Has your insurance gone up?

[LF5335]

e-honda said:

You've had responses from me you just don't like them.
I don't discuss my personal circumstances on here.

Facts are facts it doesn't matter who they come from.
I have told you that the situation of fully comp consistently costing more is a situation fairly unique to the UK
If this was untrue it would be very easy to disprove.
But it it is true it completely undermines your claims because they are very generic points that would apply in almost every country.
I have searched and I have not found a single other country with the same situation as ours

You won't address this, instead you attack me as the source.
If I start disclosing details of my personal circumstances no doubt you will continue to try and discredit me and it becomes even more personal which is why I choose never to discuss them.

I have answered this previously. You refuse to read the answer. Here it is again:

LF5335 said:

Insurance is heavily impacted by the legal framework of each country. Does each country have exactly the same legal structure, laws and general tort as the UK?

[Killboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You don't understand why a teenager with a speeding offence in a highly modified Subaru WRX is more likely to cause damage to a third party than a 50 y/o with a clean record in a Honda Jazz? If that's true, I don't think it's worth me explaining it to you.

Sure. But why does a 50 year old with a clean license pay more for third party only than fully comp?

[LF5335]

Killboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You don't understand why a teenager with a speeding offence in a highly modified Subaru WRX is more likely to cause damage to a third party than a 50 y/o with a clean record in a Honda Jazz? If that's true, I don't think it's worth me explaining it to you.

Sure. But why does a 50 year old with a clean license pay more for third party only than fully comp?

And again

LF5335 said:

If a TPF&T customer crashes into another car and it’s their fault, what reason or incentive do they have to report the accident to their own insurers? Insurers can mitigate cost when they know about claims early, they can’t when they find out about it weeks, moths, or even years later.

If a FC customer has exactly the same fault accident they probably will contact the same insurer much earlier as they want their own car repairing. So the insurer now gets a chance to minimise the cost. They might only save a few thousand per claim, but it will be evident in their statistical experience that this is the case.

Logical? Yep

Absolute? Yep

[Killboy]

LF5335 said:

Killboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You don't understand why a teenager with a speeding offence in a highly modified Subaru WRX is more likely to cause damage to a third party than a 50 y/o with a clean record in a Honda Jazz? If that's true, I don't think it's worth me explaining it to you.

Sure. But why does a 50 year old with a clean license pay more for third party only than fully comp?

And again

LF5335 said:

If a TPF&T customer crashes into another car and it’s their fault, what reason or incentive do they have to report the accident to their own insurers? Insurers can mitigate cost when they know about claims early, they can’t when they find out about it weeks, moths, or even years later.

If a FC customer has exactly the same fault accident they probably will contact the same insurer much earlier as they want their own car repairing. So the insurer now gets a chance to minimise the cost. They might only save a few thousand per claim, but it will be evident in their statistical experience that this is the case.

Logical? Yep

Absolute? Yep

Okay. What about the hundreds of other possible claims?

[CoolHands]

LF5335 said:

See below. I will keep postingthis reply, as it is the right answer to your neverending refusal to accept it

LF5335 said:

If a TPF&T customer crashes into another car and it’s their fault, what reason or incentive do they have to report the accident to their own insurers? Insurers can mitigate cost when they know about claims early, they can’t when they find out about it weeks, moths, or even years later.

If a FC customer has exactly the same fault accident they probably will contact the same insurer much earlier as they want their own car repairing. So the insurer now gets a chance to minimise the cost. They might only save a few thousand per claim, but it will be evident in their statistical experience that this is the case.

Logical? Yep

Absolute? Yep

Absolute bks

[e-honda]

LF5335 said:

e-honda said:

You've had responses from me you just don't like them.
I don't discuss my personal circumstances on here.

Facts are facts it doesn't matter who they come from.
I have told you that the situation of fully comp consistently costing more is a situation fairly unique to the UK
If this was untrue it would be very easy to disprove.
But it it is true it completely undermines your claims because they are very generic points that would apply in almost every country.
I have searched and I have not found a single other country with the same situation as ours

You won't address this, instead you attack me as the source.
If I start disclosing details of my personal circumstances no doubt you will continue to try and discredit me and it becomes even more personal which is why I choose never to discuss them.

I have answered this previously. You refuse to read the answer. Here it is again:

LF5335 said:

Insurance is heavily impacted by the legal framework of each country. Does each country have exactly the same legal structure, laws and general tort as the UK?

That's not how arguments work
You can't just say oh well there must be a difference in our legal frame work that makes it happen.
You are claiming it exists, you need to identify it.

The reasons being claimed on this thread are very generic.
Eg fraud risks based on the unsubstantiated claim that poorer people are more likely to commit fraud and the unsubstantiated claim that poorer people are more likely to choose these types of cover.
How do our laws make that a unique UK problem?

And credit risks, our laws allow insurers to run credit referencing and identity check, are we among the worst at doing this? I don't think so I think we are among the best.

[Biker's Nemesis]

Got my renewal today Fully Comp for R1-m and Mt 10sp, £270 last year, £295 this year.

[Killboy]

Its difficult to find an exact number - but so far it seems only 44% of insurance claims involve a 3rd party.

Does an insurer save that much money by being contacted earlier in the process to offset all of these other claims?

Just looking at Rowan Atkinson's claim - 910k for a single vehicle incident. Bet the insurers wished the was on a TP policy.

[e-honda]

Killboy said:

Its difficult to find an exact number - but so far it seems only 44% of insurance claims involve a 3rd party.

Does an insurer save that much money by being contacted earlier in the process to offset all of these other claims?

Just looking at Rowan Atkinson's claim - 910k for a single vehicle incident. Bet the insurers wished the was on a TP policy.

They don't save anything
It's just another unsubstantiated theory.
And it doesn't make much sense.
Ambulance chasers don't want to spend a penny until a 3rd party has accepted liability, the very first thing they do is contact the 3rd party insurer to confirm they have accepted liability.
They might have a slim chance of them being able to cold call someone to tell them they are accepting full liability and try and convince them never to involve anyone else, but I don't believe this is particularly common practice.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Killboy said:

Just looking at Rowan Atkinson's claim - 910k for a single vehicle incident. Bet the insurers wished the was on a TP policy.

If there was a big demand from people with high value cars for tp cover, I suspect insurers would offer it. There would be genuine savings to be made on claims payments so there may well be a way of offering the product that gives the client a worthwhile discount over comp whilst still achieving a profit for insurers. But there isn't. The demand for tp policies comes from people with low value cars. Policies where nearly all the claim payments are for tp damage, even though they have comp cover. Because own damage claims are effectively capped at maybe a couple of grand at most.

I wonder if Rowen Atkinson asked for a tp quote on his multi million pound Mclaren? Somehow, I doubt it.

[Killboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If there was a big demand from people with high value cars for tp cover, I suspect insurers would offer it. There would be genuine savings to be made on claims payments so there may well be a way of offering the product that gives the client a worthwhile discount over comp whilst still achieving a profit for insurers. But there isn't. The demand for tp policies comes from people with low value cars. Policies where nearly all the claim payments are for tp damage, even though they have comp cover. Because own damage claims are effectively capped at maybe a couple of grand at most.

I wonder if Rowen Atkinson asked for a tp quote on his multi million pound Mclaren? Somehow, I doubt it.

Is there no market from customers side, or insurers ensuring there isn't one?

The Rowen Atkinson example was tongue in cheek. But wouldn't it be funny if their TP quote was higher than fully comp

Anyways, back to payment administration fees and early involvement of insurers driving up TP prices.

[Speed 3]

The worrying part of this cost trajectory is the rise in uninsured drivers. This is interesting/alarming:

https://www.icompario.com/en-gb/guides/uninsured-d...

[AmitG]

Just had my renewal through. 49 years old, London based, fully comp on a Citroen DS9 worth about £22k and which does not trouble the list of most stolen vehicles because they only sold about 20 before giving up

I've been with the same company (Direct Line) for about 20 years and made only one claim in that time for a broken side window (which did not affect NCB). No driving convictions ever. Premium is 8% up on last year. I'm OK with that, I was expecting worse TBH.

In my experience Direct Line are definitely not the cheapest but I trust them more than some of the others. I have always found the service to be good.

[Youforreal.]

Mine is up £52 this year on my gt4 with an agreed value, was expecting it to be more tbh.

[jonwm]

Wife's has come through on her 330d. Low mileage policy (4k) andnkiw value car (£7k) and it's gone from £437 last year to £550. Compare the market saves a few quid but nothing major so have just carried it on.

Decent percentage increase, I thought £437 was a lot but it was a rushed purchase, looking back we have never paid more than £350 for the "second" car and that included a cupra 290 brand new a few years ago.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Killboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If there was a big demand from people with high value cars for tp cover, I suspect insurers would offer it. There would be genuine savings to be made on claims payments so there may well be a way of offering the product that gives the client a worthwhile discount over comp whilst still achieving a profit for insurers. But there isn't. The demand for tp policies comes from people with low value cars. Policies where nearly all the claim payments are for tp damage, even though they have comp cover. Because own damage claims are effectively capped at maybe a couple of grand at most.

I wonder if Rowen Atkinson asked for a tp quote on his multi million pound Mclaren? Somehow, I doubt it.

Is there no market from customers side, or insurers ensuring there isn't one?

If there was a market, and insurers could make money in it, they would ensure there was one. There is little demand for tpf&t cover on high value cars. If there was, insurers would definitely cater for it because there would almost certainly to be money to be made from it. Because the split in existing claims costs show a decent proportion of claims are to cover own damage.

The demand for tpf&t cover relates to low value cars, where existing total claim figures are almost all to cover tp claims anyway. If you're charging someone £500 for comp on a policy where claims costs for that sector are 98% tp payments, because you never pay more that say £2K for own damage, how much can you reduce the premium by to offer tpf&t cover? A tenner? Are many people going to buy tpf&t for £490 when comp is £500?

[Unreal]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Killboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If there was a big demand from people with high value cars for tp cover, I suspect insurers would offer it. There would be genuine savings to be made on claims payments so there may well be a way of offering the product that gives the client a worthwhile discount over comp whilst still achieving a profit for insurers. But there isn't. The demand for tp policies comes from people with low value cars. Policies where nearly all the claim payments are for tp damage, even though they have comp cover. Because own damage claims are effectively capped at maybe a couple of grand at most.

I wonder if Rowen Atkinson asked for a tp quote on his multi million pound Mclaren? Somehow, I doubt it.

Is there no market from customers side, or insurers ensuring there isn't one?

If there was a market, and insurers could make money in it, they would ensure there was one. There is little demand for tpf&t cover on high value cars. If there was, insurers would definitely cater for it because there would almost certainly to be money to be made from it. Because the split in existing claims costs show a decent proportion of claims are to cover own damage.

The demand for tpf&t cover relates to low value cars, where existing total claim figures are almost all to cover tp claims anyway. If you're charging someone £500 for comp on a policy where claims costs for that sector are 98% tp payments, because you never pay more that say £2K for own damage, how much can you reduce the premium by to offer tpf&t cover? A tenner? Are many people going to buy tpf&t for £490 when comp is £500?

You are wasting your breath. TP should be £200, TPFT £400 and FC £600.

[LF5335]

e-honda said:

That's not how arguments work
You can't just say oh well there must be a difference in our legal frame work that makes it happen.
You are claiming it exists, you need to identify it.

The reasons being claimed on this thread are very generic.
Eg fraud risks based on the unsubstantiated claim that poorer people are more likely to commit fraud and the unsubstantiated claim that poorer people are more likely to choose these types of cover.
How do our laws make that a unique UK problem?

And credit risks, our laws allow insurers to run credit referencing and identity check, are we among the worst at doing this? I don't think so I think we are among the best.

It’s exactly how the argument works. Insurance is a legal requirement here, claims are made using the legal system and the laws, precedents etc that are in place. Every country has different laws and different application of civil rights and wrongs. If every country has a different legal framework, then their claims costs will be different as well as what can be claimed for.

Fancy getting a Credit Hire car in Singapore, or claiming for whiplash in Uruguay, or inflating your repair costs in Germany?

[LF5335]

Killboy said:

Its difficult to find an exact number - but so far it seems only 44% of insurance claims involve a 3rd party.

Does an insurer save that much money by being contacted earlier in the process to offset all of these other claims?

Just looking at Rowan Atkinson's claim - 910k for a single vehicle incident. Bet the insurers wished the was on a TP policy.

Was just looking at the Manny Helmot claim, a cyclist knocked off his bike by a single driver. Payout was £14m. There have been a lot of claims paid out in the millions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-guernsey-172...

Why are you so obsessed about first party damage and nothing else? It’s really weird n]behaviour from an actuary.

Oh here’s the actual numbers paid out across the industry in Q2 and Q3 2023. £4.9billion in 6 months, repair inflation 29% amd 32% respectively. But you know,mits a disgrace, made up blah, blah.

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/9/r...

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/uk/news/auto-...

Edited by LF5335 on Sunday 24th March 17:22

[Killboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If there was a market, and insurers could make money in it, they would ensure there was one. There is little demand for tpf&t cover on high value cars. If there was, insurers would definitely cater for it because there would almost certainly to be money to be made from it. Because the split in existing claims costs show a decent proportion of claims are to cover own damage.

The demand for tpf&t cover relates to low value cars, where existing total claim figures are almost all to cover tp claims anyway. If you're charging someone £500 for comp on a policy where claims costs for that sector are 98% tp payments, because you never pay more that say £2K for own damage, how much can you reduce the premium by to offer tpf&t cover? A tenner? Are many people going to buy tpf&t for £490 when comp is £500?

So why are the policies more expensive? Once again you're pulling numbers out of your bum.