Insurance - How Does This Make Sense?
Discussion
Hello,
Just looking for some clarity on this. Looking at insurance for when my renewal come around, so was getting some prices from comparison websites. Now as I'm in the middle of a disputed claim (unsure if it will end up as a claim against me or not) possibly just an "incident" with no claim.
Now, I have compared both options and how it differs is quite frankly confusing:
- For a claim against me of £1500, with me being at fault makes the insurance about £1500 for a year.
- For an incident, no claim made by either parties, makes the insurance around £1850 for a year.
How does this make sense, the insurance cheaper with a £1.5k claim against me with me at fault! Oh the world of insurance
.
Regards
Just looking for some clarity on this. Looking at insurance for when my renewal come around, so was getting some prices from comparison websites. Now as I'm in the middle of a disputed claim (unsure if it will end up as a claim against me or not) possibly just an "incident" with no claim.
Now, I have compared both options and how it differs is quite frankly confusing:
- For a claim against me of £1500, with me being at fault makes the insurance about £1500 for a year.
- For an incident, no claim made by either parties, makes the insurance around £1850 for a year.
How does this make sense, the insurance cheaper with a £1.5k claim against me with me at fault! Oh the world of insurance
.Regards
It wouldn't be that it's settled privately. Although obviously they can't tell, but if your settling privately who would inform of the incident?
Regardless I reported it as I believed they were claiming for a small amount, actually claiming for damage I haven't done thus inspections and such and may get the claim cancelled altogether.
Anyhow leaves me with a reported incident.
Regardless I reported it as I believed they were claiming for a small amount, actually claiming for damage I haven't done thus inspections and such and may get the claim cancelled altogether.
Anyhow leaves me with a reported incident
.twazzock said:
matthias73 said:
Maybe, the stats say that if you have already crashed, you wont do it again.
Pretty sure it's the other way round. Hence NCB.twazzock said:
matthias73 said:
Maybe, the stats say that if you have already crashed, you wont do it again.
Pretty sure it's the other way round. Hence NCB.So if its a honda accord, there could be a chance that less are crashed by people who have already had an accident, and have no ncb. This would mean he is statistically less likely to crash again.
I know it sounds crazy. I'ma go try it now.
matthias73 said:
twazzock said:
matthias73 said:
Maybe, the stats say that if you have already crashed, you wont do it again.
Pretty sure it's the other way round. Hence NCB.So if its a honda accord, there could be a chance that less are crashed by people who have already had an accident, and have no ncb. This would mean he is statistically less likely to crash again.
I know it sounds crazy. I'ma go try it now.
Regards
If you put your mind to it you can make any insurance situation seem to make no sense.
For example, earlier this year I changed from a diesel estate (Citroen ZX) to a hot hatch (106 Rallye). I was REFUNDED money by my insurance company.
Of course at first this makes no sense at all. The 106 is faster, more likely to be stolen, has probably been crashed more often by spotty teenagers like me.
But on the flip side, the ZX is more likely to be carrying passengers and luggage. Indeed, for half the time I owned it I had 4 people on board, all with their own holiday gear. I was driving on unfamiliar, risky country roads. Had we had a crash, the potential personal injury claim would have been HUGE - think of the cost of compensating 4 people for whiplash/AIDs/cancer/whatever it is people catch in road accidents these days.
The Rallye would be more expensive to fix in an accident because of the specialist parts but that's a moot point - even the smallest of bumps would write off both of these low-value cars (my 106 was already a Cat D). In most cases I bet there would be a sole occupant (99% of miles I drove in it, I was the only person on board). This sort of car is probably owned by many a hooligan but then again half the owners are ardent enthusiasts who mollycoddle and cherish the car like a child - the risk posed by them is practically nil. The ZX is worth about 50p and not a specialist car at all - most of the owners will use it as a banger/runaround and as such it will probably be bumped, pranged and crashed with hilarious regularity, hence it costing me a relative fortune to insure.
At first glance insurance seems a load of b
ks. It still does at second glance in fact. But when you have all the data (like the insurance companies, and very few others, do) it starts to make sense. The premiums are based on pure statistics. If you find them incoherent it's because you're not aware of all the facts. The only options are to change your circumstances, find a more 'understanding' broker, or give up on that car.
As ever, just my take, all IMHO, suck my dick if you don't like it, etc. etc. etc.
For example, earlier this year I changed from a diesel estate (Citroen ZX) to a hot hatch (106 Rallye). I was REFUNDED money by my insurance company.
Of course at first this makes no sense at all. The 106 is faster, more likely to be stolen, has probably been crashed more often by spotty teenagers like me.
But on the flip side, the ZX is more likely to be carrying passengers and luggage. Indeed, for half the time I owned it I had 4 people on board, all with their own holiday gear. I was driving on unfamiliar, risky country roads. Had we had a crash, the potential personal injury claim would have been HUGE - think of the cost of compensating 4 people for whiplash/AIDs/cancer/whatever it is people catch in road accidents these days.
The Rallye would be more expensive to fix in an accident because of the specialist parts but that's a moot point - even the smallest of bumps would write off both of these low-value cars (my 106 was already a Cat D). In most cases I bet there would be a sole occupant (99% of miles I drove in it, I was the only person on board). This sort of car is probably owned by many a hooligan but then again half the owners are ardent enthusiasts who mollycoddle and cherish the car like a child - the risk posed by them is practically nil. The ZX is worth about 50p and not a specialist car at all - most of the owners will use it as a banger/runaround and as such it will probably be bumped, pranged and crashed with hilarious regularity, hence it costing me a relative fortune to insure.
At first glance insurance seems a load of b
ks. It still does at second glance in fact. But when you have all the data (like the insurance companies, and very few others, do) it starts to make sense. The premiums are based on pure statistics. If you find them incoherent it's because you're not aware of all the facts. The only options are to change your circumstances, find a more 'understanding' broker, or give up on that car.As ever, just my take, all IMHO, suck my dick if you don't like it, etc. etc. etc.
Edited by twazzock on Thursday 12th January 01:22
matthias73 said:
Yeah, its the same thing as people sometimes getting charged more to keep their ferrari in a garage than on the road.
My 8YO Volvo is cheaper on the road than on the drive or in the garage too. I can't find the option to say "I'l park it on the drive or on the road depending on who arrived home last and whether it's Saturday tomorrow" so I just park it in accordance with the current policy out of fear.I was stung for £300 extra on my premium because last year some uninsured, unlicenced toss piece drove into my car whilst it was parked. At the time of the incident I informed my insurer as the tt insisted he had insurance but it transpired that he didn't. I called my insurer and said I will not proceed with the claim as I didn't want to risk my no claims discount but because they are now aware of an "incident" I pay an increased premium!
What really annoys me is that the damage was circa £800 + the increased premium £300 and yet the court (only) awarded me £240 and fined the guy sub £100 plus gave him 6 points on an imaginary licence.
t insisted he had insurance but it transpired that he didn't. I called my insurer and said I will not proceed with the claim as I didn't want to risk my no claims discount but because they are now aware of an "incident" I pay an increased premium!What really annoys me is that the damage was circa £800 + the increased premium £300 and yet the court (only) awarded me £240 and fined the guy sub £100 plus gave him 6 points on an imaginary licence.
I'm feeling smug this year.
My renewal from Direct Line came through and I spat feathers. I joked to the OH that I bet I could get it cheaper by going to a specialist and adding a handful of mods. So I tried. And I did.
I'm paying less this year for a modified car than I would leaving it standard.
Crazy.
My renewal from Direct Line came through and I spat feathers. I joked to the OH that I bet I could get it cheaper by going to a specialist and adding a handful of mods. So I tried. And I did.
I'm paying less this year for a modified car than I would leaving it standard.
Crazy.
Greengecko said:
It wouldn't be that it's settled privately. Although obviously they can't tell, but if your settling privately who would inform of the incident?
You did. You didn't settle yours privately, but that may often be the scenario which leads to people informing them of an accident with no claim. Well actually I think we all would expect more (especially valuable) ferraris to be stored in garages than not.
Therefore if you are talking absolute numbers of stolen ferraris -> I would actually expect statistically there to be more stolen from garages as a result of the fact they are more likely stored there.
The sample size is important and the sample sizes have to be of a decent enough quanitity to be meaningful.
Twain/Disraeli (whomever you want to attribute it to) got it right when they said ->
"there are lies, damned lies, and statistics"
This is the problem with insurance these days - its all become a numbers / statistics game and then insurance companies are suprised when things don't follow the 'trends' which may be fundamentally flawed.
Therefore if you are talking absolute numbers of stolen ferraris -> I would actually expect statistically there to be more stolen from garages as a result of the fact they are more likely stored there.
The sample size is important and the sample sizes have to be of a decent enough quanitity to be meaningful.
Twain/Disraeli (whomever you want to attribute it to) got it right when they said ->
"there are lies, damned lies, and statistics"
This is the problem with insurance these days - its all become a numbers / statistics game and then insurance companies are suprised when things don't follow the 'trends' which may be fundamentally flawed.
matthias73 said:
Statistically, more ferraris have been stolen from a garage. This makes the garage a greater insurance risk, although you'd think it wasn't.
Edited by Rakoosh on Thursday 12th January 10:10
Edited by Rakoosh on Thursday 12th January 10:11
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff