Disclosing Accidents To Insurance Companies
10-12-2012, 05:11 AM
#31
Registered User
Originally Posted by WinFreak' timestamp='1349973762' post='22075276
the 20yr old will pay more, but it won't be 10x as much as you see sometimes here with silly 2500 pound quotes for a 4000 pound car.
I had my car insured on my dads name when I just got my license to keep the cost down, and I took over the insurance when I was 24.
I've been in the UK 4yrs now and have been lucky not to have to claim on the insurance, so I went from 5 to 9yrs NCB. Yet my insurance has gone up over a 100 pounds each year, there's simply no way of justifying that.
Edit:
Also the claiming works a lot better, depending on the size of the claim you either freeze a years ncb or you lose some, so if you find a scratch on your car and want it fixed, you can just claim on the insurance, it costs a few hundred to fix, next year you won't get an extra year ncb but you stay on the same, meaning you'll pay the same as you did the year before.
All this means you will never have to pay for things yourself, you just claim it on the insurance, because that's what insurance is for.
In the UK I find you will pay for it several times, you pay your premium to be insured and when something happens you pay for it again by the way it goes up, year after year. So we ended up paying like 300 quid for a 60 quid window, just because they can.
I had my car insured on my dads name when I just got my license to keep the cost down, and I took over the insurance when I was 24.
I've been in the UK 4yrs now and have been lucky not to have to claim on the insurance, so I went from 5 to 9yrs NCB. Yet my insurance has gone up over a 100 pounds each year, there's simply no way of justifying that.
Edit:
Also the claiming works a lot better, depending on the size of the claim you either freeze a years ncb or you lose some, so if you find a scratch on your car and want it fixed, you can just claim on the insurance, it costs a few hundred to fix, next year you won't get an extra year ncb but you stay on the same, meaning you'll pay the same as you did the year before.
All this means you will never have to pay for things yourself, you just claim it on the insurance, because that's what insurance is for.
In the UK I find you will pay for it several times, you pay your premium to be insured and when something happens you pay for it again by the way it goes up, year after year. So we ended up paying like 300 quid for a 60 quid window, just because they can.
Did your dad pay an additional premium to include you on the policy?
Insurance is subject to claims inflation, so the initial premiums should go up year on year. Repairs and parts will cost more, but in the UK the major rise has been down to 1) liability claims which have massively outstripped inflation, and 2) idiotic practices by the insurance companies selling your details to ambulance chasers and claims recovery companies who arrange absurdly expensive hire cars for "victims". The OFT investigation is primarily focussed on 2).
My premiums have fallen for the last 5 years. If you're paying an extra £100 each year you need to shop around. Insurers will always offer you an inflated renewal price - they are trying to make money (and in most cases failing).
I do shop around, but I hate having to do it every year, knowing that it's completely unnessecary.
1st year was with privilege for 650 pounds,
2nd year privilege for 780 (nobody else wanted me because I hadn't been in the UK long enough to be trusted enough to insure),
3rd year privilege came with 1100 renewal so went to flux for 850.
this year I'm with bridle for 760, which includes 5 track days so finally found something decent.
So if the system worked the same as back home I would now still be with privilege and I would be paying less than the 650 I paid 3yrs ago because I have 3yrs more NCB, and the good thing would be that I wouldn't have to worry about anything either, you just insure the thing and forget about it until you sell it. +1 for hassle free motoring!
Also, I pay nearly double than what I would pay in NL for the same car, even though the car there would be double the value.
The system in the UK just doesn't work, no matter how much you're trying to defend it. I do blame it on the no win no fee culture and the fact insurance companies can just do whatever they want without having to provide a decent service, just like public transport or any other service you can think of really
10-12-2012, 05:49 AM
#32
UK Moderator
Originally Posted by lovegroova' timestamp='1350041621' post='22077310
People are complaining in this thread that their insurance premiums are rising. That explains that premiums have been too low for several years.
http://www.guardian....w-car-insurance
The simple fact is that motor insurance premiums have been set too low as evidenced by the underwriting loss ratios and there has been an adjustment in recent year to reflect this, hence rising premiums.
Simple business practice - if you are making a loss, you aren't charging enough for your product.
10-12-2012, 05:53 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Herts
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-12-2012, 06:01 AM
#35
UK Moderator
My dad didn't have to pay any more because you don't have to add people to a policy, you insure the car and anybody can drive it.
I do shop around, but I hate having to do it every year, knowing that it's completely unnessecary.
1st year was with privilege for 650 pounds,
2nd year privilege for 780 (nobody else wanted me because I hadn't been in the UK long enough to be trusted enough to insure),
3rd year privilege came with 1100 renewal so went to flux for 850.
this year I'm with bridle for 760, which includes 5 track days so finally found something decent.
So if the system worked the same as back home I would now still be with privilege and I would be paying less than the 650 I paid 3yrs ago because I have 3yrs more NCB, and the good thing would be that I wouldn't have to worry about anything either, you just insure the thing and forget about it until you sell it. +1 for hassle free motoring!
Also, I pay nearly double than what I would pay in NL for the same car, even though the car there would be double the value.
The system in the UK just doesn't work, no matter how much you're trying to defend it. I do blame it on the no win no fee culture and the fact insurance companies can just do whatever they want without having to provide a decent service, just like public transport or any other service you can think of really
I do shop around, but I hate having to do it every year, knowing that it's completely unnessecary.
1st year was with privilege for 650 pounds,
2nd year privilege for 780 (nobody else wanted me because I hadn't been in the UK long enough to be trusted enough to insure),
3rd year privilege came with 1100 renewal so went to flux for 850.
this year I'm with bridle for 760, which includes 5 track days so finally found something decent.
So if the system worked the same as back home I would now still be with privilege and I would be paying less than the 650 I paid 3yrs ago because I have 3yrs more NCB, and the good thing would be that I wouldn't have to worry about anything either, you just insure the thing and forget about it until you sell it. +1 for hassle free motoring!
Also, I pay nearly double than what I would pay in NL for the same car, even though the car there would be double the value.
The system in the UK just doesn't work, no matter how much you're trying to defend it. I do blame it on the no win no fee culture and the fact insurance companies can just do whatever they want without having to provide a decent service, just like public transport or any other service you can think of really
You are missing one point, here in the UK at least, the £650 you paid 3 years ago was probably too low, so an upward adjustment would need to be made (and that has certainly been the case in recent years with premiums rising fast. You'd then apply your extra NCB to that increased premium, reducing it back down a bit. (Note that NCB is not applied at the end of the premium calculation).
The value of the car has little to do with pricing other than for theft claims which are relatively few and far between when compared to huge and increasing number of 3rd party liability claims fuelled by ambulance chasing lawyers. This is evidenced by the fact that most motor insurers have had to increase their claims reserves (amounts put in reserve to cover claims not yet settled at year-end) as the payouts on these have been much higher and more frequent than in the past.
You are quite correct that it's the no-win, no fee culture that's driving the rise in premiums, but the legal profession is more cupable than the insurance industry for that.
The good news is that things seem to be settling down and the price adjustment has largely been made, so premium rises should be gentler in the next few years. (Until someone new comes along and decides to try and obtain market share by cutting premiums and the cycle begins again).
10-12-2012, 06:03 AM
#36
UK Moderator
Originally Posted by lovegroova' timestamp='1350049787' post='22077534
Simple business practice - if you are making a loss, you aren't charging enough for your product.
With insurance, you have:
Underwriting Loss Ratio, which is Claims/Premiums. If you are over 100%, you are losing money and are not charging enough for your product.
Expense Ratio, which is Expenses/Premiums (expenses include advertising, brokerage, administration etc)
Combined Ratio which is (Claims + Expenses) / Premiums
Investment Return which is self explanatory.
So Premiums + Investment Return - Expenses - Claims = Profitability.
If Premiums (i.e. product prices) are too low, you'll be making a loss.
(footnote - I've left out reserving and reinsurance but that largely falls under premiums and claims).
10-12-2012, 06:21 AM
#37
Registered User
So, a 50 year old can insure himself on his Ferrari and let his 18 year old son drive it for no extra cost? That's amazing.
You are missing one point, here in the UK at least, the £650 you paid 3 years ago was probably too low, so an upward adjustment would need to be made (and that has certainly been the case in recent years with premiums rising fast. You'd then apply your extra NCB to that increased premium, reducing it back down a bit. (Note that NCB is not applied at the end of the premium calculation).
The value of the car has little to do with pricing other than for theft claims which are relatively few and far between when compared to huge and increasing number of 3rd party liability claims fuelled by ambulance chasing lawyers. This is evidenced by the fact that most motor insurers have had to increase their claims reserves (amounts put in reserve to cover claims not yet settled at year-end) as the payouts on these have been much higher and more frequent than in the past.
You are quite correct that it's the no-win, no fee culture that's driving the rise in premiums, but the legal profession is more cupable than the insurance industry for that.
The good news is that things seem to be settling down and the price adjustment has largely been made, so premium rises should be gentler in the next few years. (Until someone new comes along and decides to try and obtain market share by cutting premiums and the cycle begins again).
You are missing one point, here in the UK at least, the £650 you paid 3 years ago was probably too low, so an upward adjustment would need to be made (and that has certainly been the case in recent years with premiums rising fast. You'd then apply your extra NCB to that increased premium, reducing it back down a bit. (Note that NCB is not applied at the end of the premium calculation).
The value of the car has little to do with pricing other than for theft claims which are relatively few and far between when compared to huge and increasing number of 3rd party liability claims fuelled by ambulance chasing lawyers. This is evidenced by the fact that most motor insurers have had to increase their claims reserves (amounts put in reserve to cover claims not yet settled at year-end) as the payouts on these have been much higher and more frequent than in the past.
You are quite correct that it's the no-win, no fee culture that's driving the rise in premiums, but the legal profession is more cupable than the insurance industry for that.
The good news is that things seem to be settling down and the price adjustment has largely been made, so premium rises should be gentler in the next few years. (Until someone new comes along and decides to try and obtain market share by cutting premiums and the cycle begins again).
I think the whole way the insurance works in the UK should be looked at, the way they set the premiums, the way they respond to claims and points etc. It just causes such a struggle every year for everybody. Nobody in NL talks about car insurance being such a problem, you don't even think of it, you buy a car, you insure it and be done with it, tax goes automatic too as soon as you put the car in your name.
10-12-2012, 06:32 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Herts
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by keith2.2' timestamp='1350050024' post='22077539
[quote name='lovegroova' timestamp='1350049787' post='22077534']
Simple business practice - if you are making a loss, you aren't charging enough for your product.
Simple business practice - if you are making a loss, you aren't charging enough for your product.
With insurance, you have:
Underwriting Loss Ratio, which is Claims/Premiums. If you are over 100%, you are losing money and are not charging enough for your product.
Expense Ratio, which is Expenses/Premiums (expenses include advertising, brokerage, administration etc)
Combined Ratio which is (Claims + Expenses) / Premiums
Investment Return which is self explanatory.
So Premiums + Investment Return - Expenses - Claims = Profitability.
If Premiums (i.e. product prices) are too low, you'll be making a loss.
(footnote - I've left out reserving and reinsurance but that largely falls under premiums and claims).
[/quote]
first point has been addressed by WF - increasing prices to ensure profit is just masking inefficiencies and wastage. It's weak.
As that has now been discussed- I'm going to counter with things like courtesey cars.
5 years ago I was hit from behind by a Lorry who failed to stop for a roudnabout. I was in a 2.0 Hyundai coupe worth about £1600.
Within 24hrs, I had a brand new 2.0 Focus on the driveway.
The conversation had gone:
We'll get a hire car to you sir.
"I don't really need one"
It's part of the service, sir. It'll be equivalent to what you were in at the time.
"a ten year old Hyundai?"
No sir, equivalent engine size. So it'll be a 2.0 litre five-door of similar size.
"but I really don't need one so can't it just be something cheap?"
It's already included sir. It'll be dropped off tomorrow. You keep it for as long as you need it, let us know, and we'll pick it up from you.
I let them know the day it arrived that I didn't need it. They came to collect it.
4 days later.
£400 for the hire car, plus a delivery man and someone to give him a lift. That's more than my premium cost in the first place. Nevermind the insistence that I don't accept the other insurers first offer of compensation, and the full payout on my car.
My presumption is - they knew it was a non-fault accident (they confirmed that the lorry insurer had given confirmation immediately) so they wanted to bump up the claim to invoice to the other insurer. Maximising the profit. I assume that they claim to the other insurer will include admin costs etc?
It's in the insurers best interest in a non-fault claim to make it as big a hit as possible (I'd be interested to know how this works where they're a part of the same group..?)
It's indefensible wastefulness.
10-12-2012, 06:38 AM
#39
Banned
Originally Posted by gaddafi' timestamp='1350045056' post='22077365
[quote name='lovegroova' timestamp='1350041621' post='22077310']
People are complaining in this thread that their insurance premiums are rising. That explains that premiums have been too low for several years.
People are complaining in this thread that their insurance premiums are rising. That explains that premiums have been too low for several years.
http://www.guardian....w-car-insurance
The simple fact is that motor insurance premiums have been set too low as evidenced by the underwriting loss ratios and there has been an adjustment in recent year to reflect this, hence rising premiums.
Simple business practice - if you are making a loss, you aren't charging enough for your product.
[/quote]
Losses or profits with regard to motor insurance need to be discussed in the context of the overall profit/loss of the insurer's business.
The reasons for poor profitablility and underwiting loss ratios in the case of some motor insurance operations are far more complex than under-pricing their product.
Your understanding of business practice underlines the fact whilst you might understand risk, you do not understand business.
ps
I see someone beat me to it...
10-12-2012, 06:42 AM
#40
UK Moderator
first point has been addressed by WF - increasing prices to ensure profit is just masking inefficiencies and wastage. It's weak.
As that has now been discussed- I'm going to counter with things like courtesey cars.
5 years ago I was hit from behind by a Lorry who failed to stop for a roudnabout. I was in a 2.0 Hyundai coupe worth about £1600.
Within 24hrs, I had a brand new 2.0 Focus on the driveway.
The conversation had gone:
We'll get a hire car to you sir.
"I don't really need one"
It's part of the service, sir. It'll be equivalent to what you were in at the time.
"a ten year old Hyundai?"
No sir, equivalent engine size. So it'll be a 2.0 litre five-door of similar size.
"but I really don't need one so can't it just be something cheap?"
It's already included sir. It'll be dropped off tomorrow. You keep it for as long as you need it, let us know, and we'll pick it up from you.
I let them know the day it arrived that I didn't need it. They came to collect it.
4 days later.
£400 for the hire car, plus a delivery man and someone to give him a lift. That's more than my premium cost in the first place. Nevermind the insistence that I don't accept the other insurers first offer of compensation, and the full payout on my car.
My presumption is - they knew it was a non-fault accident (they confirmed that the lorry insurer had given confirmation immediately) so they wanted to bump up the claim to invoice to the other insurer. Maximising the profit. I assume that they claim to the other insurer will include admin costs etc?
It's in the insurers best interest in a non-fault claim to make it as big a hit as possible (I'd be interested to know how this works where they're a part of the same group..?)
It's indefensible wastefulness.
As that has now been discussed- I'm going to counter with things like courtesey cars.
5 years ago I was hit from behind by a Lorry who failed to stop for a roudnabout. I was in a 2.0 Hyundai coupe worth about £1600.
Within 24hrs, I had a brand new 2.0 Focus on the driveway.
The conversation had gone:
We'll get a hire car to you sir.
"I don't really need one"
It's part of the service, sir. It'll be equivalent to what you were in at the time.
"a ten year old Hyundai?"
No sir, equivalent engine size. So it'll be a 2.0 litre five-door of similar size.
"but I really don't need one so can't it just be something cheap?"
It's already included sir. It'll be dropped off tomorrow. You keep it for as long as you need it, let us know, and we'll pick it up from you.
I let them know the day it arrived that I didn't need it. They came to collect it.
4 days later.
£400 for the hire car, plus a delivery man and someone to give him a lift. That's more than my premium cost in the first place. Nevermind the insistence that I don't accept the other insurers first offer of compensation, and the full payout on my car.
My presumption is - they knew it was a non-fault accident (they confirmed that the lorry insurer had given confirmation immediately) so they wanted to bump up the claim to invoice to the other insurer. Maximising the profit. I assume that they claim to the other insurer will include admin costs etc?
It's in the insurers best interest in a non-fault claim to make it as big a hit as possible (I'd be interested to know how this works where they're a part of the same group..?)
It's indefensible wastefulness.