How the hell do insurers punish the victims of a crash?
Discussion
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, it has been done.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?
frosted said:
You trying to be funny ? The system is corrupt and lithe insurance companies dont want to know
really? (so the huge motor insurance loses pre 2011 are untrue too?)b.t.w It is possible motor insurance will be true own risk based soon (based on gps, black box technology etc) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16969509
Seeming as the whole point in Insurance is indemnity, then why don't you just claim back your rise in insurance from the other party? Insurance is meant to put you back in a financial position you were in before the accident, so if you're premium has gone up purely as a result of this crash, then you could in theory claim back the difference.
Once a claim (or even a possible claim) has been registered, your no-claims will be normally be suspended/reduced until the claims is settled. So even if the other driver admitted blame, your no-claims will be reduced until his insurer settles the claim and it's closed (this is a real pisser if you're in an accident close to renewal time and there's NOTHING you can do about it). This is obviously because it's not over until the fat lady sings and all that.
Being hit by someone else does increase your 'risk' I'm afraid - it sounds stupid but it's just how the system works. One such case on your record will normally not matter - but more than one will almost always start to show-up on premiums and insurers keep long records (certainly they'd look at the last 3 years at least - perhaps longer).
As everyone else has said, premiums are up across-the-board too!!
Don't forget there are always ways to skim the total - reduced mileage, making sure your job is correctly stated, removing extra drivers from the policy, storing the car off-road, changing your usage (if you don't commute, don't pay for that!!) and so on.
Being hit by someone else does increase your 'risk' I'm afraid - it sounds stupid but it's just how the system works. One such case on your record will normally not matter - but more than one will almost always start to show-up on premiums and insurers keep long records (certainly they'd look at the last 3 years at least - perhaps longer).
As everyone else has said, premiums are up across-the-board too!!
Don't forget there are always ways to skim the total - reduced mileage, making sure your job is correctly stated, removing extra drivers from the policy, storing the car off-road, changing your usage (if you don't commute, don't pay for that!!) and so on.
maniac0796 said:
Seeming as the whole point in Insurance is indemnity, then why don't you just claim back your rise in insurance from the other party? Insurance is meant to put you back in a financial position you were in before the accident, so if you're premium has gone up purely as a result of this crash, then you could in theory claim back the difference.
This has been covered here before - there are 2 massive issues in doing it1 - insurers themselves won't get involved in it so you'll need to bring in solicitors/claims management companies to fight for it
2 - there's NO WAY to know the exact costs involved - insurers won't disclose their calculations/costs and you can't like-for-like compare with/without the accident and so you can't know the true cost.
People have tried to do it and I'm sure some may have received a token payment to cover it but there's no way to really cover this unless insurers decide to share their methods (and that's unlikely).
frosted said:
You trying to be funny ? The system is corrupt and lithe insurance companies dont want to know
With you there! Us punters have been fleeced royally for the insurers mismanagement over the last 20 plus years. Now the government are stepping in to regulate the claims managers. Claims managers only exist because of the historic incompetence of the insurers and their tardiness in dealing with claims. He'll insurers have been selling claims management for years and now they're squealing!Insurers have been guilty of making "settle rather than investigate" decisions for years on personal injury and we have been picking up the tab! For certain premiums will go up, numbers of uninsured will go up as will the costs of claims.
johnpeat said:
As everyone else has said, premiums are up across-the-board too!!
Not mine, it was down 12% this year. I assumed it had something to do with the EU equality ruling but I don't know if that's gone through yet. So maybe it's just because my insurers know I'll ring up and threaten to leave them like I've done every year for the past 8 years when they've tried to shaft me with their trumped-up charges.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!!
Can you still renew for £500 with your current insurer?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!!
As others have said, the main issue is probably that the other companies will be nervous as you have an open claim. Unfortunate timing, but s
t happens.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.
No it doesn't.That's like saying if you flip a coin three times and get heads each time, the fourth spin is more likely to come down tails as you've had three that were heads!
The coin has no memory, you're statistically as likely to get HHHH as HHHT, the three previous spins make no difference to the chances of the fourth.
Likewise the fact that you've had no crash for ten years doesn't change the probability of getting into a crash when you get in your car tomorrow morning.
The only thing you might be able to ascertain is that the ten year no crash driver is good at driving defensively, so in fact is less likely to crash.
But certainly the "logic" that going a certain period of time without a crash increases the risk is nonsense.
r11co said:
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.
In general, someone who has been involved in an accident is more likely to be involved in another accident than someone else who has not been involved in an accident. That's backed up by a lot of historical experience data.They say their stats show that if you have had one accident then you are more likely to have another.
r11co said:
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.
It's not 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.ks. The common factor is the insured driver.r11co said:
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.
In your example, the insurance company's assessment is that when people are eating ice cream, there is a greater chance of people drowning. There may not be a direct link between the two, but information about one of the two is useful in estimating the other.Edited by fandango_c on Tuesday 14th February 00:06
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.
Not sure if it has been said, but claim for the increase of insurance for the next 5 years. What I'm planning on doing come renewal as they've put it up £100 post non fault claim. They have to put you in the same position as before the crash.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.
fandango_c said:
r11co said:
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.
In general, someone who has been involved in an accident is more likely to be involved in another accident than someone else who has not been involved in an accident. That's backed up by a lot of historical experience data.They say their stats show that if you have had one accident then you are more likely to have another.
r11co said:
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.
It's not 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.ks. The common factor is the insured driver.r11co said:
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.
In your example, the insurance company's assessment is that when people are eating ice cream, there is a greater chance of people drowning. There may not be a direct link between the two, but information about one of the two is useful in estimating the other.For insurance purposes, correlation is exactly what you want to look for, and causation is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether there's a causative link or not. All that matters is how much a person with a particular set of attributes - as supplied on the insurance quote application form - is likely to cost their insurer in the next year. You don't need causation to figure that out, just a lot of data.
A few people are missing something quite important here - insurance companies do not operate on 'common sense' or logic and they do not seek to determine 'cause', they simply predict risk using actuarial data.
If that data (which goes back decades and contains millions of data points) suggests that someone who has a non-fault accident is then more likely to have an at-fault accident, then you premium will rise because that's what they think is most likely to happen to you.
It might SOUND illogical but it's quite possible and insurers operate entirely on actualities (the only times they don't is where the law won't let them or where business-sense says it's not wise).
If that data (which goes back decades and contains millions of data points) suggests that someone who has a non-fault accident is then more likely to have an at-fault accident, then you premium will rise because that's what they think is most likely to happen to you.
It might SOUND illogical but it's quite possible and insurers operate entirely on actualities (the only times they don't is where the law won't let them or where business-sense says it's not wise).
Edited by johnpeat on Tuesday 14th February 03:33
Shop around as someone else has already said.
This happened to me, some incompetant prick smashed into my Legacy whilst it was parked and it was written off.
My insurers (Bell), who knew the full details wanted to load me for the same reasons - I was fking livid.
I told them to get stuffed and went on the search. When I told some of the other insurers what Bell were doing they were very surprised.
On my next policy, I did get a small loading until the claim was fully settled by the third party's insurance, but once it was settled I actually got that loading refunded.
I went with Norwich Union in the end.
Best of luck.
This happened to me, some incompetant prick smashed into my Legacy whilst it was parked and it was written off.
My insurers (Bell), who knew the full details wanted to load me for the same reasons - I was f
king livid.I told them to get stuffed and went on the search. When I told some of the other insurers what Bell were doing they were very surprised.
On my next policy, I did get a small loading until the claim was fully settled by the third party's insurance, but once it was settled I actually got that loading refunded.
I went with Norwich Union in the end.
Best of luck.
johnpeat said:
Don't forget there are always ways to skim the total - reduced mileage, making sure your job is correctly stated, removing extra drivers from the policy, storing the car off-road, changing your usage (if you don't commute, don't pay for that!!) and so on.
If only it were that simple:Reduce mileage: I bought a car for commuting to work. Turns out it's cheaper to insure for 10k miles per year than it is for 4K.
Job correctly stated: Tried a few variations of my job, never made a difference
Storing car off road: On road was cheaper than the garage!
Changing usage: My girlfriend added 'business use' to the policy. The premium dropped!
There's no simple rule of how to get cheaper insurance. They all have their own algorithms to work out the cost, which often don't seem to make much sense.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff