Insurance rant

[JuanGandini]

So... (deep breath)

Car insurance renewal time at the Gandini household and so off I trot to the compare the supermarket comparison sites to get some new quotes. This was all prompted by my current insurer kindly reminding me that my insurance is due for renewal next month.

To set the scene, last June a stupid bh crashed her car into my (parked and unoccupied) M135i and left the scene. Luckily a neighbour saw it and the police tracked her down. Unluckily the police took no further action and I had to claim through her insurers to fix the damage at a cool £900 for a new front wing.

This debacle now means that I have to declare a non-fault claim onto my insurance applications.

My current year's insurance cost me £304 with protected NCB. They quoted me £749 for next year! Comparison sites have quoted me the cheapest quote at £440. So either way I'm being punished for someone being a) st at driving and b) dishonest and c) too poor to pay for the damage they caused rather than go through their insurers.

Surely something's wrong with the system isn't it?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

What if your neighbour hadn't seen the incident. It would have been your insurance co left to pick up the tab.

The fact that it happened outside your house shows you are more of a risk of this type of thing happening than someone who has never had their unattended car hit.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Insurance isn't about fairness, it's about risk. Someone with a history of cancer pays much more for life insurance than someone who hasn't. Is that fair? No. Is it right...of course it is.

[JuanGandini]

It didn't happen outside my house. I was visiting a family member.

I've had no previous claims of any sort in 18 years of driving.

[xRIEx]

JuanGandini said:

Surely something's wrong with the system isn't it?

If you can suggest a better one, go for it.


In all my years in broking (admittedly many of those in support services to broking) I've never heard of an insurer loading a premium due to a non-fault accident where all losses had been recovered - this seems to be the preserve of the aggregators/comparison sites.

[iggletiggle]

Unfortunately you will be looked at as at risk at having this happen again..
Some companies charge for risk based on the non fault claim as well as the risk of the accident re-occurring, others will not charge for the non fault claim.

Either way, the claim and accident will have been listed and therefore will be deemed at risk to an extent.

As said, insurance is not there to be fair, the company take on a risk based on incidents. PNCD just simply protects your NCD from being reduced if you were to claim from your own insurer, it doesn't protect your premium in the main.

[ZOLLAR]

xRIEx said:

JuanGandini said:

Surely something's wrong with the system isn't it?

If you can suggest a better one, go for it.


In all my years in broking (admittedly many of those in support services to broking) I've never heard of an insurer loading a premium due to a non-fault accident where all losses had been recovered - this seems to be the preserve of the aggregators/comparison sites.

Really? it's quite common.
Also aggregators/comparison sites don't have a say on the premium, they just obtain the quote based on the details provided.

OP,
As twig said it has nothing to do with fairness it's just hard stats.

[JuanGandini]

xRIEx said:

If you can suggest a better one, go for it.


In all my years in broking (admittedly many of those in support services to broking) I've never heard of an insurer loading a premium due to a non-fault accident where all losses had been recovered - this seems to be the preserve of the aggregators/comparison sites.

Well that would seem like a rational thing (comparison sites stitching me up), but my current insurer quoted me £749! That shows they clearly are loading my premium due to a non-fault accident where all losses were recovered.

When I called them and reduced my annual mileage (work travel has changed since last year) and also to change my status to married they could still only reduce the cost to £567. Absolute drivel.

[Soov535]

JuanGandini said:

It didn't happen outside my house. I was visiting a family member.

I've had no previous claims of any sort in 18 years of driving.

You are STATISTCALLY a person who parks their car in places where it gets hit.

Sorry.

[Vaud]

JuanGandini said:

Well that would seem like a rational thing (comparison sites stitching me up), but my current insurer quoted me £749! That shows they clearly are loading my premium due to a non-fault accident where all losses were recovered.

When I called them and reduced my annual mileage (work travel has changed since last year) and also to change my status to married they could still only reduce the cost to £567. Absolute drivel.

Was this in the first year of using this company? IF so maybe your 1st year prices was just to get your business, it was always going to go up in Y2/3?

[iggletiggle]

JuanGandini said:

Well that would seem like a rational thing (comparison sites stitching me up), but my current insurer quoted me £749! That shows they clearly are loading my premium due to a non-fault accident where all losses were recovered.

When I called them and reduced my annual mileage (work travel has changed since last year) and also to change my status to married they could still only reduce the cost to £567. Absolute drivel.

Again, not wanting to aggravate the situation more but unfortunately you are a higher risk, you've parked your vehicle in a situation that caused it to be hit therefore the insurer and the systems used to calculate peril will use this against you.

Try calling / speaking to insurers or brokers directly as comparison sites arent always the best option and not all insurers appear on there anyways..

Sorry.

[xRIEx]

ZOLLAR said:

xRIEx said:

JuanGandini said:

Surely something's wrong with the system isn't it?

If you can suggest a better one, go for it.


In all my years in broking (admittedly many of those in support services to broking) I've never heard of an insurer loading a premium due to a non-fault accident where all losses had been recovered - this seems to be the preserve of the aggregators/comparison sites.

Really? it's quite common.
Also aggregators/comparison sites don't have a say on the premium, they just obtain the quote based on the details provided.

Yes. I haven't been front line for a long time, but I've not seen it, either EDI or rating guides (remember those? Christ, what a ballache!). I mostly dealt with SME so it was usually commercial vehicles and minifleet rather than private car, I'm not sure if that makes a difference.

In the past I've had to provide evidence that uninsured losses were recovered following a non-fault claim before an insurer would reinstate NCD, but afterwards, no loading.

I might have to try digging out some quote breakdowns on non-faults to see who does and doesn't.

My overriding experience of comparison sites is they end up as a bait & switch racket: they reduce the question sets to speed up quoting but make subtle assumptions when giving a price; when you go through to the provider's site they then want the extra (missing) information to be filled in, bumping up the quote. This is most likely due to accidents/convictions, so the perfect risks probably don't see this scenario.

[McSam]

Soov535 said:

You are STATISTCALLY a person who parks their car in places where it gets hit.

Sorry.

Exactly. This thread comes up at least once a week, and the answer is always the same. It wasn't your fault, you "shouldn't" suffer for it, it may not be completely fair in your situation and there could be a great reason that shows it should never happen again. But you are (quite reasonably) perceived as a higher risk, and therefore have to pay a larger premium.

It's as simple as that.

[JuanGandini]

Vaud said:

Was this in the first year of using this company? IF so maybe your 1st year prices was just to get your business, it was always going to go up in Y2/3?

It was my first year with them but I've not heard of that type of business model before for insurance - I pay for insurance one year at a time, not like phone or TV contracts for a 2-3 year contract where they often can subsidise the monthly price for the first few months or so. Needless to say, they've lost my business now!

[JuanGandini]

Soov535 said:

JuanGandini said:

It didn't happen outside my house. I was visiting a family member.

I've had no previous claims of any sort in 18 years of driving.

You are STATISTCALLY a person who parks their car in places where it gets hit.

Sorry.

No. I'm statistically a person who parked a car on a cul de sac in which another driver reversed out of a driveway into my parked car and then drove off.

Thanks for the sympathy though. It's gutting!

[Soov535]

JuanGandini said:

Soov535 said:

JuanGandini said:

It didn't happen outside my house. I was visiting a family member.

I've had no previous claims of any sort in 18 years of driving.

You are STATISTCALLY a person who parks their car in places where it gets hit.

Sorry.

No. I'm statistically a person who parked a car on a cul de sac in which another driver reversed out of a driveway into my parked car and then drove off.

Thanks for the sympathy though. It's gutting!

Statistically, you park in more dangerous places than someone who hasn't been driven into!!

They probably don't want your business - you've cost them money!!!

[xRIEx]

JuanGandini said:

xRIEx said:

If you can suggest a better one, go for it.


In all my years in broking (admittedly many of those in support services to broking) I've never heard of an insurer loading a premium due to a non-fault accident where all losses had been recovered - this seems to be the preserve of the aggregators/comparison sites.

Well that would seem like a rational thing (comparison sites stitching me up), but my current insurer quoted me £749! That shows they clearly are loading my premium due to a non-fault accident where all losses were recovered.

When I called them and reduced my annual mileage (work travel has changed since last year) and also to change my status to married they could still only reduce the cost to £567. Absolute drivel.

The general practice is to try and load renewals so they can bolster their cash reserves (or improve profit), while discounting to try and win new business. This accident might be a convenient reason to try to explain it (as well as ZOLLAR and Twig mentioned above, affecting risk profile; I'm going to look into that). Dual pricing (different rates for new business and renewal on the same risk) obviously never happens, no y'honour, don't how that happened, it must be a system glitch, yes we'll match that quote you got from another website, ho hum.

Renewal terms tend to creep up (depending on market rates, capacity, hard/soft markets, blah blah) so that lazy policyholders end up paying more because they don't shop around. All the expense goes in to winning new business rather than keeping existing customers happy; I think it's a bit backwards as it costs more for a company to win a new customer than to retain an existing one, but sales departments are king and they don't want to risk their big bonuses.

[Vaud]

JuanGandini said:

It was my first year with them but I've not heard of that type of business model before for insurance - I pay for insurance one year at a time, not like phone or TV contracts for a 2-3 year contract where they often can subsidise the monthly price for the first few months or so. Needless to say, they've lost my business now!

I think most "new business" quotes are lower to attract you. They rely on a certain % auto renewing at a higher rate without checking the (now higher) quote.

[xRIEx]

McSam said:

Soov535 said:

You are STATISTCALLY a person who parks their car in places where it gets hit.

Sorry.

Exactly. This thread comes up at least once a week, and the answer is always the same. It wasn't your fault, you "shouldn't" suffer for it, it may not be completely fair in your situation and there could be a great reason that shows it should never happen again. But you are (quite reasonably) perceived as a higher risk, and therefore have to pay a larger premium.

It's as simple as that.

See, this is what I don't accept. Your risk profile doesn't change in respect to being hit (especially hit when parked). There is exactly the same statistical chance of being hit before the accident as after, because the risk is affected by the acting party, i.e. the driver at fault. Their risk to the insurance pool has already been accounted for by the premium they pay.

It's not like flowers attracting bees, where a different colour of flower might attract more insects (although a darker colour may be less visible so more at risk, it might be interesting to see; still the car doesn't change colour after an accident); being crashed into once does not suddenly make your car magnetic or somehow more likely to attract bad drivers.

If a particular area shows a high risk of being crashed into, say CW7, then sure, you could say that parking there represents a higher risk. However, if you live there you've already stated your postcode and that will already have been taken into account to calculate the premium; if you don't live there, the insurer isn't going to know that you're going to park there because they don't ask, "what postcodes are you going to park your car in during the forthcoming year?" or "where do your friends live that you regularly vist?"

[JuanGandini]

xRIEx said:

McSam said:

Soov535 said:

You are STATISTCALLY a person who parks their car in places where it gets hit.

Sorry.

Exactly. This thread comes up at least once a week, and the answer is always the same. It wasn't your fault, you "shouldn't" suffer for it, it may not be completely fair in your situation and there could be a great reason that shows it should never happen again. But you are (quite reasonably) perceived as a higher risk, and therefore have to pay a larger premium.

It's as simple as that.

See, this is what I don't accept. Your risk profile doesn't change in respect to being hit (especially hit when parked). There is exactly the same statistical chance of being hit before the accident as after, because the risk is affected by the acting party, i.e. the driver at fault. Their risk to the insurance pool has already been accounted for by the premium they pay.

It's not like flowers attracting bees, where a different colour of flower might attract more insects (although a darker colour may be less visible so more at risk, it might be interesting to see; still the car doesn't change colour after an accident); being crashed into once does not suddenly make your car magnetic or somehow more likely to attract bad drivers.

If a particular area shows a high risk of being crashed into, say CW7, then sure, you could say that parking there represents a higher risk. However, if you live there you've already stated your postcode and that will already have been taken into account to calculate the premium; if you don't live there, the insurer isn't going to know that you're going to park there because they don't ask, "what postcodes are you going to park your car in during the forthcoming year?" or "where do your friends live that you regularly vist?"

Very well put xRIEx! I totally agree. Should the premiums not be loaded against the parties at fault for accidents rather than those who are not? Why should non-fault parties be punished because some algorithm determines they now statistically were involved in a claim regardless of fault?

[McSam]

xRIEx said:

See, this is what I don't accept. Your risk profile doesn't change in respect to being hit (especially hit when parked). There is exactly the same statistical chance of being hit before the accident as after, because the risk is affected by the acting party, i.e. the driver at fault. Their risk to the insurance pool has already been accounted for by the premium they pay.

It's not like flowers attracting bees, where a different colour of flower might attract more insects (although a darker colour may be less visible so more at risk, it might be interesting to see; still the car doesn't change colour after an accident); being crashed into once does not suddenly make your car magnetic or somehow more likely to attract bad drivers.

If a particular area shows a high risk of being crashed into, say CW7, then sure, you could say that parking there represents a higher risk. However, if you live there you've already stated your postcode and that will already have been taken into account to calculate the premium; if you don't live there, the insurer isn't going to know that you're going to park there because they don't ask, "what postcodes are you going to park your car in during the forthcoming year?" or "where do your friends live that you regularly vist?"

I agree with you, the OP's incident has had absolutely no effect on the actual risk he presents to insurers. But I said that he is now perceived to be a higher risk. You could say that there was always a high chance his car would get hit while parked (not due to postcode, but how/where he personally parks), and that insurers are only now aware of this risk because it happened. Hence, higher premiums.

I'm not saying this is the case for the OP, but it's one logical route to loading the premium. The price hike doesn't mean your risk has changed, but that the insurer now has a clearer picture of it, or so they think.

I completely agree that all of the premium increase should be borne by the driver at fault, but as we're not all insured by the same company, that can't happen and each insurer needs to assess the risk associated with their own customers.