidents in which little or no damage was done. In this case, the woman acknowledged that she bumped into the back of another person's car, but denied that she had caused any damage.
The damage to the other car, which cost €850 to repair, must have pre-dated the incident, she said. The ombudsman ruled that the company had acted properly in handling and settling the claim. The other car had been inspected by the company's motor engineer, who had determined that there was damage consistent with the incidence in question.
However, the woman maintained that an inspection of her car would have supported her case that she was not responsible for the damage.
The company said it had no evidence that she had requested an inspection of her own car, but she strongly maintained that she had.
Mr Meade found that the damage was quite slight and the sum for repairs not significant. He took account of her age, her genuine belief that no damage was caused, and he was satisfied she had contacted the company to inspect her car. He described the loss of 30 per cent on no-claims discount as "rather harsh to say the least" and directed the company to reduce it to 5 per cent for a year.
In another decision, the ombudsman rejected a complaint by a woman who crashed an Isuzu Trooper insured in her father's name under a commercial policy with a third-party insurance company.
After the incident, the company declined to provide indemnity on the grounds that the "driving of other cars" extension of the woman's policy did not extend to cover for commercial vehicles.
Mr Meade found that the vehicle she was driving at the time of the incident, which had no rear seats, rear passenger doors or rear windows, could not be categorised as a private motor car, and so the company had acted correctly.
