Insurance rise following a non-fault accident
Discussion
BertBert said:
bad company said:
Yes that’s what they’re saying and some gullible people believe them.
Apart from the people with half a brain who actually understand the rather simple year 1 statistics behind it.popeyewhite said:
Whilst a number of non-fault accidents are entirely random obviously some non-faults may be repeated and these should be investigated and the small % chance of the same accident happening in the same way to the same person explained to the policyholder before the justifiable rise in premium.
And there you have it. As you admit, obviously some non-faults may be repeated. How much cost to investigate each non fault and then to contact and explain that to the policyholder? How is that cost recouped, just by loading the non fault accident bad, or across the board? Can you demonstrate that your method will result in lower premiums? TwigtheWonderkid said:
EU_Foreigner said:
It is the selective interpretation and use of statistical data though.
Statistically there are more white cars than any other colour car on the road.
Statistically there are therefore more white cars involved in accidents.
Insurance companies would interpret this as by buying a white car, you are a more at-risk driver.
Obviously from a real statistical analysis the above is nonsense, but that is how they seem to get to odd conclusions.
No they wouldn't. You've made that up.Statistically there are more white cars than any other colour car on the road.
Statistically there are therefore more white cars involved in accidents.
Insurance companies would interpret this as by buying a white car, you are a more at-risk driver.
Obviously from a real statistical analysis the above is nonsense, but that is how they seem to get to odd conclusions.
More people aged over 30 have accidents than those aged 17-20. Because over 30 covers 30- death, and 17-20 covers just that small age group. There are many more drivers aged over 30 than 17-20. But they don't charge more for the over 30s, they charge more for 17-20. Because per head, they have a worse record.
It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that highly qualified actuaries that are employed by insurers don't understand how to interpret stats, or work out probability, and a whole load of nobodies on an internet forum are just the ones to put them right.
Get a f
king grip people. Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Monday 20th January 14:25
Also, it is not a load of nobodies that pull insurance companies up on stats use, their equals from European countries have access to similar statistics but don't use it there to load premiums. It is irrelevant whether a highly qualified actuary performs these calculations.
As was mentioned earlier, the SAC question from some insurance companies is another statistic that was used to "interpret stats and raise premiums" but I guess after a load of nobodies moved against that, they dropped that one as well. Unfair loading of non fault accidents or non claim losses might be the next to fall if there is enough objection against it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But that's just nonsense. because the insurance companies don't say that, because you cannot claim your future increased premiums back from the tp. You've never been able to. It isn't a valid uninsured loss.
Yes you can claiim future losse back from the negligent party.I thought you realised that from a thread sometime ago!
The case. NIKKI GRAHAM v. BRIT INSURANCE LIMITED
EU_Foreigner said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
EU_Foreigner said:
It is the selective interpretation and use of statistical data though.
Statistically there are more white cars than any other colour car on the road.
Statistically there are therefore more white cars involved in accidents.
Insurance companies would interpret this as by buying a white car, you are a more at-risk driver.
Obviously from a real statistical analysis the above is nonsense, but that is how they seem to get to odd conclusions.
No they wouldn't. You've made that up.Statistically there are more white cars than any other colour car on the road.
Statistically there are therefore more white cars involved in accidents.
Insurance companies would interpret this as by buying a white car, you are a more at-risk driver.
Obviously from a real statistical analysis the above is nonsense, but that is how they seem to get to odd conclusions.
More people aged over 30 have accidents than those aged 17-20. Because over 30 covers 30- death, and 17-20 covers just that small age group. There are many more drivers aged over 30 than 17-20. But they don't charge more for the over 30s, they charge more for 17-20. Because per head, they have a worse record.
It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that highly qualified actuaries that are employed by insurers don't understand how to interpret stats, or work out probability, and a whole load of nobodies on an internet forum are just the ones to put them right.
Get a f
king grip people. Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Monday 20th January 14:25
Also, it is not a load of nobodies that pull insurance companies up on stats use, their equals from European countries have access to similar statistics but don't use it there to load premiums.
EU_Foreigner said:
As was mentioned earlier, the SAC question from some insurance companies is another statistic that was used to "interpret stats and raise premiums" but I guess after a load of nobodies moved against that, they dropped that one as well. Unfair loading of non fault accidents or non claim losses might be the next to fall if there is enough objection against it.
It's called competition. Admiral group used to load for SACs. Now they've stopped. Perhaps their stats altered, as they aren't set in stone. Perhaps they lost more business than they thought they'd lose. They are a business, they are entitled to charge what they like for whatever reason (within the law) and punters are free to buy the product or go elsewhere. kestral said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But that's just nonsense. because the insurance companies don't say that, because you cannot claim your future increased premiums back from the tp. You've never been able to. It isn't a valid uninsured loss.
Yes you can claiim future losse back from the negligent party.I thought you realised that from a thread sometime ago!
The case. NIKKI GRAHAM v. BRIT INSURANCE LIMITED
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Scottish law, going back to 2011, a one off judgement in a very complicated case, and, as far as I'm aware, since been superseded as no longer invalid by precedent.
It says in the case there is no difference in scotish law or English.Please could you produce the case law.
popeyewhite said:
No, they're part of an even more gullible subset who actually don't understand they're being played, or like yourself, don't understand how statistics are calculated. Statistics only show what you want them to - if you try entirely random data in a statistics package you may not produce any usable result as outliers will render the data spread unworkable. If this occurs then you have to use calculations to even the data to produce a workable result - even then you have to publish the fact you've manipulated the data to produce a result. I suspect some insurance companies realise this scam will soon be more heavily publicised and will result in loss of trade to rivals who don't punish for non-faults. Whilst a number of non-fault accidents are entirely random obviously some non-faults may be repeated and these should be investigated and the small % chance of the same accident happening in the same way to the same person explained to the policyholder before the justifiable rise in premium.
okey dokey. So it was you that marked all my papers and gave me a first then?You do realise it's probability not statistics don't you?
kestral said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Scottish law, going back to 2011, a one off judgement in a very complicated case, and, as far as I'm aware, since been superseded as no longer invalid by precedent.
It says in the case there is no difference in scotish law or English.Please could you produce the case law.
What's is the case is that you can't claim back increased premiums now, certainly not in England. There are many insurance companies that do not charge for a non fault claim, so no one is forcing you to stay with one that does and visit your decision on a third party.
kestral said:
It says in the case there is no difference in scotish law or English.
Please could you produce the case law.
The case you quoted is good enough as it covers loss of no claims bonus whilst the matter was under dispute - not an increased premium which arose from an increased risk assessment by whomever she chose to buy insurance from. Which would still have been going on for at least three more years, even though her no claims was restored. Please could you produce the case law.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 20th January 16:42
EU_Foreigner said:
It was an example of how you can wrongly interpret statistics, not that they do it in that particular example but illustrates how it could work.
It was a stupid example that would never happen because it's hard to believe anyone would be that stupid. If it were the case, Bugattis would be one of the cheapest cars to insure, given the low numbers of accidents they have, compared to something like the Ford Fiesta 
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And there you have it. As you admit, obviously some non-faults may be repeated. How much cost to investigate each non fault and then to contact and explain that to the policyholder?
You mean do an insurer's job for them? 
TwigtheWonderkid said:
How is that cost recouped, just by loading the non fault accident bad, or across the board? Can you demonstrate that your method will result in lower premiums?
Across the board is fundamentally unfair on genuine one-offs, and shouldn't happen. If your reasoning really is that the insurance companies can't be bothered to configure the loading properly then it's shameful, and illustrates what a lazy bunch of merchants sections of the industry is,popeyewhite said:
If your reasoning really is that the insurance companies can't be bothered to configure the loading properly then it's shameful, and illustrates what a lazy bunch of merchants sections of the industry is,
How much extra are you prepared to pay on your premium to have each claim analysed and an individual risk decision made for each client, going forward?After all, it wouldn't be confined to non fault. What about people whose car is damaged by hail? That's a fault claim, with no tp to claim off, but are they a higher risk going forward?
This is going to be expensive, with many extra staff required. How much are you willing to stump up?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
How much extra are you prepared to pay on your premium to have each claim analysed and an individual risk decision made for each client, going forward?
Nothing much. I'd pay a bit more I think because I realise how colossally hard it would be to change the dinosaur that is car insurance risk calculation. even though all you mention is already available at the push of a button, if industry practice could be changed.TwigtheWonderkid said:
After all, it wouldn't be confined to non fault. What about people whose car is damaged by hail? That's a fault claim, with no tp to claim off, but are they a higher risk going forward?
This is going to be expensive, with many extra staff required. How much are you willing to stump up?
Again, not much. Why would extra staff be required when software only needs to do the calculation once? Probablity between groups (red car/black car etc) is an easy statistical calculation and anything else is quite basic formulae.This is going to be expensive, with many extra staff required. How much are you willing to stump up?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What about people whose car is damaged by hail? That's a fault claim, with no tp to claim off, but are they a higher risk going forward?
Just because there's no TP doesn't mean an Act of God is the policyholder's fault. popeyewhite said:
Just because there's no TP doesn't mean an Act of God is the policyholder's fault.
I agree. Hence instead of a simple fault (no or partial recovery from tp) / non fault (full recovery from tp) loading, they have to look at each claim and make a judgement on the merits of the individual circumstances. That, with the best will in the world, is going to be time consuming and hence expensive. Do the millions of people over 40 who rarely if ever claim, and who are paying £200 tops for comp cover, want to fund this? I don't.
Graveworm said:
The case you quoted is good enough as it covers loss of no claims bonus whilst the matter was under dispute - not an increased premium which arose from an increased risk assessment by whomever she chose to buy insurance from. Which would still have been going on for at least three more years, even though her no claims was restored.
It covers increased premium at the bottom.Edited by Graveworm on Monday 20th January 16:42
Quote.[16] It is the pursuer who has had to fund the higher premiums for the years in question and that is a loss in her hands which flows from the accident. On one view the difficulty in her recovering this against her insurers strengthens her claim in this action. Accordingly, in my view the pursuer 'succeeds on this head of claim'.
And the £292.04 increased premium is awarded.
Edited by kestral on Friday 24th January 13:06
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I recall reading various stuff in loads of journals following the judgement. Whilst not in the industry, I am in an industry that means I have a lot of contact with insurance. Perhaps BV72 can provide more detail.
What's is the case is that you can't claim back increased premiums now, certainly not in England. There are many insurance companies that do not charge for a non fault claim, so no one is forcing you to stay with one that does and visit your decision on a third party.
Where has it been established that increased premiums cannot be claimed back?What's is the case is that you can't claim back increased premiums now, certainly not in England. There are many insurance companies that do not charge for a non fault claim, so no one is forcing you to stay with one that does and visit your decision on a third party.
In the case of NIKKI GRAHAM v. BRIT INSURANCE LIMITED it even mentions that 'restitutio in integrum' (the right to be put back into the position one would have been in had the wrong occured) applies.
There appears to be no moral reason why a person should suffer a loss because of anothers negligence.
As I say if you have the case law ect that shows that increased premiums cannot be recovered please can you post details ect.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff