I read with interest the article on Direct Line's approach to uninsured driver claims. Having had personal experience as a victim of an identified uninsured driver and experience of reviewing many motor policies I find the hostility a little bemusing.
I was insured with a major insurer when I was hit. The insurer in question must have sadly been one of the only ones not participating in the claimed "general market agreement" as I lost my no claims bonus (NCB) and had to pay an excess, adding up to roughly £500.
Due to the fact that I was insured on a comprehensive basis and my NCB and increased future premiums are not losses to property there was obviously no recourse available from the MIB.
Worryingly, I often come across insurers who claim to cover various costs and benefits but don't seem to feel the need to include the cover in their policies. Come claim time how is the insured meant to know what is actually covered?
Direct Line has introduced clarity and fairness to the insured which should be encouraged. The fact that there were complaints from consumers only highlights the need to clarify what the MIB can really provide and what all insurers will do in the case of these type of claims.
I look forward to seeing the addition of this feature in all the insurers new literature as it is clearly a no cost promise (if everybody is already doing it) and will make the insured's life far simpler.
With the unrelenting rise in the number of uninsured drivers and the inevitable claims, this would be an eminently sensible way forward.
Research manager - general insurance, life and protection