Another insurance whinge
Discussion
LucreLout said:
Mandat said:
Look at the OP. He has been hit up the rear on two separate occasions.
Rather backs up the statistical probability, doesn't it?
Happened to me twice, ten years apart... And I am an advanced driver, was driving defensively, and paying appropriate attention.Rather backs up the statistical probability, doesn't it?
I'm pretty sure it'll fit in some matrices at the insurers and that they'll rate on it. Seems ok to me....
gottans said:
As you know the extra cost because of the accidents just sue the perpetrator for everytime renewal comes round until it no longer affects your premium.
It's entirely possible I'm wrong, but I thought the words "full and final settlement" prevented this.Any actual lawyer or insurance bod want to provide some clarity?
The OP was rear-ended twice. No fault and full costs recovered. Therefore it did not cost his insurer a penny.
Maybe he is more likely to be in this type of collision.
However, even if he is rear ended ten times in the next 12 months in the same circumstances, again, it would not cost his insurer anything as they could reclaim full costs.
I have yet to hear any credible explanation of why he should be paying more.
Maybe he is more likely to be in this type of collision.
However, even if he is rear ended ten times in the next 12 months in the same circumstances, again, it would not cost his insurer anything as they could reclaim full costs.
I have yet to hear any credible explanation of why he should be paying more.
over_the_hill said:
However, even if he is rear ended ten times in the next 12 months in the same circumstances, again, it would not cost his insurer anything as they could reclaim full costs.
I have yet to hear any credible explanation of why he should be paying more.
Assuming the other party is insured. Assuming the other party doesn't reverse up and drive off at speed. Assuming the other party doesn't lie and say the OP reversed into him. And loads of other scenarios.I have yet to hear any credible explanation of why he should be paying more.
over_the_hill said:
I have yet to hear any credible explanation of why he should be paying more.
Thanks for bringing this thread back on track. In all seriousness, I would love to hear from the Insurance experts and understand their arguments for hiking your premium when you haven't done anything wrong, just like OP.Recently I had the surprise to discover that my premium had increased only because my Insurer "had experienced a lot of cars similar to mine have had accidents or technical problems over the last year".
Preemptive strike ?
Redgate said:
Thanks for bringing this thread back on track. In all seriousness, I would love to hear from the Insurance experts and understand their arguments for hiking your premium when you haven't done anything wrong, just like OP.
Why not start up an insurance company offering lower rates for people who have had claims but done nothing wrong. Let's see how much money you make.There's another thread going about a guy who keeps having his tyres slashes by someone with a vendetta against him. He's done nothing wrong. Maybe you could agree to insure him against future attacks.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Redgate said:
Thanks for bringing this thread back on track. In all seriousness, I would love to hear from the Insurance experts and understand their arguments for hiking your premium when you haven't done anything wrong, just like OP.
Why not start up an insurance company offering lower rates for people who have had claims but done nothing wrong. Let's see how much money you make.There's another thread going about a guy who keeps having his tyres slashes by someone with a vendetta against him. He's done nothing wrong. Maybe you could agree to insure him against future attacks.
Where is the logic in that ?
So forget about slashed tyres for a minute and help me understand why, in my situation, I should expect my premium to increase. This is not a challenge to try and get the last word, I am genuinely interested.
Moonhawk said:
singlecoil said:
Moonhawk said:
scarble said:
I think it's quite likely true that if you've been run into once you're at a higher chance of being run into again. What do you think defensive driving is?
I'd love to see the statistics that back that up.I was run into by a car whist stationary in a queue of traffic. How exactly would defensive driving have helped in my situation?
Insurance companies do love to interpret things in the way that best serves their revenue. High mileage driver = higher risk as you're on the road more. Low mileage driver = higher risk as you are 'less experienced', even though, as was the case with my OH, being a low mileage driver in her own car was because she was doing significant mileage in a company car ... and then when she pointed this out they told her her own car was at greater risk as it was parked at home while she was out at work so she wouldn't be around to keep an eye on it! The fact that it was locked in the garage was lost on them. Any excuse to crank up premiums basically. They really are second only to politicians when it comes to spinning things to serve their own argument.
Redgate said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Redgate said:
Thanks for bringing this thread back on track. In all seriousness, I would love to hear from the Insurance experts and understand their arguments for hiking your premium when you haven't done anything wrong, just like OP.
Why not start up an insurance company offering lower rates for people who have had claims but done nothing wrong. Let's see how much money you make.There's another thread going about a guy who keeps having his tyres slashes by someone with a vendetta against him. He's done nothing wrong. Maybe you could agree to insure him against future attacks.
Where is the logic in that ?
So forget about slashed tyres for a minute and help me understand why, in my situation, I should expect my premium to increase. This is not a challenge to try and get the last word, I am genuinely interested.
Teenagers pay more for insurance than people in their 50s. Because of the record of other teenagers.
If you live in Inner London you pay more than living in the Scottish Highlands. Even if you haven't claimed.
Ferrari owners pay more than Fiesta owners. Because they are more likely to claim, or have more expensive claims.
Insurance is based on a combination of what has happened, and what the stats show is most likely to happen.
If you took out life insurance, you'd expect to pay less than an 80 year old. But using your logic, the 80 year old has never died, so shouldn't be penalised, just because other 80 year olds have died!!!
I have an anecdote as well. I moved to a new job, a long time ago. The place was a large private estate in South Bucks. Nearest house was half a mile away. The car was kept at a lodge house inside large, locked iron gates with all the normal security measures.
I informed my insurance company that I had moved, and they wanted more money! The reason? Through a quirk of the post code system the address was SL1, the same as central Slough. Protests, including a letter to the chairman, were in vain,
I informed my insurance company that I had moved, and they wanted more money! The reason? Through a quirk of the post code system the address was SL1, the same as central Slough. Protests, including a letter to the chairman, were in vain,
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But that's how it works!
Teenagers pay more for insurance than people in their 50s. Because of the record of other teenagers.
If you live in Inner London you pay more than living in the Scottish Highlands. Even if you haven't claimed.
Ferrari owners pay more than Fiesta owners. Because they are more likely to claim, or have more expensive claims.
Insurance is based on a combination of what has happened, and what the stats show is most likely to happen.
If you took out life insurance, you'd expect to pay less than an 80 year old. But using your logic, the 80 year old has never died, so shouldn't be penalised, just because other 80 year olds have died!!!
Apologies in advance, I don't mean to hijack the discussion. Teenagers pay more for insurance than people in their 50s. Because of the record of other teenagers.
If you live in Inner London you pay more than living in the Scottish Highlands. Even if you haven't claimed.
Ferrari owners pay more than Fiesta owners. Because they are more likely to claim, or have more expensive claims.
Insurance is based on a combination of what has happened, and what the stats show is most likely to happen.
If you took out life insurance, you'd expect to pay less than an 80 year old. But using your logic, the 80 year old has never died, so shouldn't be penalised, just because other 80 year olds have died!!!
I agree with you that you have to base your risk analysis on factual data in order to evaluate said risk and to infer the potential cost associated with it. The factual data will keep fluctuate, to your advantage or disadvantage.
There is no discussion that if you have been involved in several accidents and that they were all your fault you should be made to pay for those. And that your insurer should change the terms of your contract.
But what I am struggling with is that even when the data evolves to your advantage (as I described in my previous post) it still does not mean that you will be rewarded for it.
singlecoil said:
I have an anecdote as well. I moved to a new job, a long time ago. The place was a large private estate in South Bucks. Nearest house was half a mile away. The car was kept at a lodge house inside large, locked iron gates with all the normal security measures.
I informed my insurance company that I had moved, and they wanted more money! The reason? Through a quirk of the post code system the address was SL1, the same as central Slough. Protests, including a letter to the chairman, were in vain,
That probably wouldn't happen now. Increased data and computerisation means they can do variable rating for individual streets. I informed my insurance company that I had moved, and they wanted more money! The reason? Through a quirk of the post code system the address was SL1, the same as central Slough. Protests, including a letter to the chairman, were in vain,
singlecoil said:
I have an anecdote as well. I moved to a new job, a long time ago. The place was a large private estate in South Bucks. Nearest house was half a mile away. The car was kept at a lodge house inside large, locked iron gates with all the normal security measures.
I informed my insurance company that I had moved, and they wanted more money! The reason? Through a quirk of the post code system the address was SL1, the same as central Slough. Protests, including a letter to the chairman, were in vain,
I know of a similar case. A work colleague moved from Worcester to Redditch (which at one time was in Worcestershire) and had an increase because he now had a Birmingham post code.I informed my insurance company that I had moved, and they wanted more money! The reason? Through a quirk of the post code system the address was SL1, the same as central Slough. Protests, including a letter to the chairman, were in vain,
Redgate said:
There is no discussion that if you have been involved in several accidents and that they were all your fault you should be made to pay for those. And that your insurer should change the terms of your contract.
But what I am struggling with is that even when the data evolves to your advantage (as I described in my previous post) it still does not mean that you will be rewarded for it.
What about several non fault accidents, like the slashed tyres?? Who is more likely to have them slashed next, you or him. But then again, he's done nothing wrong!But what I am struggling with is that even when the data evolves to your advantage (as I described in my previous post) it still does not mean that you will be rewarded for it.
And the data did not evolve to your advantage. You drive a car that, overall, has a poor claims record. Why shouldn't you pay more than someone with identical details who drives a car with a better overall record?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What about several non fault accidents, like the slashed tyres?? Who is more likely to have them slashed next, you or him. But then again, he's done nothing wrong!
If the slasher gets caught and prosecuted, isn't the Insurance Company going to sue them to get compensation for the amount of tyres they had to pay for? I know you have a point there but we were moving away from that particular aspect, weren't we? TwigtheWonderkid said:
And the data did not evolve to your advantage. You drive a car that, overall, has a poor claims record. Why shouldn't you pay more than someone with identical details who drives a car with a better overall record?
How and why has my car a poor claim record? What could I possibly do to improve its claim record?Moonhawk said:
timbo999 said:
ummmm - maybe defensive driving is not dropping out of gear and putting the hand brake on until you're certain no one is going to shunt you up the rear...? Just saying..
You are just being ridiculous now.Its saved my bacon at least once, not at the tunnel but same thing on the A19 when some ones exhaust flew off and all three lanes were swerving/hammering the brakes to avoid it. It would have been my tin can MR2 fairy weight vs 18 wheeler who realized he wasn't gonna stop, then tried and failed to execute an emergency lane change.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff