Insurance claim - am I being Shafted?

[ging84]

recent article suggest 95% of insurers quoted no more than 5% extra for a single non fault claim, and the majority charged none, if you are with one of the few insurers who charge a lot more, then go elsewhere

[LoonR1]

ging84 said:

recent article suggest 95% of insurers quoted no more than 5% extra for a single non fault claim, and the majority charged none, if you are with one of the few insurers who charge a lot more, then go elsewhere

Thank you

[TwigtheWonderkid]

johnfm said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Cupradupra said:

How can this be fair?

It's not meant to be fair, it's meant to be a reflection of risk.

How does increasing this individual's premium by £300 reflect the increase of all individuals of that driver's age, gender, postcode, car make and model, annual mileage etc.

Or are you saying that car owners should now not make claims against other drivers when we are driven into?

It is bks.

Op's fiancée had her car hit in a supermarket car park. Her twin sister might get her shopping delivered by Ocado. Therefore, OP's fiancée has, by being hit, demonstrated that she is in a higher risk category. The accident has given her insurers info that they previously didn't know. And it's not info that makes her a better risk. Supermarket car parks are high risk places for minor collisions. Some people never park in them, the OP's fiancée does.

[johnfm]

LoonR1 said:

Retroman said:

There's a few posters on the MSE forums who work for insurance companies and brokers.

Although there's a very slim chance (or none) of you successfully suing someone for the increased premium incurred due to a non fault accident a few of the insurance wise people there have said their company has paid out to cover the increased premium for the first year only.

I can only guess to why, but i would assume sometimes it's cheaper to do that, than the costs / man hours incurred defending it in small claims. Either that or trying to avoid bad PR.

youve probably misunderstood what's happened. An insurer may choose to waive the increase in premium for their policyholder, but a TP insurer would never pay out for that head of claim. It simply wouldn't happen, just as they wouldn't pay out for either the lottery win, or even £1 to buy another ticket. The insurer would win in court and the loser would be liable for the costs, TP insurers do not cave in on dead cert victories.

In your brilliant example, the lottery ticket purchase and win would fail for remoteness. I'm not sure 'increased insurance premium because your customer drove into my customer's car' is that remote, given insurers' propensity to increase insurance premiums on spurious grounds. Given the aim of a tort claim is to put the victim in the position they were in before the tort occurred, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the hapless victim to be made whole.

I suspect the real reason why insurer A wouldn't pay insurer B any increase in premium is because being hit by some careless fvckwith in a shopping centre car park when you're in the shop has zero effect on whether you are a riskier insurance proposition over and above all the other proxies they use to estimate risk.

I'd be very interested to hear how being hit while shopping equates to an increased risk for that driver - yet not for every other car driver parked in that supermarket car park.

[johnfm]

LoonR1 said:

johnfm said:

How does increasing this individual's premium by £300 reflect the increase of all individuals of that driver's age, gender, postcode, car make and model, annual mileage etc.

Or are you saying that car owners should now not make claims against other drivers when we are driven into?

It is bks.

What do you know about this individual? The OP's girlfriend may well be a 17 year old driving a high risk car, where £300 is a single digit percentage of her overall premium.

Oh yeah, nearly forgot

It is irrelevant. Being hit by a random fvckwit in a supermarket doesn't make you any more likely to make a claim over and above the risk they have already assessed based on your gender, age, mileage, postcode etc?

What next? We have to declare which supermarkets we shop at and how long we park there and provide a dimensioned drawing of the car park so the additional risk of being hit while parked can be assessed?

Surely it is just easier for insurers to make up a spurious increase in premium when someone else hits you to discourage small claims....oh wait..

[johnfm]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

johnfm said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Cupradupra said:

How can this be fair?

It's not meant to be fair, it's meant to be a reflection of risk.

How does increasing this individual's premium by £300 reflect the increase of all individuals of that driver's age, gender, postcode, car make and model, annual mileage etc.

Or are you saying that car owners should now not make claims against other drivers when we are driven into?

It is bks.

Op's fiancée had her car hit in a supermarket car park. Her twin sister might get her shopping delivered by Ocado. Therefore, OP's fiancée has, by being hit, demonstrated that she is in a higher risk category. The accident has given her insurers info that they previously didn't know. And it's not info that makes her a better risk. Supermarket car parks are high risk places for minor collisions. Some people never park in them, the OP's fiancée does.

That risk should be assessed by the annual mileage proxy with cross reference to current UK home shopping demand stats, probably available by age, gender and region.

By your reckoning every driver who parked in that shopping centre that day are an increased risk and so all their premiums should also go up.

It is a nonsense peddled by an industry in a very strong position. Insurance is mandatory (and rightly so) and barrier to market entry is very high, so existing participants are able to take the piss.

I don't think insurers should be charities - but being worse off because a third party drives into you while parked in a shopping centre car park is wrong.

[LoonR1]

johnfm said:

That risk should be assessed by the annual mileage proxy with cross reference to current UK home shopping demand stats, probably available by age, gender and region.

By your reckoning every driver who parked in that shopping centre that day are an increased risk and so all their premiums should also go up.

It is a nonsense peddled by an industry in a very strong position. Insurance is mandatory (and rightly so) and barrier to market entry is very high, so existing participants are able to take the piss.

I don't think insurers should be charities - but being worse off because a third party drives into you while parked in a shopping centre car park is wrong.

If the barrier is so high why do we have so many recent entrants? Why do the supermarkets want to white label these products and provide even more competition?

[shep1001]

Change provider. I claimed a couple of years ago, a not insignificant sum & my policy still went down at renewal despite the claim and changing to an agreed value policy. I also ended up with a no fault claim on my other car policy last Sept when some cock used the back of my brand new 5 series to stop at the lights.

So with a fault & a non fault claim in 2 years you would expect I would get bully rammed at renewal next month as my 'risk' had increased. Nope £100 less this year.

I did have protected no claims but I was still declaring 2 claims. My policy was not expensive to begin with either. the £100 this year represents 25% of what I paid for last years premium, which was £25 cheaper than before I had any claims I needed to disclose.


Shop around till you find a better deal. loyalty often, not always, gets you nothing but a poor deal with insurance. Don't forget to disclose your claim non-fault or otherwise, its not worth paying for the privilege of not being fully insured.

Edited by shep1001 on Monday 24th August 23:44

[LoonR1]

johnfm said:

In your brilliant example, the lottery ticket purchase and win would fail for remoteness. I'm not sure 'increased insurance premium because your customer drove into my customer's car' is that remote, given insurers' propensity to increase insurance premiums on spurious grounds. Given the aim of a tort claim is to put the victim in the position they were in before the tort occurred, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the hapless victim to be made whole.

I suspect the real reason why insurer A wouldn't pay insurer B any increase in premium is because being hit by some careless fvckwith in a shopping centre car park when you're in the shop has zero effect on whether you are a riskier insurance proposition over and above all the other proxies they use to estimate risk.

I'd be very interested to hear how being hit while shopping equates to an increased risk for that driver - yet not for every other car driver parked in that supermarket car park.

Excellent you understand remoteness. I'm assuming you've got a legal head on you. Explain how a claim could succeed. Your key hurdles are those who don't charge more, quantifying a compensatory payment for something that is nebulous and future based for the next five years and guaranteeing the that the claimant will go with the same insurer for those years. Do you insist on a rebate if his insuramce drops if the market softens?

[johnfm]

LoonR1 said:

johnfm said:

That risk should be assessed by the annual mileage proxy with cross reference to current UK home shopping demand stats, probably available by age, gender and region.

By your reckoning every driver who parked in that shopping centre that day are an increased risk and so all their premiums should also go up.

It is a nonsense peddled by an industry in a very strong position. Insurance is mandatory (and rightly so) and barrier to market entry is very high, so existing participants are able to take the piss.

I don't think insurers should be charities - but being worse off because a third party drives into you while parked in a shopping centre car park is wrong.

If the barrier is so high why do we have so many recent entrants? Why do the supermarkets want to white label these products and provide even more competition?

I might be misinterpreting your question - but white labelling isn't adding market entrants really. White labelling exists because brands (like supermarkets) have a captive market of punters standing at tills - and the barriers to entry (for them to put systems in place to satisfy the regulators, hold the required capital etc are such that they'd prefer to pay insuranceco a fee to do all the heavy lifting and just take a %.

How many startups in the insurance business?

[LoonR1]

johnfm said:

I might be misinterpreting your question - but white labelling isn't adding market entrants really. White labelling exists because brands (like supermarkets) have a captive market of punters standing at tills - and the barriers to entry (for them to put systems in place to satisfy the regulators, hold the required capital etc are such that they'd prefer to pay insuranceco a fee to do all the heavy lifting and just take a %.

How many startups in the insurance business?

What timescale?

Esure was a brand new start up a few years ago. More Than the same, Admiral ditto.

The there are the smaller players eg 1st Central

And those who exited the business amd then returned, ERS, AXA and a few others.

That's excluding those insurers who do business exclusively via brokers who have come back to market in a big way.

The insuramce market I'd very fluid amd there are constant joiners and leavers. Unfortunately most can only see the main Direct players amd assume nothing changes, when in fact capacity, appetite and target markets alter dramatically.

Any chance of responding to the questions I asked you, especially in light of shep's comment.

[johnfm]

LoonR1 said:

johnfm said:

In your brilliant example, the lottery ticket purchase and win would fail for remoteness. I'm not sure 'increased insurance premium because your customer drove into my customer's car' is that remote, given insurers' propensity to increase insurance premiums on spurious grounds. Given the aim of a tort claim is to put the victim in the position they were in before the tort occurred, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the hapless victim to be made whole.

I suspect the real reason why insurer A wouldn't pay insurer B any increase in premium is because being hit by some careless fvckwith in a shopping centre car park when you're in the shop has zero effect on whether you are a riskier insurance proposition over and above all the other proxies they use to estimate risk.

I'd be very interested to hear how being hit while shopping equates to an increased risk for that driver - yet not for every other car driver parked in that supermarket car park.

Excellent you understand remoteness. I'm assuming you've got a legal head on you. Explain how a claim could succeed. Your key hurdles are those who don't charge more, quantifying a compensatory payment for something that is nebulous and future based for the next five years and guaranteeing the that the claimant will go with the same insurer for those years. Do you insist on a rebate if his insuramce drops if the market softens?

Insurance market softening is irrelevant to a certain extent - as all boats rise and fall with the tide.

Where we are talking at cross purposes (I expect) is that you are considering how a court might calculate a hypothetical increase in premium over a 5 year time period in the event that insurer A and insurer B disagree over the level of payout to ensure the driver isn't with a higher premium.

Whereas my initial point is that the driver is entitled to not be made worse off by the actions of the other driver. Given how long it takes things to be sorted out in insurance claims, I expect the driver would have already had a couple of years of premium data to provide the court when it eventually got around to a hearing.

You say some insurers choose to increase premiums and other not. Is it possible that the increase in premium for no fault claims is a calculated bet by the insurer? I expect not - as I guess in such a race to the bottom, price competitive market that each customer is important. Maybe not.

[LoonR1]

johnfm said:

Insurance market softening is irrelevant to a certain extent - as all boats rise and fall with the tide.

Where we are talking at cross purposes (I expect) is that you are considering how a court might calculate a hypothetical increase in premium over a 5 year time period in the event that insurer A and insurer B disagree over the level of payout to ensure the driver isn't with a higher premium.

Whereas my initial point is that the driver is entitled to not be made worse off by the actions of the other driver. Given how long it takes things to be sorted out in insurance claims, I expect the driver would have already had a couple of years of premium data to provide the court when it eventually got around to a hearing.

You say some insurers choose to increase premiums and other not. Is it possible that the increase in premium for no fault claims is a calculated bet by the insurer? I expect not - as I guess in such a race to the bottom, price competitive market that each customer is important. Maybe not.

Insurers rate on their experience and future projections. None of them are altruistic enough to sacrifice themselves for their competitors, just as no supermarket has suddenly increased their milk prices and supply costs across the board despite the recent public outcry (Morrisons attempt has been an abject failure which just proves how self centred the UK population is when it comes to price over principle). The race to the bottom is driven by the customers who want to live at the bottom.

The legal challenge is remoteness. There is no way to settle a claim fully and finally which is what a court is asked to do by asking it to guess on premiums. Injury is defined by the JSB (or whatever it's now called). Premiums a few years hence are not defined.You have suffered no loss. What if you get a company car, or stop driving, or are banned for an unrelated issue. What if you have another claim? What if the only reason for a price rise is that this is your second non-fault claim and that stops counting at the next renewal? What if the insurers change their rating criteria?

There are too many what ifs and we are back to remoteness. This is why it can't be claimed for.

[S0updr4g0n]

Another thing to note is that the insurers may have changed their underwriters and the quote may have been increased as a result/anyway - if asked.