Insurance and IAM

[AquilaEagle]

My sister as I have previously posted is doing her IAM, she's had some observation and cross check and has her test on Friday in Winchester - wish her luck (well skill!)

ANYWAY, she reckons that she's been told that one of the benefits of IAM is that if one has a 'knock for knock' accident that insurance companies will favour the driver who has IAM (or if it goes to court)

Can anyone confirm or deny this? I told her I think it is a big load of billy http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/bsflag.gif

[russ]

Er, i wouldn`t go as far as saying it`s BS. Courts very from place to place. I suppose that the judge may be impressed that she has IAM, but the underlying thing is no, it isn`t an rule, written or otherwise to give anyone holding it favour.

As for insurance companies in general, nope. It wouldn`t make any difference whether the driver has IAM or not in the event of a claim. ( although she "may" get a discount on her premium) If a Third Party said that it`s my client who is in the wrong as theirs had IAM it wouldn`t make any difference to me how i`d deal with the claim.

Hopefully the fact that she will be a "better" driver will allow her to assess situations and never have the need to be involved in an accident.

Good luck to her :)

[oldcodger]

This was raised years ago in a DWDC.

Defence "my client passed the IAM test 1 year ago"
CPS "the standard of your clients driving 1 year ago is not the subject of this case"

[AquilaEagle]

Thanks - I thought as much :)

[Drewhound]

The man who trained me said I was as good as my next mistake, I think that's about right

[Kris]

Yep, THE IAM or ROSPA qualification is generally good for a discount when taking out insurance, but when handling a claim we're looking at the circumstances of the accident not who has what qualifications..after all its only human to make a mistake every once in a while