Cannot get insured anymore due to a non-fault accident.
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
He got himself back in a similar car but was out of pocket by about a grand overall IIRC.
From the many threads on here we always see insurance companies low-balling the first offer and generally being a right pain in paying up to the right value.People seem to accept values that put them out of pocket to avoid the hassle.
walm said:
From the many threads on here we always see insurance companies low-balling the first offer and generally being a right pain in paying up to the right value.
People seem to accept values that put them out of pocket to avoid the hassle.
Or just not well informed enough to battle the people who are supposed to be helping them.People seem to accept values that put them out of pocket to avoid the hassle.
On another note, can you remind us what accident management companies are for, when people have a shunt and inform their insurance companies why are they then bombarded with calls from such businesses, why do hire cars factor in the way they do, why crash-for cash lawyers, why are they not looked after properly by the people they paid their premiums to?
The only question I can think of, is if you get loaded by your insurance company when you’ve has a no fault claim, is the circumstances of that claim looked at in enough detail. The most obvious ‘wrong’ conclusion on a no blame claim, is when and empty stationary car is hit. Perhaps the ‘degree of involvement’ requires more detailed analysis to apportion any partially contributory factors.
heebeegeetee said:
Why don't uk insurers just do the same as their European counterparts?
Especially given many of them are the exact same companies - and they certainly work internationally.It's because different countries have different medical systems and different legal systems with different tests. The UK could work towards those same positions, but there might be other knock-on effects.
robinessex said:
The only question I can think of, is if you get loaded by your insurance company when you’ve has a no fault claim, is the circumstances of that claim looked at in enough detail. The most obvious ‘wrong’ conclusion on a no blame claim, is when and empty stationary car is hit. Perhaps the ‘degree of involvement’ requires more detailed analysis to apportion any partially contributory factors.
Where I used to live, my car was reversed into out of the drive over the road, and I claimed. It loaded my premium.I might have forgotten to mention the other three times it was reversed into out of that same drive (always by different people), the time it was hit by a parked car which rolled away down the hill - because none of those were claims - and I certainly didn't mention the time I went out five minutes before another roll-away wrote my downhill neighbour's car off. Or any of the other roll-aways that missed us. Even the one that went through the fence a bit further down the hill, having narrowly missed the local blind guy walking down the road, ending up upside-down just where somebody had been gardening five minutes before.
Did that affect my risk of claiming? Hell, yes...
TooMany2cvs said:
robinessex said:
The only question I can think of, is if you get loaded by your insurance company when you’ve has a no fault claim, is the circumstances of that claim looked at in enough detail. The most obvious ‘wrong’ conclusion on a no blame claim, is when and empty stationary car is hit. Perhaps the ‘degree of involvement’ requires more detailed analysis to apportion any partially contributory factors.
Where I used to live, my car was reversed into out of the drive over the road, and I claimed. It loaded my premium.I might have forgotten to mention the other three times it was reversed into out of that same drive (always by different people), the time it was hit by a parked car which rolled away down the hill - because none of those were claims - and I certainly didn't mention the time I went out five minutes before another roll-away wrote my downhill neighbour's car off. Or any of the other roll-aways that missed us. Even the one that went through the fence a bit further down the hill, having narrowly missed the local blind guy walking down the road, ending up upside-down just where somebody had been gardening five minutes before.
Did that affect my risk of claiming? Hell, yes...
heebeegeetee said:
Why are they not looked after properly by the people they paid their premiums to?
Because the vast majority of customers are driven by one thing and one thing only - price.It's like complaining about Ryanair not giving you a meal on the flight. Of course they don't look after you properly and treat you like cattle, they are doing everything they can to offer the lowest price, that's it.
Sure if you pay Hiscox-level premiums then I am sure they will pay fair market without a fight but if you pay the rock-bottom price then the service will be commensurate.
robinessex said:
TooMany2cvs said:
robinessex said:
The only question I can think of, is if you get loaded by your insurance company when you’ve has a no fault claim, is the circumstances of that claim looked at in enough detail. The most obvious ‘wrong’ conclusion on a no blame claim, is when and empty stationary car is hit. Perhaps the ‘degree of involvement’ requires more detailed analysis to apportion any partially contributory factors.
Where I used to live, my car was reversed into out of the drive over the road, and I claimed. It loaded my premium.I might have forgotten to mention the other three times it was reversed into out of that same drive (always by different people), the time it was hit by a parked car which rolled away down the hill - because none of those were claims - and I certainly didn't mention the time I went out five minutes before another roll-away wrote my downhill neighbour's car off. Or any of the other roll-aways that missed us. Even the one that went through the fence a bit further down the hill, having narrowly missed the local blind guy walking down the road, ending up upside-down just where somebody had been gardening five minutes before.
Did that affect my risk of claiming? Hell, yes...
Not so much a poltergeist as just that tricksy bugger, Isaac Newton, combined with handbrake-wuckfittery.
popeyewhite said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Except it's very broken. It just happens to be limping along.
From the perspective of the car insurance buyer, the context in which my original comment was made, it's fine. Waffle on...- The government subsidises the premiums to an unknown amount.
- There is a higher cost to serve owing to the lower demand given the optional nature of the insurance.
- Huge risk that you get hit by an uninsured driver who simply declares bankruptcy rather than repair your car and cover your medical bills.
Waffle indeed!
robinessex said:
The only question I can think of, is if you get loaded by your insurance company when you’ve has a no fault claim, is the circumstances of that claim looked at in enough detail. The most obvious ‘wrong’ conclusion on a no blame claim, is when and empty stationary car is hit. Perhaps the ‘degree of involvement’ requires more detailed analysis to apportion any partially contributory factors.
This ^^^^ 
Whilst I'm sure that the Insurers (as a whole) will be undoubtedly reluctant to share their statistics (or source), I can see that a 'degree of involvement' might be a consideration in some cases. For example, if I parked my car at the bottom of an ice covered hill or if I had been driving excessively keenly and left a smaller margin for mitigating against the unlikely. Leaving an expensive vehicle parked overnight in a particularly unsavoury part of a city might be considered inadvisable, someone who does this is perhaps more likely to make a claim.
Whether a rise in premium is justified is only fair if it's applied subjectively, taking a large number of factors into consideration. Someone who was hit from behind whilst stationary at traffic lights probably didn't contribute to the causal effects as much as some of the examples above. I think it's the blanket approach that isn't fair and I don't see why it can't be administered in the same way as NCB if we take a blanket approach, we are talking about determining risk factors after all.
walm said:
So to be clear you would prefer a market like NZ rather than the UK because:
- The government subsidises the premiums to an unknown amount.
- There is a higher cost to serve owing to the lower demand given the optional nature of the insurance.
- Huge risk that you get hit by an uninsured driver who simply declares bankruptcy rather than repair your car and cover your medical bills.
Points 1 and 2 fine by me. I'm the motorist, not the industry insider - remember?. If I don't feel like I'm being mugged every renewal, non-fault claim, tiny incident reported then that's a good start.- The government subsidises the premiums to an unknown amount.
- There is a higher cost to serve owing to the lower demand given the optional nature of the insurance.
- Huge risk that you get hit by an uninsured driver who simply declares bankruptcy rather than repair your car and cover your medical bills.
Point 3 can happen in the UK anyway. Waffle...
popeyewhite said:
Points 1 and 2 fine by me. I'm the motorist, not the industry insider - remember?. If I don't feel like I'm being mugged every renewal, non-fault claim, tiny incident reported then that's a good start.
Point 3 can happen in the UK anyway. Waffle...
1/2 Where do you think the NZ costs come from "the govt" = the tax payer...Point 3 can happen in the UK anyway. Waffle...
Point 3 - read up on the MIB.
Waffle with added syrup and bacon.
So that's precisely how it doesn't work.
What they do is to analyse their statistical data and then create a very simple set of segmentation criteria which are the questions they ask when selling you a policy.
So in their analysis they don't look at each case of non-fault claim to try and characterise the specific circs and produce a statistical analysis. They don't then have a multi-faceted set of criteria to ask about the non-fault claim you had arose. It's simply that the group of people (in the sample data) with non-fault claims have more subsequent claims that people with no claims. Really simple.
On that basis if you are in that group, you have a higher risk than if you are in the group not having any claims.
It's not down to an individual.
Bert
What they do is to analyse their statistical data and then create a very simple set of segmentation criteria which are the questions they ask when selling you a policy.
So in their analysis they don't look at each case of non-fault claim to try and characterise the specific circs and produce a statistical analysis. They don't then have a multi-faceted set of criteria to ask about the non-fault claim you had arose. It's simply that the group of people (in the sample data) with non-fault claims have more subsequent claims that people with no claims. Really simple.
On that basis if you are in that group, you have a higher risk than if you are in the group not having any claims.
It's not down to an individual.
Bert
Richie Slow said:
This ^^^^
Whilst I'm sure that the Insurers (as a whole) will be undoubtedly reluctant to share their statistics (or source), I can see that a 'degree of involvement' might be a consideration in some cases. For example, if I parked my car at the bottom of an ice covered hill or if I had been driving excessively keenly and left a smaller margin for mitigating against the unlikely. Leaving an expensive vehicle parked overnight in a particularly unsavoury part of a city might be considered inadvisable, someone who does this is perhaps more likely to make a claim.
Whether a rise in premium is justified is only fair if it's applied subjectively, taking a large number of factors into consideration. Someone who was hit from behind whilst stationary at traffic lights probably didn't contribute to the causal effects as much as some of the examples above. I think it's the blanket approach that isn't fair and I don't see why it can't be administered in the same way as NCB if we take a blanket approach, we are talking about determining risk factors after all.
Whilst I'm sure that the Insurers (as a whole) will be undoubtedly reluctant to share their statistics (or source), I can see that a 'degree of involvement' might be a consideration in some cases. For example, if I parked my car at the bottom of an ice covered hill or if I had been driving excessively keenly and left a smaller margin for mitigating against the unlikely. Leaving an expensive vehicle parked overnight in a particularly unsavoury part of a city might be considered inadvisable, someone who does this is perhaps more likely to make a claim.
Whether a rise in premium is justified is only fair if it's applied subjectively, taking a large number of factors into consideration. Someone who was hit from behind whilst stationary at traffic lights probably didn't contribute to the causal effects as much as some of the examples above. I think it's the blanket approach that isn't fair and I don't see why it can't be administered in the same way as NCB if we take a blanket approach, we are talking about determining risk factors after all.
BertBert said:
So that's precisely how it doesn't work.
What they do is to analyse their statistical data and then create a very simple set of segmentation criteria which are the questions they ask when selling you a policy.
So in their analysis they don't look at each case of non-fault claim to try and characterise the specific circs and produce a statistical analysis. They don't then have a multi-faceted set of criteria to ask about the non-fault claim you had arose. It's simply that the group of people (in the sample data) with non-fault claims have more subsequent claims that people with no claims. Really simple.
On that basis if you are in that group, you have a higher risk than if you are in the group not having any claims.
It's not down to an individual.
Bert
Yep, it is precisely that kind of over-simplification of the matter as a whole that can create unfairness. I don't expect it to change anytime soon, but I'd welcome it if it did.What they do is to analyse their statistical data and then create a very simple set of segmentation criteria which are the questions they ask when selling you a policy.
So in their analysis they don't look at each case of non-fault claim to try and characterise the specific circs and produce a statistical analysis. They don't then have a multi-faceted set of criteria to ask about the non-fault claim you had arose. It's simply that the group of people (in the sample data) with non-fault claims have more subsequent claims that people with no claims. Really simple.
On that basis if you are in that group, you have a higher risk than if you are in the group not having any claims.
It's not down to an individual.
Bert
Richie Slow said:
This ^^^^
Whilst I'm sure that the Insurers (as a whole) will be undoubtedly reluctant to share their statistics (or source), I can see that a 'degree of involvement' might be a consideration in some cases. For example, if I parked my car at the bottom of an ice covered hill or if I had been driving excessively keenly and left a smaller margin for mitigating against the unlikely. Leaving an expensive vehicle parked overnight in a particularly unsavoury part of a city might be considered inadvisable, someone who does this is perhaps more likely to make a claim.
Whether a rise in premium is justified is only fair if it's applied subjectively, taking a large number of factors into consideration. Someone who was hit from behind whilst stationary at traffic lights probably didn't contribute to the causal effects as much as some of the examples above. I think it's the blanket approach that isn't fair and I don't see why it can't be administered in the same way as NCB if we take a blanket approach, we are talking about determining risk factors after all.
Whilst I'm sure that the Insurers (as a whole) will be undoubtedly reluctant to share their statistics (or source), I can see that a 'degree of involvement' might be a consideration in some cases. For example, if I parked my car at the bottom of an ice covered hill or if I had been driving excessively keenly and left a smaller margin for mitigating against the unlikely. Leaving an expensive vehicle parked overnight in a particularly unsavoury part of a city might be considered inadvisable, someone who does this is perhaps more likely to make a claim.
Whether a rise in premium is justified is only fair if it's applied subjectively, taking a large number of factors into consideration. Someone who was hit from behind whilst stationary at traffic lights probably didn't contribute to the causal effects as much as some of the examples above. I think it's the blanket approach that isn't fair and I don't see why it can't be administered in the same way as NCB if we take a blanket approach, we are talking about determining risk factors after all.
Richie Slow said:
Yep, it is precisely that kind of over-simplification of the matter as a whole that can create unfairness. I don't expect it to change anytime soon, but I'd welcome it if it did.
Get those welcoming arms spread nice and wide, that product already exists. I look forward to hearing your fantastic write up on why black boxes are the way forward, as they produce much more bespoke premiums for anyone with one.
heebeegeetee said:
Why don't uk insurers just do the same as their European counterparts? Is there anything stopping them or are they required to pay out for unchecked/unproven medical claims?
Indeed I thought the payments made by our insurers were not recompense for injury but just to get people to promise they'll never make a future claim?
Are insurers obliged to cover people who have accepted payments for unproven medical claims?
The thing stopping them is called tort law Your insurance doesn't cover you for injury. It's the other drivers insurer that pays out to young they were at fault. Indeed I thought the payments made by our insurers were not recompense for injury but just to get people to promise they'll never make a future claim?
Are insurers obliged to cover people who have accepted payments for unproven medical claims?
Edited by heebeegeetee on Wednesday 13th April 10:46
walm said:
Because the vast majority of customers are driven by one thing and one thing only - price.
It's like complaining about Ryanair not giving you a meal on the flight. Of course they don't look after you properly and treat you like cattle, they are doing everything they can to offer the lowest price, that's it.
Sure if you pay Hiscox-level premiums then I am sure they will pay fair market without a fight but if you pay the rock-bottom price then the service will be commensurate.
I don't see that that analogy works. I'm going to say that Ryanair are not dysfunctional, you buy a flight off them and that's what you get. It's like complaining about Ryanair not giving you a meal on the flight. Of course they don't look after you properly and treat you like cattle, they are doing everything they can to offer the lowest price, that's it.
Sure if you pay Hiscox-level premiums then I am sure they will pay fair market without a fight but if you pay the rock-bottom price then the service will be commensurate.
They don't give your personal details away so that you then get bombarded by 'holiday management companies', they don't offer to hire out suitcases to you, they don't rent you out an expensive suitcase for weeks then refuse to pay for it afterwards and blame you, they don't pay out medical payments cos you strained yourself with a heavy suitcase, and so on.
Genuine question again - what do accident management companies do? I've never used one but I hear about them all the time. If you've had a shunt and you're insured, why would anyone need to use an accident management company, and how do they get your number in the first place?
snorky782 said:
Get those welcoming arms spread nice and wide, that product already exists.
I look forward to hearing your fantastic write up on why black boxes are the way forward, as they produce much more bespoke premiums for anyone with one.
You need to take a moment and calm the arrogance down, it does you no favours.I look forward to hearing your fantastic write up on why black boxes are the way forward, as they produce much more bespoke premiums for anyone with one.
The point raised [not just by me] suggested that considerations of blame, or contributing to a state of affairs that led to a claim, could be dealt with under the vast array of questions when an application for insurance is made. Culpability is often determined by the retention or otherwise of the NCB, did you miss that bit?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff