Real insurance statistics- are the available?

[redstu]

I'd like to see the statistics that the insurance companies use to work out risk.

I'm not talking about the simple numbers that are quoted in the media, but some real in depth ones.

I suppose these must be somewhat secret, but someone must have released something somewhere.

The reason I ask is that Im now very sceptical about everthing that I read as it is always slanted to prove something to the benefit of those pushing some business. There is a column in the Guardian each week showing how devious companies have become, and the n
media pander to it with there short headlines with no substance.

No Fault accidents are mine (and many others) pet hate, I just dont see that the risk is higher after some idiot has hit you at traffic lights/reversed into you in a car park etc etc.

TBH I'm not expecting to find them as they are probably closely guarded but lets see!

Edited by redstu on Friday 2nd April 09:36

[Gnits]

I would love to see these too!
Married? Please f*ck off! what has that got to do with my driving? I bet being Muslim statistically makes a difference one way or another but now way in hell you're ever going to ask that are you?
Home owner - see previous rant! Makes me want to pay some poor chap in Sudan £10 for his hut so I can answer yes to this question.
Disabilities - ask Sebastian Loeb and he'd say we are all disabled compared to him. I was going to say that actually I understand this one but I don't - if your disability affects your driving so bad that insurers want to know then you probably should not be driving should you?

I swear I can hear them rolling a dice when I call for a quote - Insurers really make my p*ss boil!
Staged but still love this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtEp5yc-g3A

[edo]

As a start, here are the basic postcode ratings:

http://www.motorcarinsuranceuk.co.uk/post-code-rat...

[edo]

This is interesting - shows how the change in job title effects your premium....

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/insurance/car-ins...

[Mike Rob]

edo said:

As a start, here are the basic postcode ratings:

http://www.motorcarinsuranceuk.co.uk/post-code-rat...

Look at these carefully and they tell you a lot!

Company actuaries will never let on their secrets as it is a very competitive market, but let's say there are certain factors insurers really want to stick clear of. One major insurer's underwriting is now primarily based on your credit rating - and it works.

[Paul Drawmer]

redstu said:

...No Fault accidents are mine (and many others) pet hate, I just dont see that the risk is higher after some idiot has hit you at traffic lights/reversed into you in a car park...

I am not an actuary or an underwriter, however I do a little about insurance.

First of all, not all insurance companies are the same. With regards to approach to risk and setting of premiums, then provided the company keeps within the rules of the FSA regarding maintaining their ability to pay claims, they are pretty much able to set rates as they please.

So, if you look at the main aims of any company, it has to satisfy its owners by not losing them a lot of money, and by staying in business whilst carrying out their core activities. Some companies are owned by shareholders, some companies are owned by their policy holders. So the juggling of the aims will result in many different approaches to how premium levels are set, and what happens with NCD and other discounts.

In the case where a deer leaps out of the scenery and lands on the bonnet of your car, sustaining severe damage to your car, and rendering the deer into constituent parts; then you lose your no claim discount because you have made a claim, and the deer didn't have the means to pay for your damage. It isn't your fault, but you did make a claim.

Most companies define no-fault as an accident where any claims paid can be recovered in full from a third party. So, if someone hits your car up the rear, and your insurer recovers all their costs, you don't lose your no claims. Actually what usually happens is, your no claim is impacted from the point of notification of loss up until the recovery is made, when it is reinstated.

Not all companies will immediately load your premium in the event of a claim. Some do, some don't; it's just that if you buy the cheapest premium, then that company will exercise everything in their power to regain some profit. Even those that don't load your premium for one claim, will do so if you keep claiming. They will rightly assume that there are factors to do with you that increase the chances of you making another claim. If you do it too much, they might not wish to insure you at all.

[kambites]

redstu said:

No Fault accidents are mine (and many others) pet hate, I just dont see that the risk is higher after some idiot has hit you at traffic lights/reversed into you in a car park etc etc.

Whereas to me it seems more reasonable that non-fault accidents have an effect on your premium than, for example, your gender or age.

I would have been utterly astounded if non-fault accidents didn't make it statistically more likely that you will have another accident, because for every non-fault accident that the driver couldn't do anything about, there are several where a better driver could have either avoided or helped to mitigate the damage.

I suspect that technically you should be able to reclaim the increased insurance cost from the party that was deemed legally at fault, but I've never heard of this actually happening.

Edited by kambites on Friday 2nd April 10:46

[saaby93]

Paul Drawmer said:

Most companies define no-fault as an accident where any claims paid can be recovered in full from a third party. So, if someone hits your car up the rear, and your insurer recovers all their costs, you don't lose your no claims. Actually what usually happens is, your no claim is impacted from the point of notification of loss up until the recovery is made, when it is reinstated.

Thats the one he's talking about where despite it not being your fault, your premium goes up as allegedly youre more likely to have another accident

Another one is the guy in another thread who's car had armourfend to protect the paintwork, he thought was on from new, but the insurer wont pay out to replace it.

As said in that thread the day might come when there's a check box for 'regularly polishes car' as that could increase premiums due to it being more stealable

[Paul Drawmer]

saaby93 said:

Paul Drawmer said:

Most companies define no-fault as an accident where any claims paid can be recovered in full from a third party. So, if someone hits your car up the rear, and your insurer recovers all their costs, you don't lose your no claims. Actually what usually happens is, your no claim is impacted from the point of notification of loss up until the recovery is made, when it is reinstated.

Thats the one he's talking about where despite it not being your fault, your premium goes up as allegedly youre more likely to have another accident...

Not with all insurers for just one claim.

[Steameh]

kambites said:

redstu said:

No Fault accidents are mine (and many others) pet hate, I just dont see that the risk is higher after some idiot has hit you at traffic lights/reversed into you in a car park etc etc.

Whereas to me it seems more reasonable that non-fault accidents have an effect on your premium than, for example, your gender or age.

I would have been utterly astounded if non-fault accidents didn't make it statistically more likely that you will have another accident, because for every non-fault accident that the driver couldn't do anything about, there are several where a better driver could have either avoided or helped to mitigate the damage.

I suspect that technically you should be able to reclaim the increased insurance cost from the party that was deemed legally at fault, but I've never heard of this actually happening.

Edited by kambites on Friday 2nd April 10:46

Try being hit from behind whilst waiting at traffic lights by an uninsured driver. That has been a noose about my neck for the past 3 years, substantially increasing my premiums when there was absolutely nothing I could have done to prevent it.

Not my fault, NCB lost.

Yet in 5 years this is the only accident I have ever had.

[Rothgo Wooft]

Many years ago I vaguely remember going for a job interview at company specialising in neural networks, and one of the uses was predicting insurance risk. Teach it with lots of historical data, along with how much gets paid out. Then query it to get a risk.

I don't recall if was for cars or homes or whatever, but if a neural net is involved, the companies using them won't know what the premiums are based on either!

[Paul Drawmer]

Steameh said:

...Try being hit from behind whilst waiting at traffic lights by an uninsured driver. That has been a noose about my neck for the past 3 years, substantially increasing my premiums when there was absolutely nothing I could have done to prevent it.

Not my fault, NCB lost.

Yet in 5 years this is the only accident I have ever had.

I agree, it is most unfair. You have losses because of the actions of another. Could you have taken them to court to recover your losses? Some policies have motor legal protection.
However, the discount is for no claims, not no fault.
This is also why some chose to protect their no claims.

[Steameh]

Paul Drawmer said:

Steameh said:

...Try being hit from behind whilst waiting at traffic lights by an uninsured driver. That has been a noose about my neck for the past 3 years, substantially increasing my premiums when there was absolutely nothing I could have done to prevent it.

Not my fault, NCB lost.

Yet in 5 years this is the only accident I have ever had.

I agree, it is most unfair. You have losses because of the actions of another. Could you have taken them to court to recover your losses? Some policies have motor legal protection.
However, the discount is for no claims, not no fault.
This is also why some chose to protect their no claims.

Indeed there was some satisfaction that he was jailed when caught. However the uninsured driver hit and insured driver in to the back of me. I was expecting to claim off his insurance. It wasnt to be.

What I dont understand is why some companies as for a 5 year accident history, and some ask for a 3 year. 5 Years seems a touch excessive.