Does anyone trust an insurance company
Discussion
Somebody just turned across the front of the wife in our family stinkwheel causing an accident.
He was very apologetic admitted fault and gave his details. Nobody hurt, no problem, it'll be fixed up soon enough these things happen.
We're always told by our insurers that we have to declare ALL accidents even non-fault ones. But can they be trusted not to use this as an excuse to jack up premiums for the next 5 years? Absolutely not IMHO!
If we decide that we don't trust them, and therefore choose not to tell them (because after all it was somebody else's fault so they have no legitimate reason to know) and there's a claim in future and this came to light, would they win in court?
SM
He was very apologetic admitted fault and gave his details. Nobody hurt, no problem, it'll be fixed up soon enough these things happen.
We're always told by our insurers that we have to declare ALL accidents even non-fault ones. But can they be trusted not to use this as an excuse to jack up premiums for the next 5 years? Absolutely not IMHO!
If we decide that we don't trust them, and therefore choose not to tell them (because after all it was somebody else's fault so they have no legitimate reason to know) and there's a claim in future and this came to light, would they win in court?
SM
justinp1 said:
Yes.
Sorry, pressed submit instead of return!
Despite the fact that the accident wasnt your fault they would still put this into their equation in chances of having another accident.
Look at it this way:
If your house is burgled and you didnt leave the doors and windows open - thats not your fault, but will impact the possibility of you being burgled again.
The insurance companies know very little about each insuree so they have to work on quite simple equations.
Now, they may never find out that the accident took place, but you can but your bottom dollar that they have a special tean to get out of paying high value claims.
So if you write off a £40,000 car and do £10,000 of damage to property my guess is that they will investigate everything they possibly can to find a getout. Similar posters have commented on the fact that after an accident they have had to send their licences, documents etc in the hope they can find a getout. There is also annecdotal evidence that in the evdent of an accident by say a student on his dads insurance, they send an investigator to ask neighbours exactly where the car is kept etc in the hope of sniffing out fraud.
If it were me I would tell them but also make sure they know it was a non-fault claim.
Last week I got an online quote without declaring a no fault claim, [other parties ins co paid me direct my company did not have any input whatsoever]
When I realised I had not declared this info, I redid the form and price was £20 extra, I phoned the company to complain, snotty manager told me thats it, we always charge for a no fault claim.
As the quote was still very good and I have been with them for quite a while, I went ahead and took out the policy.
Yesterday the policy arrived in the post and they had put me down for 2 no fault claims, instead of one, so I phoned them, I was told that it would not matter because we do not usually load premiums for no fault claims anyway, I asked the girl to check, she deleted the claims and said it had made no difference to the cost, so I could not have been charged extra!.
I asked if my previous conversation with the snotty manager had been recorded [I had his name] she said all calls are recorded, good I said, please check the conversation with the diplomatic manager and get back to me, she said she would, by tommorow PM.
What do we think the outcome will be?????????
When I realised I had not declared this info, I redid the form and price was £20 extra, I phoned the company to complain, snotty manager told me thats it, we always charge for a no fault claim.
As the quote was still very good and I have been with them for quite a while, I went ahead and took out the policy.
Yesterday the policy arrived in the post and they had put me down for 2 no fault claims, instead of one, so I phoned them, I was told that it would not matter because we do not usually load premiums for no fault claims anyway, I asked the girl to check, she deleted the claims and said it had made no difference to the cost, so I could not have been charged extra!.
I asked if my previous conversation with the snotty manager had been recorded [I had his name] she said all calls are recorded, good I said, please check the conversation with the diplomatic manager and get back to me, she said she would, by tommorow PM.
What do we think the outcome will be?????????
Don't be tempted not to tell them. With the new UK Insurance Database it's very easy for them to check your claims history, whether your claiming on your own insurance or against someone else's, and if you have paid a premium that they consider is not appropriate to the risk they will void your claim.
Unfortunately I think they will use the accident to raise your premium. This is because insurance companies will tell you, that statistics show, if you have an accident, whether fault or non fault, then in the next three years you are three times more likely to have a similar accident than someone who has not had an accident.
With the above in mind, they will then look at the probability of the next one being caused by an uninsured driver, leaving them having to pay out.
Not trying to preach doom and gloom, but that's the way they work.
Unfortunately I think they will use the accident to raise your premium. This is because insurance companies will tell you, that statistics show, if you have an accident, whether fault or non fault, then in the next three years you are three times more likely to have a similar accident than someone who has not had an accident.
With the above in mind, they will then look at the probability of the next one being caused by an uninsured driver, leaving them having to pay out.
Not trying to preach doom and gloom, but that's the way they work.
I would tell them as well.
But, can anyone explain to me the logic that if you have a no-fault claim, you are more likly to crash again? I mean, you can be minding your own business when some muppet creams into the side of you etc.. So why does that mean you are more likely to crash in the future? Do some people just attract other cars?
But, can anyone explain to me the logic that if you have a no-fault claim, you are more likly to crash again? I mean, you can be minding your own business when some muppet creams into the side of you etc.. So why does that mean you are more likely to crash in the future? Do some people just attract other cars?
My sister had her car trashed by Kwik Fit. She works for a solicitors behind the garage and they parked a customers car over the top of a wall and into the side of her car pushing it into the car next to it for good measure.
She informed her insurance company to be on the safe side as Kwik Fit, to their credit, immediately offered to pay for the repair at a garage of her choice and got her a hire car.
Insurance company phoned her back and called her a liar and questioned whether the car had really been in an accident and suggesting she was trying to be fraudulent.
This after the third party had admitted liability.
She informed her insurance company to be on the safe side as Kwik Fit, to their credit, immediately offered to pay for the repair at a garage of her choice and got her a hire car.
Insurance company phoned her back and called her a liar and questioned whether the car had really been in an accident and suggesting she was trying to be fraudulent.
This after the third party had admitted liability.
only last week I was refused insurance because of an accident that happened while I was not in the car, 5 years ago, to which there were multiple independent witnesses and the guilty party eventually fessed up.. even if you are not in any way culpable, this will affect your insurance for the better part of a decade.
thanks a million pachyderm .co.uk
thanks a million pachyderm .co.uk
davidra said:
only last week I was refused insurance because of an accident that happened while I was not in the car, 5 years ago, to which there were multiple independent witnesses and the guilty party eventually fessed up.. even if you are not in any way culpable, this will affect your insurance for the better part of a decade.
thanks a million pachyderm .co.uk
And being refused cover is declarable, may result in other companies refusing cover (and so on) and cause loading of the premium - Streaky thanks a million pachyderm .co.uk
jasandjules said:
I would tell them as well.
But, can anyone explain to me the logic that if you have a no-fault claim, you are more likly to crash again? I mean, you can be minding your own business when some muppet creams into the side of you etc.. So why does that mean you are more likely to crash in the future? Do some people just attract other cars?
But, can anyone explain to me the logic that if you have a no-fault claim, you are more likly to crash again? I mean, you can be minding your own business when some muppet creams into the side of you etc.. So why does that mean you are more likely to crash in the future? Do some people just attract other cars?
Hi JaJ
I think it is not so much that you are more likely to have an accident just due to the fact that you have just had one, more that because they know so little about you driving - where you drive, how you drive, where you park etc they just have to fit you into a 'model of a driver' - it would obviously seem that there is a group of drivers who never claim and agroup who often claim - and of course both have an opposite financial risk and if you have an accident you get pushed toward the latter.
Consider person A and person B and we need to assess their chances of winning the lottery. At the moment equal.
Person A wins the lottery.
Now who has the greater chance of winning again?
They both have the same chance - 13,000,000 to 1 that they will choose the right numbers - but person A is statistically more likely to win, why?
Because we know nothing much about A and B except for the fact at least we know A buys lottery tickets!
Even if it is a non-fault claim where a stationary car has been driven into - this shows that at least that the car has a slightly higher risk of 'being in the wrong place at the wrong time' in the future just because it has this one time compared to the 'average car' the insurance companies know none of this information about.
I have no option but to tell them, they are holding all the cards. This thread is me playing devil's advocate.
But this is outrageous behaviour isn't it? The 20 quid on/not on/not off thing from earlier is EXACTLY the reason I don't trust these people with the information...
So what's to be done? After all you don't negotiate with Tesco because they're charging some random amount of extra money for milk than they were last week. You buy it or you don't buy it, they're in a free market and if they want to rape you, it's your choice whether to bend over or not, right?
SM
But this is outrageous behaviour isn't it? The 20 quid on/not on/not off thing from earlier is EXACTLY the reason I don't trust these people with the information...
So what's to be done? After all you don't negotiate with Tesco because they're charging some random amount of extra money for milk than they were last week. You buy it or you don't buy it, they're in a free market and if they want to rape you, it's your choice whether to bend over or not, right?
SM
My wife forgot to tell her insurance company of a claim that I made the previous year. It was one of those ones where they automatically debit your credit card at renewal time unless you tell them not to. The premium was around £550.
After many months I realised this and phoned them up later to tell them the details and they wanted another £180! I rang around and got another quote (direct line) which was slightly cheaper so I cancelled the original insurance and got a pro-rata refund.
Tell them everything.
After many months I realised this and phoned them up later to tell them the details and they wanted another £180! I rang around and got another quote (direct line) which was slightly cheaper so I cancelled the original insurance and got a pro-rata refund.
Tell them everything.
justinp1 said:
Because we know nothing much about A and B except for the fact at least we know A buys lottery tickets!
All you know is A 'bought' a lottery ticket, doesn't mean they will 'buy' any more - so they are equally likely to win again. Hence why people use 'systems' to pick there lottery numbers - i.e. #1 hasn't been out for 900 weeks so it must be 'due' - wrong! The ball doesn't know it's #1 and with multiple sets of balls/machine it gets very confusing anyway.
Same with insurance - if I get hit whilst parked somewhere, I'm less likely to park there in the future so my risk should drop! However what will increase the risk is the fact that a car of your type and colour has been 'involved' in an accident and hence the database increments the count by one for that model, thus that model raises in risk slightly.
Insurance is based on past trends, not future - hence they're always looking backwards. They can't see what you are going to do, only what you have done!
Is it the driver that is insured, or the car, or both?
Edited by mmm-five on Wednesday 13th December 11:04
mmm-five said:
justinp1 said:
Because we know nothing much about A and B except for the fact at least we know A buys lottery tickets!
All you know is A 'bought' a lottery ticket, doesn't mean they will 'buy' any more - so they are equally likely to win again. Hence why people use 'systems' to pick there lottery numbers - i.e. #1 hasn't been out for 900 weeks so it must be 'due' - wrong! The ball doesn't know it's #1 and with multiple sets of balls/machine it gets very confusing anyway.
Same with insurance - if I get hit whilst parked somewhere, I'm less likely to park there in the future so my risk should drop! However what will increase the risk is the fact that a car of your type and colour has been 'involved' in an accident and hence the database increments the count by one for that model, thus that model raises in risk slightly.
Insurance is based on past trends, not future - hence they're always looking backwards. They can't see what you are going to do, only what you have done!
Is it the driver that is insured, or the car, or both?
Edited by mmm-five on Wednesday 13th December 11:04
Hi, I was trying to define the difference between statistics and probablility.
The lottery example is the perfect one - I chose it as A and B have the same chance of winning if we know nothing else about A and B. If we know A has won, if nothing else we now know that A has bought a ticket and therefore may do in the future. Nothing has changed about B.
From the amount of accidents they are assessing your driving style, the areas you drive through and the statistical danger of the roads, where you park and the statistical chance of being broken into etc, it is even an estimation on how much you drive.
Its a very blunt instrument, but unless they have satellites recording your driving actions and whereabouts (god forbid) its all they have.
Of course, if it is a driving error or a particular place you have parked - you *may* not make the same again - but conversely if your driving error has happened once, you may not be able to avoid the same mistake again. Similarly if your car is broken into or you are in an accident on the way to work - you do not change you home address, where you work, where you park etc or even how much you drive.
I do not support it, but understand the mathematics behind it and as I have said unless we want satellite tracking for our cars for car insurance or even DNA testing to get health insurance, we will have to live with being put into 'blunt' categories of risk.
I currently have two no fault accidents listed on the insurers database neither of which resulted in a claim. This does not appear to have affected my insurance in any way. I wonder if the insurance co's differetiate between a no fault with a claim and a no fault without a claim? Several insurance companies systems will not let you enter a no fault no claim accident. They insist you must have claimed some money from the other drivers insurance.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff