How the hell do insurers punish the victims of a crash?
Discussion
Corsair7 said:
Wafflesmk2 said:
I got my policy to be renewed the other day (about £500 for the year), literally a few days after someone crashed into me and admitted full liability.
I assume it was calculated and printed off before my accident.
In the past, i've always managed to shop around at renewal time, find something a bit cheaper than my renewel, go back to my insurer and they would often match it. They've done this for the past 4 years.
Now i've been involved in an accident, im struggling to find anything cheaper than £800!!
I tried to get a quote on a Vectra VXR (insurance group 36 compared to my current car at group 33) and the cheapest i could get was £1200!
What the f
k?? This is with 5 years no claims and 8 years driving experiance, with no fault accidents in the last 5 years and no convictions at all.
How the fk does all this work? Are they saying i'm more 'at risk' because someone crashed into me? fk me, i'm sorry for being in a line of traffic on a road during rush hour.
I appreciate insurance prices have gone up recently, but this is a bit of a joke.
Did you tell them that you had had an accident? When they ask, just say no, you haven't had an acident in the last 5 years. Because you haven't. Its the other bloke that had the accident. You've just had some 'inconvenience; caused by someone else. I assume it was calculated and printed off before my accident.
In the past, i've always managed to shop around at renewal time, find something a bit cheaper than my renewel, go back to my insurer and they would often match it. They've done this for the past 4 years.
Now i've been involved in an accident, im struggling to find anything cheaper than £800!!
I tried to get a quote on a Vectra VXR (insurance group 36 compared to my current car at group 33) and the cheapest i could get was £1200!
What the f
k?? This is with 5 years no claims and 8 years driving experiance, with no fault accidents in the last 5 years and no convictions at all.How the f
k does all this work? Are they saying i'm more 'at risk' because someone crashed into me? fk me, i'm sorry for being in a line of traffic on a road during rush hour.I appreciate insurance prices have gone up recently, but this is a bit of a joke.
Soovy said:
Corsair7 said:
Wafflesmk2 said:
I got my policy to be renewed the other day (about £500 for the year), literally a few days after someone crashed into me and admitted full liability.
I assume it was calculated and printed off before my accident.
In the past, i've always managed to shop around at renewal time, find something a bit cheaper than my renewel, go back to my insurer and they would often match it. They've done this for the past 4 years.
Now i've been involved in an accident, im struggling to find anything cheaper than £800!!
I tried to get a quote on a Vectra VXR (insurance group 36 compared to my current car at group 33) and the cheapest i could get was £1200!
What the fk?? This is with 5 years no claims and 8 years driving experiance, with no fault accidents in the last 5 years and no convictions at all.
How the fk does all this work? Are they saying i'm more 'at risk' because someone crashed into me? fk me, i'm sorry for being in a line of traffic on a road during rush hour.
I appreciate insurance prices have gone up recently, but this is a bit of a joke.
Did you tell them that you had had an accident? When they ask, just say no, you haven't had an acident in the last 5 years. Because you haven't. Its the other bloke that had the accident. You've just had some 'inconvenience; caused by someone else. I assume it was calculated and printed off before my accident.
In the past, i've always managed to shop around at renewal time, find something a bit cheaper than my renewel, go back to my insurer and they would often match it. They've done this for the past 4 years.
Now i've been involved in an accident, im struggling to find anything cheaper than £800!!
I tried to get a quote on a Vectra VXR (insurance group 36 compared to my current car at group 33) and the cheapest i could get was £1200!
What the f
k?? This is with 5 years no claims and 8 years driving experiance, with no fault accidents in the last 5 years and no convictions at all.How the f
k does all this work? Are they saying i'm more 'at risk' because someone crashed into me? fk me, i'm sorry for being in a line of traffic on a road during rush hour.I appreciate insurance prices have gone up recently, but this is a bit of a joke.
Soovy said:
With all due respect that's the worst advice ever on here. Ever.
Actually, if they ask you "have you had any fault accidents or claims in the last 5 years", you are OK to say no. Just don't say, no BUT I had a non-fault claim, if they don't ask you, and it is recorded on the phone.Some insurers ask any accidents regardless, some only ask fault claim. As long as you don't lie, or hold back the truth.
Shop around, you will find other insurers who don't class that as a risk loading.
Also, try and add other people to the policy, older people, family, anyone who can offset your own risk.
If garage, you might want to consider drive way, as it seems in some instances, it can be cheaper. Blame stats.
But, shop around.
stuart-b said:
Actually, if they ask you "have you had any fault accidents or claims in the last 5 years", you are OK to say no. Just don't say, no BUT I had a non-fault claim, if they don't ask you, and it is recorded on the phone.
Some insurers ask any accidents regardless, some only ask fault claim. As long as you don't lie, or hold back the truth.
Shop around, you will find other insurers who don't class that as a risk loading.
Also, try and add other people to the policy, older people, family, anyone who can offset your own risk.
If garage, you might want to consider drive way, as it seems in some instances, it can be cheaper. Blame stats.
But, shop around.
I've got every man and his dog on the insurance at the moment which brought it down a little.Some insurers ask any accidents regardless, some only ask fault claim. As long as you don't lie, or hold back the truth.
Shop around, you will find other insurers who don't class that as a risk loading.
Also, try and add other people to the policy, older people, family, anyone who can offset your own risk.
If garage, you might want to consider drive way, as it seems in some instances, it can be cheaper. Blame stats.
But, shop around.
The ones ive tried are done on the internet but are asking for claims, fault or none fault in the last 5 years.
I'll try a few quotes with no accidents declared just to see how much cost difference there is.
Heathwood said:
My old man worked in insurance all his life. He used to tell me that in previous times insurance premiums could start to go up if you hadn't had an accident / claim for many years, as probability dictated that you were due one.
Is this not a gross misunderstanding of how probability works?My other half was involved in a no fault accident about 2 1/2 years ago, (a stupid girl reversed straight out of her parents driveway into the side of SWMBO !) So far I calculate this has cost us an extra £400.00 in increased insurance premiums.
Wish I had of known this was going to happen before the claim was settled.
Slightly off topic, but my insurance runs out at the end of this month and looking around for a better price than my current insurer, (not quite sure what is going on with them at the moment as they want over £1k, this year. Best quote so far just over £400), but all the comparison sites are asking about windscreen claims. Thought these did not / not supposed to effect premiums / no claims. Do they now want to start taking these into account as well ?
Wish I had of known this was going to happen before the claim was settled.
Slightly off topic, but my insurance runs out at the end of this month and looking around for a better price than my current insurer, (not quite sure what is going on with them at the moment as they want over £1k, this year. Best quote so far just over £400), but all the comparison sites are asking about windscreen claims. Thought these did not / not supposed to effect premiums / no claims. Do they now want to start taking these into account as well ?
claim the increase in premiums from the 'at fault' party's insurance company
insurance is there to put the third party (you) back in the same financal posision as you were before the acciedent. the increase in premiums which are a direct and only as a result of the acciedent which the at fault insurance company has admited third party liability for means you are not in the same financial posision as you were before the acciedent.
theres no grey area. you have to be a pain and start threating small claims court. i've done it for the last couple of years.
insurance is there to put the third party (you) back in the same financal posision as you were before the acciedent. the increase in premiums which are a direct and only as a result of the acciedent which the at fault insurance company has admited third party liability for means you are not in the same financial posision as you were before the acciedent.
theres no grey area. you have to be a pain and start threating small claims court. i've done it for the last couple of years.
PDT1 said:
Slightly off topic, but my insurance runs out at the end of this month and looking around for a better price than my current insurer, (not quite sure what is going on with them at the moment as they want over £1k, this year. Best quote so far just over £400), but all the comparison sites are asking about windscreen claims. Thought these did not / not supposed to effect premiums / no claims. Do they now want to start taking these into account as well ?
Just been through this. My wife had a windscreen claim last august and she is a named driver on my policy which was up for renewal this month. Some insurers were now asking for this to be put on the quote application. At least one I rang up and voluntereed the info and trhe operative had to go off and find out whether I had to declare it or not. The insurers I actually went with (Admiral) said it didnt matter and I didnt need to disclose it. It seems this is a new ploy by the insurance co's probably to try to find a new and interesting way to not pay out in the event of a claim... "Oh so you had a windscreen broken 3 years ago? Didnt tell us that when you got your policy, so sorry we wont be paying out for your freshly written off car sir. Tough".Best just to fess up to anything and everything and let them sort it out I find, then they cant claim you didnt tell them something if you do claim ever.
Mr E said:
Heathwood said:
My old man worked in insurance all his life. He used to tell me that in previous times insurance premiums could start to go up if you hadn't had an accident / claim for many years, as probability dictated that you were due one.
Is this not a gross misunderstanding of how probability works?Thing I dont get is this, if someone crashes into you, your entitled to claim back all your losses that are a direct result of the third parties negligence.
Why cant you claim back future increases on your premium as well. Surely this is their fault and is a direct financial loss as a result of their negligence?
Why cant you claim back future increases on your premium as well. Surely this is their fault and is a direct financial loss as a result of their negligence?
GhostDriver said:
Thing I dont get is this, if someone crashes into you, your entitled to claim back all your losses that are a direct result of the third parties negligence.
Why cant you claim back future increases on your premium as well. Surely this is their fault and is a direct financial loss as a result of their negligence?
you can. see my post above Why cant you claim back future increases on your premium as well. Surely this is their fault and is a direct financial loss as a result of their negligence?
Wafflesmk2 said:
alock said:
What they are actually saying is:
People who have been involved in a crash are statistically more likely to be involved in another crash.
But that's stupid.People who have been involved in a crash are statistically more likely to be involved in another crash.
In my case, i was just as at risk as everyone else in aline of traffic that day. I could understand if i was hooning around at 3am and somone else crashed into me on a country road, but there's no dispute or any concerns about what happened to me.
So now, thanks to some f
kwit who cant drive, i get punished for wanting to continue to drive a nice/powerful car.t, therefore the likelihood of you putting in a claim is higher.crofty1984 said:
Wafflesmk2 said:
alock said:
What they are actually saying is:
People who have been involved in a crash are statistically more likely to be involved in another crash.
But that's stupid.People who have been involved in a crash are statistically more likely to be involved in another crash.
In my case, i was just as at risk as everyone else in aline of traffic that day. I could understand if i was hooning around at 3am and somone else crashed into me on a country road, but there's no dispute or any concerns about what happened to me.
So now, thanks to some f
kwit who cant drive, i get punished for wanting to continue to drive a nice/powerful car.t, therefore the likelihood of you putting in a claim is higher.Deva Link said:
crofty1984 said:
Wafflesmk2 said:
alock said:
What they are actually saying is:
People who have been involved in a crash are statistically more likely to be involved in another crash.
But that's stupid.People who have been involved in a crash are statistically more likely to be involved in another crash.
In my case, i was just as at risk as everyone else in aline of traffic that day. I could understand if i was hooning around at 3am and somone else crashed into me on a country road, but there's no dispute or any concerns about what happened to me.
So now, thanks to some f
kwit who cant drive, i get punished for wanting to continue to drive a nice/powerful car.t, therefore the likelihood of you putting in a claim is higher.
In fairness, I suspect that the underlying model is fairly simplistic, but there is a fair chunk of "what can we get away with?"
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, this happens because insurers do not collect the information required to make an informed decision, and are not interested in doing so because it would be of no benefit to them. Therefore, they go off the grossest of stats which take no account of your individual circumstances. It doesn't matter to them that it's unfair being that they all do it and therefore you can't vote with your feet. So they bend you over and give you the choice - lube up or walk.
In 2011, I had 3 non fault accidents.
3 of them, in the exact same way (coincidence?) someone reversed into me, and the 3 of them said I drove into them, thankfully, after the first one, I have a small camera recording when I'm on the move (40k miles in London central a year, makes up for the small investment).
All 3 of them, changed their story after the mention of "it's recording", but I never claimed any of it, because of that line on the insurance: "Have you had any claims, bla bla bla!"
I manage to fix the front bumper (only scratches, never cracked, always really low speed) and wax it in a way that is quite difficult to tell, something went wrong there. Small 90£ investment, worth it!
It's not worth the hassle of going into the insurance companies, argue, get my premium higher, have accidents in my record, get solicitors involved to sort increase in premiums and so on, and so on.
3 of them, in the exact same way (coincidence?) someone reversed into me, and the 3 of them said I drove into them, thankfully, after the first one, I have a small camera recording when I'm on the move (40k miles in London central a year, makes up for the small investment).
All 3 of them, changed their story after the mention of "it's recording", but I never claimed any of it, because of that line on the insurance: "Have you had any claims, bla bla bla!"
I manage to fix the front bumper (only scratches, never cracked, always really low speed) and wax it in a way that is quite difficult to tell, something went wrong there. Small 90£ investment, worth it!
It's not worth the hassle of going into the insurance companies, argue, get my premium higher, have accidents in my record, get solicitors involved to sort increase in premiums and so on, and so on.
randlemarcus said:
It's simply that claims history shows that people with a claim historically are likely to claim in the next couple of years. Statistics may not be nice, but without them, it would just be guesswork as to what your wallet can afford. Oh, wait
That's the standard reason trotted out, but who says it's true? Someone else mentioned earlier, and I too can remember this being discussed years ago, that the average person in an accident onece every 5 years. So insurance companies might as well bump your premium up after 4 yrs as you're due for a crash soon!randlemarcus said:
In fairness, I suspect that the underlying model is fairly simplistic, but there is a fair chunk of "what can we get away with?"
That sounds much more likely to be true.Insurance company agents should be sued for false allegations because of how they interpret their stats. They are guilty of probably the biggest mistake of statistical analysis which is to equate correlation with causation.
They say their stats show that if you have had one accident then you are more likely to have another. This statement in itself is utter bks - the two facts are connected by a third causal factor that they are conveniently ignoring. You can probably make some good educated guesses at what the causal factors are.
To give another example of the error of confusing correlation with causation - ice cream sales increase in the summer as do the incidents of people drowning. By an insurance company's assessment this means that if you eat ice cream you are at greater risk of drowning.
They say their stats show that if you have had one accident then you are more likely to have another. This statement in itself is utter b
ks - the two facts are connected by a third causal factor that they are conveniently ignoring. You can probably make some good educated guesses at what the causal factors are.To give another example of the error of confusing correlation with causation - ice cream sales increase in the summer as do the incidents of people drowning. By an insurance company's assessment this means that if you eat ice cream you are at greater risk of drowning.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff