Insuring a Cat N vehicle.

[Deleted member 6183]

Insurance companies judge risk purely on actuarial statistics, and the statistics show that drivers who have had a recent accident are more likely to have another than those who haven't. It's not bloody fair to those who have a non-fault accident, but that's the way they do it. Necessary evil they are.

Yet we keep seeing posts here from members showing off their sub £300 annual premiums

 

[AMGeed]

Yet we keep seeing posts here from members showing off their sub £300 annual premiums

I'd be in that group
And I had a non fault accident 6 years ago.
Obviously I am more likely to have another accident..................according to statistics

 

[E55BOF]

That was six years ago, though. Statistics must show that after six years, a previous accident makes no difference; that's probably why no insurer I know of asks for information further back than five years.

 

[John]

After 6 years without an accident, it's pretty fair to say you are a good and / or safe driver subject to mileage driven of course.

 

[bob6600]

I think that insurance underwriters have data to show that those involved in a no fault accident are statistically more likely to have another.

Maybe, but they should be different categories like for instance a non-fault accident caused by a vehicle hitting your parked car when it is outside your house. This happened to my brother and we caught the a-holes who were riding around on a road legal quad bike and fell off when they hit the parked car. They were injured but still tried to ride off until I stood in front of them and took the keys out of the ignition!

As they had no insurance, we called our insurance and described the damage, which was minor but as the car was very old, it would have written it off. So, we decided not to pursue the claim and repair it ourselves. The insurance company (on renewal) repeatedly told my brother that he had an incident and that even though no claim was made and it wasn't his fault, the incident took place. It did impact his premium slightly but how can someone sitting in their house be responsible for two clowns joy-riding on a quad bike? How can they be more likely to be involved in an incident in this instance?

 

[E55BOF]

It isn't fair, but it's the way the insurance companies do it; it should be illegal to penalise anyone for something over which they had no control, which they could not have foreseen, and which cost the insurance company nothing, but it's not. Best to tell them nothing unless you have to...

 

[bob6600]

It isn't fair, but it's the way the insurance companies do it; it should be illegal to penalise anyone for something over which they had no control, which they could not have foreseen, and which cost the insurance company nothing, but it's not. Best to tell them nothing unless you have to...

Indeed! Lesson learned that day...

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Maybe, but they should be different categories like for instance a non-fault accident caused by a vehicle hitting your parked car when it is outside your house. This happened to my brother and we caught the a-holes who were riding around on a road legal quad bike and fell off when they hit the parked car. They were injured but still tried to ride off until I stood in front of them and took the keys out of the ignition!

As they had no insurance, we called our insurance and described the damage, which was minor but as the car was very old, it would have written it off. So, we decided not to pursue the claim and repair it ourselves. The insurance company (on renewal) repeatedly told my brother that he had an incident and that even though no claim was made and it wasn't his fault, the incident took place. It did impact his premium slightly but how can someone sitting in their house be responsible for two clowns joy-riding on a quad bike? How can be more likely to be involved in an incident in this instance?

It's not my design, however, anecdotal evidence will always be treated less seriously than statistical.

 

[bob6600]

It's not my design, however, anecdotal evidence will always be treated less seriously than statistical.

Yes sorry I know I initially quoted you but the rant wasn't aimed at you

 

[John]

Like a lot of things, it's a con and insurance is no different. Any trick they can use to extort money out of us... and as we have to have insurance by law, they have us over a barrel.

 

[Will]

I know it may seem unfair, but I guess from a business point of view (the insurer) who would you rather cover:

a) 1000 people who had all been involved in incidents/claims/accidents over the last year

Or

b) 1000 people who had not

(All other thing being equal)

Although the majority of no fault claims may well mean there was no fault, perhaps statistically they are right. From being more able to avoid an accident to parking in safer spots, or driving at less busy times/safer areas.

I can see how it would feel to be penalised for something that’s not your fault, but all insurance is based on assumptions/stereotypes to do with risk. Unfortunately that’s how they work it out.

 

[John]

Some insurance companies will offer incentives like "Your NCB wont' be affected if your car is vandalised / damaged by an uninsured driver or it's not your fault".

So they can and do do this; the point being they apply the same logic to a fault and non-fault claim which you could do nothing through choice. Their choice being based on raising their bottom line.

I have no problem paying more money if I made a claim and it was my fault (assuming I'd not paid extra for protected NCB).

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Some insurance companies will offer incentives like "Your NCB wont' be affected if your car is vandalised / damaged by an uninsured driver or it's not your fault".

So they can and do do this; the point being they apply the same logic to a fault and non-fault claim which you could do nothing through choice. Their choice being based on raising their bottom line.

I have no problem paying more money if I made a claim and it was my fault (assuming I'd not paid extra for protected NCB).

You do know that NCB and renewal quote are two different things don't you?

 

[400ixl]

There are huge numbers of factors taken into consideration, Someone who is caught speeding or jumping red lights is demonstrably less risk averse than someone who isn't, non fault accidents often have a level of lack of observation on the part of the non fault party, those who are willing to drive a vehicle which has been previously damaged again is less risk averse than someone who won't.

All these things build up a profile, credit profiling was brought in as a factor about 15 years ago now as someones credit risk shows their overall profile. Non fault claim analysis has been part of the profile for at least 20 years.

You also have different insurers viewing risks in different ways, which is why some refuse to insure CAT whatever cars but others don't care, where as the one that doesn't care may not favour young drivers and therefore prices them out of the market.

They also change their likes and dislikes over time which is why you should always compare each year.

When you look at how insurance claims are funded, basically the company takes the premium and invests the money, hopefully making money on it before they have to pay out on a claim. As such they have to be very savvy about how they assess the factors which may make that claim occur, and the more they have the more they can spread the risk profiles.

A good insurance company makes maybe 7-11% profit on motor policies, many are in the 0-4% bracket with some making a loss. It is not a big profit area for them and really is used to get people to then buy further more profitable policies from them once they know who you are.

 

[tron]

People who buy categorized cars are poorer (or they wouldn't) and therefore not as good as the rest of us so the insurer loads it accordingly - seemples.
Stinks but that's just the way it is.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

People who buy categorized cars are poorer (or they wouldn't) and therefore not as good as the rest of us so the insurer loads it accordingly - seemples.
Stinks but that's just the way it is.

Yeah, the peasants don't even have the wherewithal to crush a £10k car in a fit of pique.

 

[markjay]

Statistically, a careful driver will have less claims (both at-fault and no-fault) and is therefore considered a lower risk to the insurer.

Of course any driver can be involved in a crash that was 100% unavoidable, but these are rare and the reality is that the majority of no-fault crashes could have been avoided by a careful driver.

A driver who ends-up repeatedly being involved in no-fault accidents is either very unlucky, or more likely, is just not a very careful driver.

And those who are not careful drivers pay a higher premium.

 

[tron]

Feelgood, haven't you any billygoats to bother? The grown ups are busy.

 

[John]

People who buy categorized cars are poorer (or they wouldn't) and therefore not as good as the rest of us so the insurer loads it accordingly - seemples.

Not necessarily.

I once sold a £30k Alpina and bought a cheap category D car in the past to bridge a gap - it was the best one available locally.

I certainly wasn't poor...

 

[clk320x]

Statistically, a careful driver will have less claims (both at-fault and no-fault) and is therefore considered a lower risk to the insurer.

Of course any driver can be involved in a crash that was 100% unavoidable, but these are rare and the reality is that the majority of no-fault crashes could have been avoided by a careful driver.

A driver who ends-up repeatedly being involved in no-fault accidents is either very unlucky, or more likely, is just not a very careful driver.

And those who are not careful drivers pay a higher premium.

I suppose this although annoying does make sense!