Non fault claim - affecting my insurance premiums

[Devil2575]

MGJohn said:

LoonR1 said:

MGJohn said:

Some will tell you that it is a loss leader to enable their existing Motor Insurance clients to arrange other ( non-Motor) insurances with them which are more profitable. Probably cheaper to get new business that way than expensive advertising campaigns.

That used to be the concept but, who knows how they think in today's distorted values and cartel riddled markets.

"Cartel riddled". Really, what evidence have you got of that?

Always the bluddy questions. Here's one for you.

What evidence do you have that it does not exist?

If you make a claim the burden of proof is not on others to disprove it. Aside from anything else it's almost impossible to prove a negative.

It's perfectly legitimate for others to ask for you to provide proof to substantiate claims that you are making.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Devil2575 said:

If you make a claim the burden of proof is not on others to disprove it. Aside from anything else it's almost impossible to prove a negative.

It's perfectly legitimate for others to ask for you to provide proof to substantiate claims that you are making.

They just don't get it.

Just because I have no proof that the queen isn't a lizard, that does not make David Icke right. The onus is on him to prove she is.

[LeoSayer]

ikarl said:

And that's the situation I'm in..... The TP wanted it to go through the insurance. So I have no choice. The fact that I didn't want the claim to proceed is neither here or there

If you wanted the TP to pay for the damage then you left it in her hands. Did you offer to 'forget it'?

[ikarl]

LeoSayer said:

ikarl said:

And that's the situation I'm in..... The TP wanted it to go through the insurance. So I have no choice. The fact that I didn't want the claim to proceed is neither here or there

If you wanted the TP to pay for the damage then you left it in her hands. Did you offer to 'forget it'?

My car was marked, mainly by paint transfer from her car, so I told her I would need to see how bad the damage was and if I could polish it out. I woke up the next day to a text to say she had contacted her insurance co.

[anonymous-user]

LoonR1 said:

Here's a report written by an independent body and that was not funded by either side, where the output may be decided before the research even starts. I know most of you won't read it, instead preferring to shout things loudly and hope people follow you, a la Farage style of politics.

http://uk.milliman.com/uploadedFiles/insight/2014/...

interesting it does show a loss, but for instance direct line with 20% share has paid out nearly 800 million in dividands since 2012.

for example in 2012 according to http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/personal-injury/car... 'Analysis reveals car insurance companies are making huge profits and could reduce premiums'

quote 'Market leader Direct Line, which owns the Churchill brand, saw profits from car insurance rise last year to £262m (2011: £255m). It will be paying £101m in dividends to shareholders on June 11 – equivalent to £25 per policy holder.

Admiral made a profit from the UK car insurance market of £372.8m in 2012 - a 19% increase on the previous year. Its UK car insurance profits were actually higher than Admiral’s overall profit, due to losses in overseas markets. Admiral increased its total dividend pay-out to shareholders by 20% to £245m – equivalent to £81 per customer

AVIVA does not give a separate profit figure for car insurance, but its 2012 annual report says: “Personal motor premiums increased by 3% to £1,164 million (2011 £1,126m) and we have nearly 2.5 million personal motor customers, an increase of over 250,000 since the start of 2012. We continue to deliver good profitability in personal (motor insurance) lines.”

AXA UK & Ireland, part of global French-owned group, does not publish separate accounts, but it issued a statement on 21 February saying: “Motor profitability improved in 2012, thanks to pricing and risk selection actions.” It said it expects ‘improved results in 2013’. AXA has been particularly active in lobbying the Government for reforms to deter claims.

Liverpool Victoria, the fifth largest car insurer, saw its profits rise 11% in 2012 to £29.5 (2011: £26.5m).''

milliman shows as loss of 144 million, so it is clear the market leaders are turning profits but without more detail difficult to see the actual 'losses' are.

By showing losses it makes it easier to push premiums up whilst fending off governmental control.

Edited by The Spruce goose on Wednesday 1st July 09:30

[anonymous-user]

Loon is talking about pure underwriting losses.

This is the amount of claims v premium.

However there are other income sources - including investment income on the cash.

Cashflow is very strong in motor insurance as in general you get the cash early in the contract and claims take time to pay.

[anonymous-user]

MGJohn said:

in today's distorted values and cartel riddled markets.

acording to the Competition and Markets Authority into the Private motor insurance market .

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media...

'We found that some of the contracts between PMI providers and price comparison
websites (PCWs) contained conditions which limited price competition
and innovation, and could restrict entry (see paragraphs 53 to 63). We found
that these ‘wide’ most-favoured nation (MFN) clauses, which restricted PMI
providers’ ability to set different prices on different sales channels, were a
feature of the PCW market which limited competition, giving rise to an AEC.
Ultimately, this led to higher PMI premiums. We decided to remedy this AEC
by (a) prohibiting wide MFNs, and (b) prohibiting behaviours by large PCWs
which seek to replicate the anticompetitive effects of wide MFNs.


''We found that there were four large PCWs, which appeared to enjoy a significant
degree of market power against PMI providers because a proportion of
the customers of each PCW did not shop on other PCWs. Therefore, these
consumers were accessible online to PMI providers only through each
specific PCW. We found that unilateral market power allowed the PCWs to
negotiate effective MFN clauses. We found that entry and expansion
appeared to offer a limited threat to the four large incumbent PCWs, and was
made harder by MFNs.''

have a look at https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/private-motor-insuran... as it paints a different picture to mouthpieces of the industry would like you to think.

[anonymous-user]

desolate said:

Loon is talking about pure underwriting losses losses.

This is the amount of claims v premium.

However there are other income sources - including investment income on the cash.

Cashflow is very strong in motor insurance as in general you get the cash early in the contract and claims take time to pay.

as he said they haven't made money on underwriting since 1993 but they make money on money, the actual cars are a side business now, bt whatever the underwriting losses they make money in a near monopoly market, that is clear.

[Devil2575]

The Spruce goose said:

as he said they haven't made money on underwriting since 1993 but they make money on money, the actual cars are a side business now, bt whatever the underwriting losses they make money in a near monopoly market, that is clear.

A near monopoly market?

How many insurance firms are there in the UK in car insurance?

[ikarl]

Devil2575 said:

How many insurance firms are there in the UK in car insurance?

Over 160 apparently.

not sure how many are groups of others though (Admiral = bell, elephant, diamond etc)?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

The Spruce goose said:

they make money in a near monopoly market, that is clear.

I can't think of another service offhand that has so many providers and so much customer choice!

However, why is there only one monopolies commission?

[LoonR1]

The Spruce goose said:

acording to the Competition and Markets Authority into the Private motor insurance market .

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media...

'We found that some of the contracts between PMI providers and price comparison
websites (PCWs) contained conditions which limited price competition
and innovation, and could restrict entry (see paragraphs 53 to 63). We found
that these ‘wide’ most-favoured nation (MFN) clauses, which restricted PMI
providers’ ability to set different prices on different sales channels, were a
feature of the PCW market which limited competition, giving rise to an AEC.
Ultimately, this led to higher PMI premiums. We decided to remedy this AEC
by (a) prohibiting wide MFNs, and (b) prohibiting behaviours by large PCWs
which seek to replicate the anticompetitive effects of wide MFNs.


''We found that there were four large PCWs, which appeared to enjoy a significant
degree of market power against PMI providers because a proportion of
the customers of each PCW did not shop on other PCWs. Therefore, these
consumers were accessible online to PMI providers only through each
specific PCW. We found that unilateral market power allowed the PCWs to
negotiate effective MFN clauses. We found that entry and expansion
appeared to offer a limited threat to the four large incumbent PCWs, and was
made harder by MFNs.''

have a look at https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/private-motor-insuran... as it paints a different picture to mouthpieces of the industry would like you to think.

I'm no "mouthpiece for the industry". Even better is the fact that is clearly stating they are unhappy at the price comparison websites, demanding favourable pricing that no others can, exclusive deals etc. that's now banned and the price on one website is the price for all.

From an insurer perspective, we're happy with that as we used to have to sell at a huge loss, just to get a presence in their Top 10

[Devil2575]

Car insurance was mentioned on this weeks Money box and they talked about loading for no fault claims.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05zzwqr

[AA999]

JM said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Where is the logic that if you have a non fault accident you are suddenly more likely to have a fault accident?

100% of the examples given back up the fact that one accident will lead to another very soon, immaterial of fault.

I know somebody who had an accident about 25 years ago, it was their only ever accident which was non fault (somebody backed in to them in the supermarket car park). They never had any other accident until the day they retired from driving due to age (failing eyesight), only 1 year ago.

Please could you add that in to your 100% of the examples

[V8forweekends]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Where is the logic that if you have a non fault accident you are suddenly more likely to have a fault accident?

According to the Insurance Industry it's based on statistics compiled by, er..... Insurers. To be fair, no-one else is likely to know, but when the only people who have the data are the same ones telling you to pay more, it's not surprising people are suspicious.

[LoonR1]

V8forweekends said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Where is the logic that if you have a non fault accident you are suddenly more likely to have a fault accident?

According to the Insurance Industry it's based on statistics compiled by, er..... Insurers. To be fair, no-one else is likely to know, but when the only people who have the data are the same ones telling you to pay more, it's not surprising people are suspicious.

Except 60% of them don't see the correlation for one accident so don't load. Shame everyone keeps ignoring this.

Edited to add, that it's what they see in their own claims histories. The market doesn't share data like that, hence why premiums differ between companies.

[PurpleMoonlight]

LoonR1 said:

Except 60% of them don't see the correlation for one accident so don't load. Shame everyone keeps ignoring this.

Edited to add, that it's what they see in their own claims histories. The market doesn't share data like that, hence why premiums differ between companies.

Nice edit to avoid the obvious response that 40% of insurers are seeking to rip off their customers. Which is far more likely than your edit in my opinion.

[croyde]

I had similar except that the damage was around £650 so the young lady wanted to do it through her insurance. Yep! in the end it would have been cheaper to suck it up and pay to repair it myself.

I now go for the highest possible excess in order to keep my premium down as I have no intention of claiming unless it's thousands of pounds.

Problem is that doesn't help when the idiot that hits you still wants to go through insurance because there is a bit of damage to their car.

[LoonR1]

PurpleMoonlight said:

LoonR1 said:

Except 60% of them don't see the correlation for one accident so don't load. Shame everyone keeps ignoring this.

Edited to add, that it's what they see in their own claims histories. The market doesn't share data like that, hence why premiums differ between companies.

Nice edit to avoid the obvious response that 40% of insurers are seeking to rip off their customers. Which is far more likely than your edit in my opinion.

What are you talking about? I didn't edit 40% out. I stated "that's what they see in their own claims histories". Why has PH suddenly started to have an influx of people who struggle with comprehension?

Let's have another go shall we to help you with this.

60% of insurers do not load their premiums for anyone making their first non-fault claim, as their own claims experience does not show a correlation to make a subsequent claim

The rest do load, as their data, on their own claims, does see a correlation between the first claim and a subsequent propensity to claim.

The OP says that his insurer is charging more, but remains cheaper than the rest still. How is that ripping anyone off?

Everybody retains the right to go to any other insurer in the marketplace at renewal, so what their current insurer does is almost irrelevant, as they can easily let their feet do the talking.

What are your views on the moon landings, or Elvis' death?

[ikarl]

LoonR1 said:

What are you talking about? I didn't edit 40% out. I stated "that's what they see in their own claims histories". Why has PH suddenly started to have an influx of people who struggle with comprehension?

Let's have another go shall we to help you with this.

60% of insurers do not load their premiums for anyone making their first non-fault claim, as their own claims experience does not show a correlation to make a subsequent claim

The rest do load, as their data, on their own claims, does see a correlation between the first claim and a subsequent propensity to claim.

The OP says that his insurer is charging more, but remains cheaper than the rest still. How is that ripping anyone off?

Everybody retains the right to go to any other insurer in the marketplace at renewal, so what their current insurer does is almost irrelevant, as they can easily let their feet do the talking.

What are your views on the moon landings, or Elvis' death?

Sorry Loon, but I haven't said that anywhere, although at 8 pages long I don't expect you to remember every post.

My insurance has a few months left to run, but if my 'renewal time' was now, my current insurer doesn't look competitive when compared against the rest of the market (without this non fault claim being added)

However, when adding this incident the range of insurance premiums that I would've liked to purchased (pre incident) all increase.

I do feel like I'm being ripped off. Even with MY car damaged and me NOT wanting to claim, and she doesn't want to claim, I have to pay an increased premium for something I could've got cheaper if she hadn't phoned her ins co and told them she hit my car! The ONLY people that make money in this situation is the insurance companies. NO money claimed for but they increase both our insurance prices.

Edited by ikarl on Thursday 2nd July 18:21