Has your insurance gone up?
Discussion
Killboy said:
So why are the policies more expensive? Once again you're pulling numbers out of your bum.
How difficult is it for an actuary whose role is to assess the financial impact of uncertainty and risk not grasp the simple concept that risk, pricing , predicting the future and other aspects of insurance aren’t a simple straight line?LF5335 said:
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?
So this is your assertion, now, no other countries have problems with inflated car insurance claims, that's a uniquely UK problem?Fancy getting a Credit Hire car in Singapore, or claiming for whiplash in Uruguay, or inflating your repair costs in Germany?
Even if that were true It only becomes relevant if someone believes your newest entirely unsubstantiated theory that claim costs for fully comp customers are substantial reduced by having to repair their customers car because they might find out about the claim earlier and might be able to do something to keep costs from being inflated.
e-honda said:
So this is your assertion, now, no other countries have problems with inflated car insurance claims, that's a uniquely UK problem?
Even if that were true It only becomes relevant if someone believes your newest entirely unsubstantiated theory that claim costs for fully comp customers are substantial reduced by having to repair their customers car because they might find out about the claim earlier and might be able to do something to keep costs from being inflated.
I don’t know if they do or they don’t. However, I have a property abroad and I own both a car and motorbike there. The cost to insure my car there is €399 pa FC, in the UK it would be around £500. The bike is a different story it is €550 for what would cost me £115 in the UK. Even if that were true It only becomes relevant if someone believes your newest entirely unsubstantiated theory that claim costs for fully comp customers are substantial reduced by having to repair their customers car because they might find out about the claim earlier and might be able to do something to keep costs from being inflated.
The laws are different there though. Fault is apportioned differently, the whole claims process is very different. It’s basically not comparable and as a result some things work better and other things far worse when it comes to insurance.
The UK is riddled with industries that add no value to the claims process, but who take large chunks of money during a claim. These companies aren’t allowed in some countries, they are in others. Do No Win, No Fee solicitors exist in all countries? Can you make an injury claim as a passenger in a vehicle that’s involved in a crash for example?
If you don’t understand that differences in legal frameworks exist in every country then you have no chance of understanding even the most simple part of insurance.
The premiums of the many pay for the claims of the few. If the few can claim for a lot more or less in some jurisdictions, then the premiums of the many have to be higher.
Not rocket science.
Killboy said:
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.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?
I can explain it to you, but I'll never be able to understand it for you. That's down to you. But I suspect that you have a pre existing understanding based on intuition that less cover should mean lower premiums, and explanations that are really quite obvious but are counter intuitive is something that you struggle to grasp. Or you can grasp it but don't want to accept it because that would mean what you've believed for years is wrong. And you don't want to go there.
LF5335 said:
I don’t know if they do or they don’t. However, I have a property abroad and I own both a car and motorbike there. The cost to insure my car there is €399 pa FC, in the UK it would be around £500. The bike is a different story it is €550 for what would cost me £115 in the UK.
The laws are different there though. Fault is apportioned differently, the whole claims process is very different. It’s basically not comparable and as a result some things work better and other things far worse when it comes to insurance.
The UK is riddled with industries that add no value to the claims process, but who take large chunks of money during a claim. These companies aren’t allowed in some countries, they are in others. Do No Win, No Fee solicitors exist in all countries? Can you make an injury claim as a passenger in a vehicle that’s involved in a crash for example?
If you don’t understand that differences in legal frameworks exist in every country then you have no chance of understanding even the most simple part of insurance.
The premiums of the many pay for the claims of the few. If the few can claim for a lot more or less in some jurisdictions, then the premiums of the many have to be higher.
Not rocket science.
It certainly isn't. Bloody obvious really. The laws are different there though. Fault is apportioned differently, the whole claims process is very different. It’s basically not comparable and as a result some things work better and other things far worse when it comes to insurance.
The UK is riddled with industries that add no value to the claims process, but who take large chunks of money during a claim. These companies aren’t allowed in some countries, they are in others. Do No Win, No Fee solicitors exist in all countries? Can you make an injury claim as a passenger in a vehicle that’s involved in a crash for example?
If you don’t understand that differences in legal frameworks exist in every country then you have no chance of understanding even the most simple part of insurance.
The premiums of the many pay for the claims of the few. If the few can claim for a lot more or less in some jurisdictions, then the premiums of the many have to be higher.
Not rocket science.
If you manufacture a product, and you wish to by liability cover for damage or injury caused to third parties by your product malfunctioning, you will find one of the first questions asked is if you export to the USA. Is that because there's something in the air in the USA that makes products malfunction, or because the legal framework in the USA makes it easier for people to sue, there's a bigger culture of suing for product failure, and the awards are likely to be far higher?
The 2 biggest factors in assessing the premium is the type of product and where you are selling it. That's how premiums are impacted by the law of a particular country and the culture in that country.
LF5335 said:
How difficult is it for an actuary whose role is to assess the financial impact of uncertainty and risk not grasp the simple concept that risk, pricing , predicting the future and other aspects of insurance aren’t a simple straight line?
I'm sure is very complex. Much more complex that the post I quoted.Do you have any ideas?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Because, as I've said in numerous previous replies, not only do you have minimal reduction in risk to the insurer, you have greater moral hazard, by virtue of the very type of customers who are requesting the cover.
I can explain it to you, but I'll never be able to understand it for you. That's down to you. But I suspect that you have a pre existing understanding based on intuition that less cover should mean lower premiums, and explanations that are really quite obvious but are counter intuitive is something that you struggle to grasp. Or you can grasp it but don't want to accept it because that would mean what you've believed for years is wrong. And you don't want to go there.
You've pulled numbers out your bum, stating then as of they are facts and going on "moral hazard"s about types of customers. I can explain it to you, but I'll never be able to understand it for you. That's down to you. But I suspect that you have a pre existing understanding based on intuition that less cover should mean lower premiums, and explanations that are really quite obvious but are counter intuitive is something that you struggle to grasp. Or you can grasp it but don't want to accept it because that would mean what you've believed for years is wrong. And you don't want to go there.
Sorry. I'd gladly take TP cover only, and affordability isn't my problem
LF5335 said:
I don’t know if they do or they don’t. However, I have a property abroad and I own both a car and motorbike there. The cost to insure my car there is €399 pa FC, in the UK it would be around £500. The bike is a different story it is €550 for what would cost me £115 in the UK.
The laws are different there though. Fault is apportioned differently, the whole claims process is very different. It’s basically not comparable and as a result some things work better and other things far worse when it comes to insurance.
The UK is riddled with industries that add no value to the claims process, but who take large chunks of money during a claim. These companies aren’t allowed in some countries, they are in others. Do No Win, No Fee solicitors exist in all countries? Can you make an injury claim as a passenger in a vehicle that’s involved in a crash for example?
If you don’t understand that differences in legal frameworks exist in every country then you have no chance of understanding even the most simple part of insurance.
The premiums of the many pay for the claims of the few. If the few can claim for a lot more or less in some jurisdictions, then the premiums of the many have to be higher.
Not rocket science.
I never said I don't understand that differences in legal frameworks exist.The laws are different there though. Fault is apportioned differently, the whole claims process is very different. It’s basically not comparable and as a result some things work better and other things far worse when it comes to insurance.
The UK is riddled with industries that add no value to the claims process, but who take large chunks of money during a claim. These companies aren’t allowed in some countries, they are in others. Do No Win, No Fee solicitors exist in all countries? Can you make an injury claim as a passenger in a vehicle that’s involved in a crash for example?
If you don’t understand that differences in legal frameworks exist in every country then you have no chance of understanding even the most simple part of insurance.
The premiums of the many pay for the claims of the few. If the few can claim for a lot more or less in some jurisdictions, then the premiums of the many have to be higher.
Not rocket science.
I just said you don't understand how arguments work.
You can just say differences exist, there is your reason, prove me wrong.
You have to say what differences exist that are relevant, and you haven't.
Here is my list of unsubstantiated claims as to why 3rd party only and tpf&t insurance is actually cheaper to cover.
1. You don't have to pay for repairs to your customers car if they have an accident.
This one isn't really unsubstantiated it's a fact.
2. Less fraud risk, for 3rd party only at least this is pretty much a fact too.
3. Drivers without fully comp will be less inclined to take risks behind the wheel after all it is going to cost them more.
4. Wealthier customers. Fully comp being cheaper has been quite well known for some time so cost conscious owners with lower value cars are more than likely buying fully comp with a higher excess because they know it's the cheapest form or cover.
Those buying fully comp are more than likely wealthier customers driving cars they can easily afford to replace deciding to try and be frugal without really needing to pay attention to costs.
It's not entirely clear why it's less expensive to insure a wealthier person but it has been previously claimed so let's go with it.
5. Older drivers. Gen z have never known a world where fully comp was more expensive so they will be defaulting to fully comp where as older drivers are more likely to get caught out.
It's not entirely clear to me how factors that can easily be determined by the stand questions they as are relevant but they seem to feature heavily in the claims as to why 3rd party only is more expensive.
6. Non car people. You can get a discount with many car insurers for being part of a motoring club or group as enthusiasts are sometimes seen as lower risk.
Where as the kind of uninformed person that doesn't know fully comp is cheaper is probably the kind of person who will top up their brake fluid with washing up liquid or do what ever it is that makes non car people a higher risk.
All in all I think this adds up to a situation where it we had an open and competitive 3rd party only market I think my insurer would need to pay me to be their customer.
Obviously no data to support any of this but who needs it anyway?
e-honda said:
I never said I don't understand that differences in legal frameworks exist.
I just said you don't understand how arguments work.
You can just say differences exist, there is your reason, prove me wrong.
You have to say what differences exist that are relevant, and you haven't.
Here is my list of unsubstantiated claims as to why 3rd party only and tpf&t insurance is actually cheaper to cover.
1. You don't have to pay for repairs to your customers car if they have an accident.
This one isn't really unsubstantiated it's a fact.
2. Less fraud risk, for 3rd party only at least this is pretty much a fact too.
3. Drivers without fully comp will be less inclined to take risks behind the wheel after all it is going to cost them more.
4. Wealthier customers. Fully comp being cheaper has been quite well known for some time so cost conscious owners with lower value cars are more than likely buying fully comp with a higher excess because they know it's the cheapest form or cover.
Those buying fully comp are more than likely wealthier customers driving cars they can easily afford to replace deciding to try and be frugal without really needing to pay attention to costs.
It's not entirely clear why it's less expensive to insure a wealthier person but it has been previously claimed so let's go with it.
5. Older drivers. Gen z have never known a world where fully comp was more expensive so they will be defaulting to fully comp where as older drivers are more likely to get caught out.
It's not entirely clear to me how factors that can easily be determined by the stand questions they as are relevant but they seem to feature heavily in the claims as to why 3rd party only is more expensive.
6. Non car people. You can get a discount with many car insurers for being part of a motoring club or group as enthusiasts are sometimes seen as lower risk.
Where as the kind of uninformed person that doesn't know fully comp is cheaper is probably the kind of person who will top up their brake fluid with washing up liquid or do what ever it is that makes non car people a higher risk.
All in all I think this adds up to a situation where it we had an open and competitive 3rd party only market I think my insurer would need to pay me to be their customer.
Obviously no data to support any of this but who needs it anyway?
I can just say differences exist. I’m not going to list every potential head of claim amd then go through every country and say whether it can be claimed for in that country. I just said you don't understand how arguments work.
You can just say differences exist, there is your reason, prove me wrong.
You have to say what differences exist that are relevant, and you haven't.
Here is my list of unsubstantiated claims as to why 3rd party only and tpf&t insurance is actually cheaper to cover.
1. You don't have to pay for repairs to your customers car if they have an accident.
This one isn't really unsubstantiated it's a fact.
2. Less fraud risk, for 3rd party only at least this is pretty much a fact too.
3. Drivers without fully comp will be less inclined to take risks behind the wheel after all it is going to cost them more.
4. Wealthier customers. Fully comp being cheaper has been quite well known for some time so cost conscious owners with lower value cars are more than likely buying fully comp with a higher excess because they know it's the cheapest form or cover.
Those buying fully comp are more than likely wealthier customers driving cars they can easily afford to replace deciding to try and be frugal without really needing to pay attention to costs.
It's not entirely clear why it's less expensive to insure a wealthier person but it has been previously claimed so let's go with it.
5. Older drivers. Gen z have never known a world where fully comp was more expensive so they will be defaulting to fully comp where as older drivers are more likely to get caught out.
It's not entirely clear to me how factors that can easily be determined by the stand questions they as are relevant but they seem to feature heavily in the claims as to why 3rd party only is more expensive.
6. Non car people. You can get a discount with many car insurers for being part of a motoring club or group as enthusiasts are sometimes seen as lower risk.
Where as the kind of uninformed person that doesn't know fully comp is cheaper is probably the kind of person who will top up their brake fluid with washing up liquid or do what ever it is that makes non car people a higher risk.
All in all I think this adds up to a situation where it we had an open and competitive 3rd party only market I think my insurer would need to pay me to be their customer.
Obviously no data to support any of this but who needs it anyway?
1. That is the very problem with TPF&T / TPO cover. The customer doesn’t need to tell you about any accident. You then get presented with a fully crystallised claim after the fact with no opportunity to mitigate or challenge the claim in its early stages.
2. The profitable aspect for the fraudster is the TP element.
3. Prove it. Unless you are privy to the data, you are just guessing based on your own desired results.
4. That is a non sequitur.
5. Where is your data to support this? If it’s true then insurers must be misreading their own data.
6. In the worlds of Coolhands earlier. Absolute b
ks. There may be a small niche within a specialist aspect of the car market. Do you really think the big insurers give a flying fudge about the TVR openers club amd somehow build their whole retail model around it? They’re looking for Mr & Mrs Average, not the specific cars people drive. LF5335 said:
I can just say differences exist. I’m not going to list every potential head of claim amd then go through every country and say whether it can be claimed for in that country.
1. That is the very problem with TPF&T / TPO cover. The customer doesn’t need to tell you about any accident. You then get presented with a fully crystallised claim after the fact with no opportunity to mitigate or challenge the claim in its early stages.
2. The profitable aspect for the fraudster is the TP element.
3. Prove it. Unless you are privy to the data, you are just guessing based on your own desired results.
4. That is a non sequitur.
5. Where is your data to support this? If it’s true then insurers must be misreading their own data.
6. In the worlds of Coolhands earlier. Absolute bks. There may be a small niche within a specialist aspect of the car market. Do you really think the big insurers give a flying fudge about the TVR openers club amd somehow build their whole retail model around it? They’re looking for Mr & Mrs Average, not the specific cars people drive.
Whoosh1. That is the very problem with TPF&T / TPO cover. The customer doesn’t need to tell you about any accident. You then get presented with a fully crystallised claim after the fact with no opportunity to mitigate or challenge the claim in its early stages.
2. The profitable aspect for the fraudster is the TP element.
3. Prove it. Unless you are privy to the data, you are just guessing based on your own desired results.
4. That is a non sequitur.
5. Where is your data to support this? If it’s true then insurers must be misreading their own data.
6. In the worlds of Coolhands earlier. Absolute b
ks. There may be a small niche within a specialist aspect of the car market. Do you really think the big insurers give a flying fudge about the TVR openers club amd somehow build their whole retail model around it? They’re looking for Mr & Mrs Average, not the specific cars people drive. Killboy said:
LF5335 said:
I’m not sure what your game is, but it’s getting tedious.
I agree. People making up nonsense to explain things and then getting angry with people that don't agree with them is a little odd.I see you’ve conveniently ignored the two links showing the financials of settled claims from Q2 & Q3 2023 as well.
e-honda said:
LF5335 said:
I can just say differences exist. I’m not going to list every potential head of claim and then go through every country and say whether it can be claimed for in that country.
1. That is the very problem with TPF&T / TPO cover. The customer doesn’t need to tell you about any accident. You then get presented with a fully crystallised claim after the fact with no opportunity to mitigate or challenge the claim in its early stages.
2. The profitable aspect for the fraudster is the TP element.
3. Prove it. Unless you are privy to the data, you are just guessing based on your own desired results.
4. That is a non sequitur.
5. Where is your data to support this? If it’s true then insurers must be misreading their own data.
6. In the worlds of Coolhands earlier. Absolute bks. There may be a small niche within a specialist aspect of the car market. Do you really think the big insurers give a flying fudge about the TVR openers club amd somehow build their whole retail model around it? They’re looking for Mr & Mrs Average, not the specific cars people drive.
Whoosh1. That is the very problem with TPF&T / TPO cover. The customer doesn’t need to tell you about any accident. You then get presented with a fully crystallised claim after the fact with no opportunity to mitigate or challenge the claim in its early stages.
2. The profitable aspect for the fraudster is the TP element.
3. Prove it. Unless you are privy to the data, you are just guessing based on your own desired results.
4. That is a non sequitur.
5. Where is your data to support this? If it’s true then insurers must be misreading their own data.
6. In the worlds of Coolhands earlier. Absolute b
ks. There may be a small niche within a specialist aspect of the car market. Do you really think the big insurers give a flying fudge about the TVR openers club amd somehow build their whole retail model around it? They’re looking for Mr & Mrs Average, not the specific cars people drive. LF5335 said:
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-...
Do you know if the policy holder was fully comp or TP/TPF&T?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
LF5335 said:
Except when people give sensible clear answers you continue to act all superior. I ask again, why is an actuary whose role is to assess the financial impact of risk and uncertainty unable to draw anything other than straight lines in their logic flows and equally incapable of understanding that the liability element of motor insurance plays a significant part in the pricing of it.
I see you’ve conveniently ignored the two links showing the financials of settled claims from Q2 & Q3 2023 as well.
You're right, I did miss it. Now tell me how that makes TP more risky than fully comp? Because fully comp includes all the cover TP does, plus more than double the amount of claims not involving a third party.I see you’ve conveniently ignored the two links showing the financials of settled claims from Q2 & Q3 2023 as well.
Killboy said:
LF5335 said:
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-...
Do you know if the policy holder was fully comp or TP/TPF&T?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
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff