Has your insurance gone up?

[Killboy]

LF5335 said:

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

You're not the brightest are you?

Third party/Third party Fire and Theft. Why do you think I'm interested in the claims that wouldn't involve Third Parties?

[LF5335]

Killboy said:

LF5335 said:

Irrelevant to the point being made. You continue to struggle to understand the basic premise of liability cover within insurance. Not very good for an actuary.

Is it? You're trying to tell me why TP cover is more expensive using examples that wouldn't matter.

Looooool

No, I’m not. I’m pointing out that your example of Roman Atkinson and his McLaren is not the mega claim that you think it is. That’s backed up by the latest stats from 2023 (that I also provided) which demonstrate that claims inflation is running at 29-32% for just the repair element of motor claims. Inflation could be higher or lower for the other dozens of valid heads of claim.

I]again, this is t rocket science. Sadly, an actuary, a person who actually works in insurance in a role that is assessing the financial impact of risk and uncertainty is incapable of thinking other than in straight lines adm doesn’t understand the basics of liability insurance. No wonder the industry is in the mess you amd a few others claim it is.

[Killboy]

LF5335 said:

No, I’m not. I’m pointing out that your example of Roman Atkinson and his McLaren is not the mega claim that you think it is. That’s backed up by the latest stats from 2023 (that I also provided) which demonstrate that claims inflation is running at 29-32% for just the repair element of motor claims. Inflation could be higher or lower for the other dozens of valid heads of claim.

I]again, this is t rocket science. Sadly, an actuary, a person who actually works in insurance in a role that is assessing the financial impact of risk and uncertainty is incapable of thinking other than in straight lines adm doesn’t understand the basics of liability insurance. No wonder the industry is in the mess you amd a few others claim it is.

Have a big think about it, and let me know.

I'll draw a picture of you want

[LF5335]

Killboy said:

Have a big think about it, and let me know.

I'll draw a picture of you want

Might keep you busy under the bridge Mr Troll

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Killboy said:

Sorry. I'd gladly take TP cover only, and affordability isn't my problem

And both of my sons went thru their teenage years without having an accident. That doesn't mean young drivers are a good risk.

[loskie]

from 280 to 530 for no known reason. Dropped to 420 when I challenged it. Still one helluva jump

[Killboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

And both of my sons went thru their teenage years without having an accident. That doesn't mean young drivers are a good risk.

TP only? I hope they didn't default on their payments.

[e-honda]

LF5335 said:

Might keep you busy under the bridge Mr Troll

So your done with attacking his credibility and moving on to name calling.
You've reached the bottom tier of the pyramid.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

e-honda said:

2. Less fraud risk, for 3rd party only at least this is pretty much a fact too.

Not only is it not a fact, it's actually completely false. Any insurer will tell you that one of the key indicators of a fraudulent theft or fire claim is a request for tpf&t cover. Why buy comp cover when you know in advance of taking out the policy what claim you will be making next month.

By the same token, fraudulent tp claims, where a driver deliberately crashes into car owned by a person known to the policyholder and an accomplice to the fraud, and then backs up the story of the tp having 4 passengers, and then sharing the payout, used to be the preserve of people buying tpo cover, when it was available. For the same reason. Why buy tpf&t or comp when you know in advance the type of claim you're going to have.

These two factors were key to many insurers just refusing to cover anyone asking for anything other than comp, which is one of the reasons many insurers don't do it at all, or if they do, factor in the increased fraud risk into the premium.

The fact that you are completely unaware of this, when it's common knowledge throughout the industry, means I'm right about you, aren't I? You have absolutely no industry experience at all, beyond buying insurance once a year.

You have no idea how foolish you appear to be to those of us with industry knowledge. I'd give it up if I were you, but I'm sure you won't.

[Killboy]

e-honda said:

So your done with attacking his credibility and moving on to name calling.
You've reached the bottom tier of the pyramid.

To be fair I called him dim first.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Killboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

And both of my sons went thru their teenage years without having an accident. That doesn't mean young drivers are a good risk.

TP only? I hope they didn't default on their payments.

They never had their own car, but used mine. They just didn't need to use a car often enough to justify owning one. I had comp. Not paid on instalments.

[Killboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

They never had their own car, but used mine. They just didn't need to use a car often enough to justify owning one. I had comp. Not paid on instalments.

So another irrelevant anecdote then. Actually it somewhat helps my point.

[e-honda]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Not only is it not a fact, it's actually completely false. Any insurer will tell you that one of the key indicators of a fraudulent theft or fire claim is a request for tpf&t cover. Why buy comp cover when you know in advance of taking out the policy what claim you will be making next month.

By the same token, fraudulent tp claims, where a driver deliberately crashes into car owned by a person known to the policyholder and an accomplice to the fraud, and then backs up the story of the tp having 4 passengers, and then sharing the payout, used to be the preserve of people buying tpo cover, when it was available. For the same reason. Why buy tpf&t or comp when you know in advance the type of claim you're going to have.

These two factors were key to many insurers just refusing to cover anyone asking for anything other than comp, which is one of the reasons many insurers don't do it at all, or if they do, factor in the increased fraud risk into the premium.

The fact that you are completely unaware of this, when it's common knowledge throughout the industry, means I'm right about you, aren't I? You have absolutely no industry experience at all, beyond buying insurance once a year.

You have no idea how foolish you appear to be to those of us with industry knowledge. I'd give it up if I were you, but I'm sure you won't.

First part of you actually read it fully I said for 3rd party only, so not 3rd party fire and theft.

And as for crash for cash scammers are you are saying someone who is planning to deliberately crash their car so someone else can claim off them isn't going to want fully comp so they can get some extra money out of the scam? And of course pay less money out, because insurance fraudsters tend to be pretty clued up on the costs of insurance so would know fully comp will be cheaper.
I don't understand why you think they would be willing to spend more money to make less money.

What you say about 3rd party fire and theft fraud risks may well have been true 30 years ago when you could save money going 3rd party fire and theft, but not really now when the opposite applies.

And what you seem to have completely missed is that the whole post was a tongue in cheek point about making unsubstantiated claims
Whoosh.

[A.J.M]

Renewal was 44% higher than last year.
No change to any information, 18 years ncbs.

Didn’t take it as I’ve given the car to the OH.
She can claim insurance as a business expense which is nice.

Rather worried about what my quotes will be for my car when it arrives.

[The Leaper]

As I have mentioned elsewhere in PH, I have recently completed the renewal for my 7 year old Land Rover Discovery Sport. Full NCB, one driver, car garaged etc. I live in mid Surrey. Pre renewal the premium was £736, insured via LV. LV refused to quote for the renewal. Eventually got the insurance for £1,336 so up by 80%. This is with Ageas.

I looked at a comparison website. Cheapest was around £1100. Admiral were interesting. They were close to £2000. However, I have very recently switched house contents from AXA to Admiral and got a large cost saving. Admiral seemed keen for me to add car insurance so I went through getting a quote from them via their website. They refused to quote! So, I assume they want to appear to be in the car insurance market but decline to quote when it comes to an actual potential deal.

Crazy I know, but I feel somewhat relieved. I was half expecting a quote to be over £2000 or not to be able to get renewal cover, based on what I've seen in several PH threads, and the hyped up media, of course.

R.

[ajap1979]

Just got the renewal through for our Dachshund, and that’s doubled as well, FFS!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

e-honda said:

And as for crash for cash scammers are you are saying someone who is planning to deliberately crash their car so someone else can claim off them isn't going to want fully comp so they can get some extra money out of the scam?

Yes, this is well known throughout the industry, and I'm shocked you haven't come across it in all your years of industry experience. Keep set up costs of the sting to a minimum , buy an old car to use and insure it tpo, the £500, less an excess, own damage payment isn't going to make much difference to the overall large claim. And the fraudster, beyond reporting the accident initially, doesn't want to be dealing with the insurer for an own damage claim. The less contact they have with the insurer, the less chance of saying the wrong thing. Honestly, how can you not know all this??? This is basic anti fraud knowledge for novices in the industry.

It's a problem today for the self drive hire business. I can guarantee you, if you walk into an sdh operator and ask about the cost of hiring the cheapest car at the cheapest time, you will either be told there's no availability, or quoted a price way above hiring a more expensive car at a more expensive time. Exactly the same thinking behind charging more for tp than comp.

Jeez, it's on page 1 of Insurance Fraud Detection for Dummies If you have any self awareness, you'd realise people who know about this stuff are laughing at you.

[/footnote]

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Monday 25th March 09:15

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Killboy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

They never had their own car, but used mine. They just didn't need to use a car often enough to justify owning one. I had comp. Not paid on instalments.

So another irrelevant anecdote then. Actually it somewhat helps my point.

Exactly. That's the reason I mentioned my lads, because it's a meaningless anecdote, like you wanting tpo even though you have no money worries. And my granny smoked 40 a day and lived to 99.

[e-honda]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Yes, this is well known throughout the industry....

Another unsubstantiated claim
No it isn't
It might have been 20 years ago but it isn't now
And your reasoning for it falls flat when 3rd party only cover is more expensive, has been for many years and that is very well known.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

e-honda said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Yes, this is well known throughout the industry....

Another unsubstantiated claim
No it isn't
It might have been 20 years ago but it isn't now
And your reasoning for it falls flat when 3rd party only cover is more expensive, has been for many years and that is very well known.

That's one of many reasons it is more expensive. And the reason they've moved on to the SDH industry, because they don't want comp (which somehow you didn't seem to know, in fact believing they actually would want comp) and if they bought comp and then were reluctant to deal with insurers on an ongoing basis re their own damage claim, it would raise suspicions.

Honestly, the more you post, the more you demonstrate how ill informed you are. Give it up, for the sake of your own diminishing credibility.

Don't forget, according to you, tpo buyers are less likely to commit fraud....it's a fact.