Caught out by insurer - help?
Discussion
LoonR1 said:
calibrax said:
Also, insurance companies classify those who want third party only as inherently higher risk drivers than those who go for fully comp. Based on statistics.
Not reallyhttp://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/news/why-more-ca...
"After all, insurers are in the business of assessing risk. For example, there's a higher likelihood of accidents among teenage drivers, so they are charged more. So, if car insurance providers realise that motorists buying third-party only cover are more likely to be involved in accidents, they will rack up the price accordingly - and that's what's happened."
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/advice/news/Archive/...
"AA spokesperson Ian Crowder explained: "Insurance companies tend to find that people who want such policies are a higher risk profile - young or much older drivers or those with a bad driving history - and so when processing a policy and assessing the risk the insurance companies will take that fact into account."
calibrax said:
LoonR1 said:
calibrax said:
Also, insurance companies classify those who want third party only as inherently higher risk drivers than those who go for fully comp. Based on statistics.
Not reallyhttp://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/news/why-more-ca...
"After all, insurers are in the business of assessing risk. For example, there's a higher likelihood of accidents among teenage drivers, so they are charged more. So, if car insurance providers realise that motorists buying third-party only cover are more likely to be involved in accidents, they will rack up the price accordingly - and that's what's happened."
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/advice/news/Archive/...
"AA spokesperson Ian Crowder explained: "Insurance companies tend to find that people who want such policies are a higher risk profile - young or much older drivers or those with a bad driving history - and so when processing a policy and assessing the risk the insurance companies will take that fact into account."
Edited by LoonR1 on Saturday 7th February 11:10
LoonR1 said:
So a quote from a website that is designed to compare prices, not underwrite risk and one from a trade guide for car prices is your source. Answer this then. If those asking for TPO are such a high risk, then why would an insurer price FC the same or lower for them? If they know they're a high risk by them asking for TPO why not exclude them completely or price them out by quoting sky high?
It's a quote from an insurer, the AA. The website the quote is on is irrelevant. As for your other point, remember that logic and statistics don't always tally, particularly when it comes to computerised quotations. If the statistics say the risk is higher because option X is ticked, then that will factor into the calculation.Edited by LoonR1 on Saturday 7th February 11:10
LoonR1 said:
IanA2 said:
Thanks, that makes sense. But why did it used to be cheaper? Underwriters getting smarter in human factors analysis?
Third party claims were limited to sensible damage and injury was only when people really suffered, plus car hire was sensible too. Now a simple rear end tap is a potential £30,000 claim. Edited by IanA2 on Saturday 7th February 14:56
calibrax said:
It's a quote from an insurer, the AA. The website the quote is on is irrelevant.
I'm really not so sure that's true, unless you don't think that - f'rinstance - sources like the Daily Wail will accredit utterly fabricated or just plain out-of-context quotes to organisations or people in order to support their agenda.TooMany2cvs said:
I'm really not so sure that's true, unless you don't think that - f'rinstance - sources like the Daily Wail will accredit utterly fabricated or just plain out-of-context quotes to organisations or people in order to support their agenda.
I agree, in isolation. But it's not only quoted on the websites I posted, it's quoted in lots of other places too, for example :http://www.express.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/4...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
TooMany2cvs said:
I'm really not so sure that's true, unless you don't think that - f'rinstance - sources like the Daily Wail will accredit utterly fabricated or just plain out-of-context quotes to organisations or people in order to support their agenda.
And the AA aren't an insurer. At best they are a broker.desolate said:
And the AA aren't an insurer. At best they are a broker.
They are an insurer. If someone asks who your policy is with, you don't give the name of the underwriter, do you? Most people could not tell you who their underwriter is, but they will say they are insured by the AA, or More Than, or Direct Line etc. All of which are insurers who could "technically" be described as brokers because they don't actually underwrite their policies. I really don't see any relevance to your point here...calibrax said:
They are an insurer. If someone asks who your policy is with, you don't give the name of the underwriter, do you? Most people could not tell you who their underwriter is, but they will say they are insured by the AA, or More Than, or Direct Line etc. All of which are insurers who could "technically" be described as brokers because they don't actually underwrite their policies. I really don't see any relevance to your point here...
Okey doke. Crack on.
calibrax said:
They are an insurer. If someone asks who your policy is with, you don't give the name of the underwriter, do you? Most people could not tell you who their underwriter is, but they will say they are insured by the AA, or More Than, or Direct Line etc. All of which are insurers who could "technically" be described as brokers because they don't actually underwrite their policies. I really don't see any relevance to your point here...
You're missing the point.Direct Line, Churchill, Privilige etc are all part of UKI which owns them.
Admiral, Elephant and Bell are all part of EUI who own them.
LV=, ABC, Highway and Frizzel are all part of LV= who own them.
RSA, More Than and RSA Motability are owned by RSA.
Get where I'm going with this?
They do not broker out policies to the cheapest provider like The AA or for example Swinton, Adrian Flux or HIC do.
Just because you say I'm insured with Adrian Flux doesn't mean you are. You would be insured by the actual insurance company that indemnifies you.
Turning to the excess thing - on certain commercial policies we have started halving excesses if the claim is reported within 24 hours - seems to work really well! Very rarely do I have to chase up customers which makes my job much easier!
nipsips said:
You're missing the point.
No, you have missed the point. He said the AA is not an insurer, the implication being that the quote from them should be discounted. The quote is valid, and whether they are an agent or not, my point is that they are perfectly qualified to make such an assertion regarding risk and pricing.calibrax said:
No, you have missed the point. He said the AA is not an insurer, the implication being that the quote from them should be discounted. The quote is valid, and whether they are an agent or not, my point is that they are perfectly qualified to make such an assertion regarding risk and pricing.
I have always thought they should brokers in charge of risk and pricing.It's the future.
So at least you are right about that.
Ok. Let's try again. The comments from the AA and other companies is to try to explain something to the general public in a way that makes sense to the general public and that they'll accept. It isn't though grounded in underwriting fact.
The reason TPO and TPFT are priced the way they are is down to what I've said and nothing to do with an insurer seeing you as a higher risk because you asked for it. Think about it. Do insurers rate you personally, or lump you into a generic risk profile?
The reason TPO and TPFT are priced the way they are is down to what I've said and nothing to do with an insurer seeing you as a higher risk because you asked for it. Think about it. Do insurers rate you personally, or lump you into a generic risk profile?
LoonR1 said:
Ok. Let's try again. The comments from the AA and other companies is to try to explain something to the general public in a way that makes sense to the general public and that they'll accept. It isn't though grounded in underwriting fact.
The reason TPO and TPFT are priced the way they are is down to what I've said and nothing to do with an insurer seeing you as a higher risk because you asked for it. Think about it. Do insurers rate you personally, or lump you into a generic risk profile?
Yes, I understand your logic on this. But surely they DO put people into generic risk profiles for certain things based on statistics, simply because it's not possible to look at every single aspect? For example, age groups - I know people who are aged 30 and are much more careless drivers than most 17 year olds. But unless they've had claims, their driving "style" is not quantifiable for an insurance algorithm, and therefore the 17 year old safe driver pays more than the 30 year old reckless driver, primarily because of the generic risk profile they are in. The reason TPO and TPFT are priced the way they are is down to what I've said and nothing to do with an insurer seeing you as a higher risk because you asked for it. Think about it. Do insurers rate you personally, or lump you into a generic risk profile?
My point is that an insurer does not say "Everyone who wants TPO or TPFT cover is a high risk so we'll price it high". If they did that then surely they'd price FC even higher. The reason those two lesser covers cost as much or more is down the potential indemnity impact and lack of incentive / reason to report any claim.
calibrax said:
No, you have missed the point. He said the AA is not an insurer, the implication being that the quote from them should be discounted. The quote is valid, and whether they are an agent or not, my point is that they are perfectly qualified to make such an assertion regarding risk and pricing.
Apologies! Grinds my gears when I call a customer - introduce myself and get told "Oh I've received your letters and emails but I'm not insured with you I'm insured with The AA/Swinton/Asda/etc" then they refuse to talk to you despite telling them 5000 times that we underwrite etc.
calibrax said:
It's a quote from an insurer, the AA. The website the quote is on is irrelevant. As for your other point, remember that logic and statistics don't always tally, particularly when it comes to computerised quotations. If the statistics say the risk is higher because option X is ticked, then that will factor into the calculation.
Even if it were true that ticking the "third party only" option made the premium higher than fully comp, what sort of idiot would then still buy the TPO cover? The "people who only want third party cover are a higher risk so third party costs more than fully comp" rumour is well known so why wouldn't someone who thinks they might be in the market for TPO also be checking out fully comp prices?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff