Minimising impact of non-fault claims

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Artey said:

You're trying hard to come across like a person who gets it but you have no clue what you're talking about.

[Artey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Artey said:

You're trying hard to come across like a person who gets it but you have no clue what you're talking about.

Just a picture with no words? That suggests you've run out of arguments (not that you had any real counterarguments in the first place).

[jamiebae]

Artey said:

jamiebae said:

Wow, you're very angry!

I do get somewhat irate when I talk with brainwashed morons. Like in your instance you're trying to prove me wrong by saying that:

jamiebae said:

If you are involved in one non-fault claim you are statistically more likely to be involved in another one. This is not up for debate.

Really. Some people see their premiums drop after a non fault accident. Nobody knows for certain what the rules are as there are no clear rules that would be transparent enough giving us confidence that the compulsory car insurance that we are forced to be taking part in (if we want to drive) is anything else than a racket. For the future I'd suggest you avoid making such strong know it all statements as those who make such statements usually end up looking like idiots.

jamiebae said:

There are a huge number of hit-and-run incidents, and accidents caused by uninsured drivers in the UK, in these cases irrespective of fault, your insurer is going to end up out of pocket.

Of course and since such cases would end up treated as my fault I'm more than ok with subsequent premium increase AFTER incident that loses money on my account.

jamiebae said:

but it's no different to how all 18 year olds pay a fortune because a proportion of them are horrendously bad drivers.

You're trying hard to come across like a person who gets it but you have no clue what you're talking about.

I can't multi quote on an iPad but I'll attempt to respond to some of these.....

If you run a retrospective test on 1m UK drivers, take 500k with a non fault claim and 500k without the ones with a non fault claim will have more subsequent non fault claims than those without.

All your other points seem to suggest insurers should price in the risk after the event has happened. If you do that you'd be out of business very quickly as you can't rely on customers renewing each year, so in your example the insurer would pay out (having not priced in the risk) and then when they tried to the next year and you left they'd be out of pocket. Pricing of risk is what insurers do, premiums aren't regulated and if the insurer doesn't want the business they'll quote you £10k.

If your premium drops after a non fault accident it's because another rating factor has changed to offset it - gone from 19 to 20 years old, moved from Moss Side to Swanage, gone from zero to one year NCB or similar. Alternatively you've changed insurer so the comparison isn't really valid.

Insurance isn't a racket, and is mandatory for a reason - if you have an accident you can't afford to pay £millions of medical bills when someone ends up permanently disabled as a result. If you don't like it then move to a country where it isn't required.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

jamiebae said:

If you run a retrospective test on 1m UK drivers, take 500k with a non fault claim and 500k without the ones with a non fault claim will have more subsequent non fault claims than those without.

This is the key to it. It's not fair, but insurance isn't meant to be fair. Indeed, it absolutely shouldn't be fair.

Someone with cancer should have to pay more for life insurance or travel insurance than someone without cancer. Young people should pay more for car insurance than older people, and older people should have to pay more for life insurance than younger people.

It should be a reflection of future risk and the likelihood of claiming, and nothing to do with fairness.

[V8RX7]

jamiebae said:

If you run a retrospective test on 1m UK drivers, take 500k with a non fault claim and 500k without the ones with a non fault claim will have more subsequent non fault claims than those without.

But if they only have more non fault claims and still don't involve their insurer - why should it increase their insurance when there is no cost involved ?

[fourspoons]

jamiebae said:

I can't multi quote on an iPad but I'll attempt to respond to some of these.....

If you run a retrospective test on 1m UK drivers, take 500k with a non fault claim and 500k without the ones with a non fault claim will have more subsequent non fault claims than those without.

All your other points seem to suggest insurers should price in the risk after the event has happened. If you do that you'd be out of business very quickly as you can't rely on customers renewing each year, so in your example the insurer would pay out (having not priced in the risk) and then when they tried to the next year and you left they'd be out of pocket. Pricing of risk is what insurers do, premiums aren't regulated and if the insurer doesn't want the business they'll quote you £10k.

If your premium drops after a non fault accident it's because another rating factor has changed to offset it - gone from 19 to 20 years old, moved from Moss Side to Swanage, gone from zero to one year NCB or similar. Alternatively you've changed insurer so the comparison isn't really valid.

Insurance isn't a racket, and is mandatory for a reason - if you have an accident you can't afford to pay £millions of medical bills when someone ends up permanently disabled as a result. If you don't like it then move to a country where it isn't required.

OK I think the arguments are running at cross purposes here. We all understand basically how risks are rated.

What we don't buy is how that turns into actual real losses for the insurer that would justify the increase in premium. So let's argue that having a non-fault claim makes me 10% more likely to have another non-fault claim. And that 10% of those are hit and run. So overall that is 1% more likely that my insurer is going to incur a cost. Yet somehow a 50% loading to my premium is justified...

[fourspoons]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

This is the key to it. It's not fair, but insurance isn't meant to be fair. Indeed, it absolutely shouldn't be fair.

Someone with cancer should have to pay more for life insurance or travel insurance than someone without cancer. Young people should pay more for car insurance than older people, and older people should have to pay more for life insurance than younger people.

It should be a reflection of future risk and the likelihood of claiming, and nothing to do with fairness.

Well fair....maybe not. But there are limits that we as a society should accept. I'm sure that you could run a statistic that showed people called Dave are slightly more likely then people called Jim to make a claim but it wouldn't be acceptable to load a premium based on someone's name.

Extending your life insurance analogy to non-fault claims would mean that every time I sneezed my life premium would go up.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

fourspoons said:

Well fair....maybe not. But there are limits that we as a society should accept. I'm sure that you could run a statistic that showed people called Dave are slightly more likely then people called Jim to make a claim but it wouldn't be acceptable to load a premium based on someone's name.

Extending your life insurance analogy to non-fault claims would mean that every time I sneezed my life premium would go up.

It would be absolutely acceptable for an insurer to discriminate on basis of name, if such stats existed. No problem there. There are laws that they have to act within. They can't discriminate on ground of race or religion. Since the EU got involved, they can't discriminate on grounds of gender (which most people think is crackers).

But they can discriminate of grounds of health, non fault claims and a whole load of other unfair things. And that's a good thing.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

V8RX7 said:

jamiebae said:

If you run a retrospective test on 1m UK drivers, take 500k with a non fault claim and 500k without the ones with a non fault claim will have more subsequent non fault claims than those without.

But if they only have more non fault claims and still don't involve their insurer - why should it increase their insurance when there is no cost involved ?

This question has been asked and answered several times already.

[TooMany2cvs]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

They can't discriminate on ground of race or religion. Since the EU got involved, they can't discriminate on grounds of gender (which most people think is crackers).

Only those people who think that possession of a vagina somehow makes you an inherently and unavoidably st driver. Who, tbf, probably mostly also think that brown skin does the same.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

TooMany2cvs said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

They can't discriminate on ground of race or religion. Since the EU got involved, they can't discriminate on grounds of gender (which most people think is crackers).

Only those people who think that possession of a vagina somehow makes you an inherently and unavoidably st driver. Who, tbf, probably mostly also think that brown skin does the same.

But possession of a vagina does mean you are likely to have lower cost claims on your car, higher cost claims on your health insurance, cost life insurers less and annuity providers more (because women live longer).

It's madness that insurers cannot reflect these facts in their premiums.

[Artey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

jamiebae said:

If you run a retrospective test on 1m UK drivers, take 500k with a non fault claim and 500k without the ones with a non fault claim will have more subsequent non fault claims than those without.

This is the key to it. It's not fair, but insurance isn't meant to be fair. Indeed, it absolutely shouldn't be fair.

Someone with cancer should have to pay more for life insurance or travel insurance than someone without cancer. Young people should pay more for car insurance than older people, and older people should have to pay more for life insurance than younger people.

It should be a reflection of future risk and the likelihood of claiming, and nothing to do with fairness.

I'll use your analogy again in hope that maybe you'll finally understand why it's not the statistics that are an issue but the blatant abuse of a particular correlation that has fk all with the causation. I keep my fingers crossed for you, "the Wonder kid" matey.

So here it goes, your "Someone with cancer should have to pay more for life insurance or travel insurance than someone without cancer." is completely missing the point of the issue with non fault claims. Same as the "Young people should pay more for car insurance than older people, and older people should have to pay more for life insurance than younger people."

Here's why. And this is why you don't get it.
- If someone has cancer of course their premiums should go up, similar to if someone has history of cancer in their families.
- But their premiums would never be loaded if they happen to work in an office with people who have cancer. And I'm sure that there is some sort of statistic that could show a correlation. And it might be greater than we think. But nobody uses it because it's fking irrelevant to getting cancer.

Similarly, if someone is young they are the risk and if they are old they are the risk. But just because you know someone young or old you are not risk yourself although again I'm sure there is some sort of correlation.

I'll end with this statement, and this is my final post in this ludicrous gathering of brain dead people - UK is one of the few countries where victims pay for someone else's driving mistakes. If we used insurance as a deterrent, penalising those who cause mayhem in a way which would keep them of the road we would eliminate real risk out of the equation. More people would engage their brains while driving rather than carelessly not give a fk like they tend to do.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Working with someone who has cancer does not increase my chances of dying earlier than I would have done otherwise.

Having a non fault claim does increase my chances of having further claim(s).

If there were stats to show being around people with cancer meant your life was curtailed, they would have been spotted and acted upon by insurers.

What part of that is too complex for you to grasp?