Insurance Rant!

[Ticktock]

Perhaps then your insurance does pay as no other vehicle is involved.

It's the same as your house. If a tile fell off your roof and it hit a passer by, your home insurance would cover it (I think it would anyway). If somebody burgles your house, you don't expect to claim on the burglar's insurance, you expect your insurance to pay. You insure against the risk of being burgled; in the same way your car insurance would insure you against the risk of being driven into, as well as the risk of you injuring a pedestrian or crashing into a lampost.

So how would you price premiums?

The more unlucky you are (being hit by others) the more you pay, while those who drive cheap bangers, get into lots of crashes and then don't claim for repairs and just buy another banger pay less?

[Paddy]

Yet when I got hit up the rear - very hard - woman hit me at full speed causing five car shunt with my car a write off - and genuinely had a stiff neck, it took me months of hassle just to get my chiro bill paid. At no point did anyone suggest I should claim compensation. Wonder why some companies treat it so differently to others?

My brother in-law was hit from behind while stationary by a woman driver. His back was injured and taken to A&E. 20 years later he is still getting treatment. The doctors say is too risky to operate.

The woman driver and he both had the same insurance company and so they paid out nothing. He was examined by five doctors who wrote to say his injury was a result of the accident but once again Zurich insisted on a sixth opinion the result being that it was claimed he had a pre-existing condition.

[d000hg]

Yet when I got hit up the rear - very hard - woman hit me at full speed causing five car shunt with my car a write off - and genuinely had a stiff neck, it took me months of hassle just to get my chiro bill paid. At no point did anyone suggest I should claim compensation. Wonder why some companies treat it so differently to others?

Interesting. When the wife was hit from behind at a far lower speed - car behind thought she was going to pull out and pulled out themself - her insurance company (NOT some dodgy specialist accident company) were very keen to get her to claim for injury.

[VectraMan]

So how would you price premiums?

The more unlucky you are (being hit by others) the more you pay, while those who drive cheap bangers, get into lots of crashes and then don't claim for repairs and just buy another banger pay less?

It's not just luck that dictates your chance of an accident. Again house insurance: live in an area with more burglaries or liable to flooding, you pay more. Want a more expensive house? You pay more. If you use your car a lot, or spend time in traffic jams or anywhere else there's a higher risk, you may pay more. If you want to drive a more expensive car that's more expensive to repair, then you pay more.

If insurance is to cover risk, then why shouldn't the banger owner pay less? His risk is much smaller. If he's causing lots of accidents, then he needs to be having a chat with the police.

[Ticktock]

It's not just luck that dictates your chance of an accident. Again house insurance: live in an area with more burglaries or liable to flooding, you pay more. Want a more expensive house? You pay more. If you use your car a lot, or spend time in traffic jams or anywhere else there's a higher risk, you may pay more. If you want to drive a more expensive car that's more expensive to repair, then you pay more.

If insurance is to cover risk, then why shouldn't the banger owner pay less? His risk is much smaller. If he's causing lots of accidents, then he needs to be having a chat with the police.

That doesn't fully tally.
With the current system you already pay more for a more expensive car that you use more, and if you live in a dodgy area, if you're a dangerous driver (points on licence), etc. I can't see that this would change if it went to a "self-cover" model. All other things being equal, the banger driver would pay less.

The only variable left would be how often your car is involved in accidents and needs repairs. You are suggesting that those hit through no fault of their own should bear the burden of higher costs (as insurance companies of course would raise premiums for high claimers).

The comparison to a house works if you're talking about burglary vs someone breaking in to / stealing your car. It also works if your house / car bursts into flames.
If someone accidently damaged my house (smashed a window, drove into the front of it, hit the wrong lever on their wrecking ball) then I would want them to pay for the repairs. If someone accidently damaged my car then I would want them to pay for the repairs. The whole point of third party insurance is "what if they can't afford to pay" - you charge the insurance company instead.

[VectraMan]

All other things being equal, the banger driver would pay less.

The banger owner is insuring something of much lower value. Of course he pays less.

The only variable left would be how often your car is involved in accidents and needs repairs. You are suggesting that those hit through no fault of their own should bear the burden of higher costs (as insurance companies of course would raise premiums for high claimers).

Exactly. But you're looking at it from a blame perspective. What I'm saying is if you take away the blame, you take away the temptation to load up every claim with unnecessary new parts and bogus whiplash claims, then it'd be better for everyone. It doesn't mean that you couldn't sue the person who is to blame for whatever you lose; you could sue a burglar but most people don't because they're happy enough that their insurance pays for their stuff.

[Sysman]

Last week I too nudged the back of someone in a traffic jam. Entirely my fault. We both agreed it looked nothing worse than a couple of scuffs on each bumper, and so I said the same - get a quote and we'll keep the insurance companies out of it, thinking £100 at Chipsaway. Sure enough they went to a proper insurance accident repair place and the quote was £1500: new bumper, brackets, toe cover, paint, labour etc.etc. So it's now an insurance claim.

While £1500 does seem excessive, many years ago a colleague had someone run into the back of his car and they couldn't see any damage so agreed not to bother with insurance and repairs.

A few months later though, the paint was flaking around the bumper mounts and rust had set in.

It's a tricky one.

[Sysman]

For those who don't venture into TPD last week I ran into the back of someone coming out of a junction as they had stopped in the middle of the road, entirely my fault and I admit that, on first inspection there was no damage to their car and a bit to mine but not enough to worry about it, she mentioned something about renewing her policy in a few days so trying to avoid going through our respective insurers and looking at the damage (or lack off) I was happy with this. Few days later I get a call saying there is damage to the boot and "behind the bumper" so it will have to go through the insurance, again no worries.

Get a letter through yesterday from their solicitors claiming "in excess of £10,000" due to whiplash, driving anxiety and lost earnings, **** sake I thought I was on a good rate as given they only had one day off (the form stated this). So I go back to the photos I have taken off the cars and again confirm there is no visible damage to her car and given the speed of impact was below 5mph I spoke to my insurers saying I wanted to contest the level of the claim, only to be told that with fault established it is not in their and thus my, interest to negotiate the claim and just settle.

Are things that ****ed up with our legal system that it is cheaper to just settle than try and negotiate a fair deal? I wonder how much the case would cost if third party claims management firms were not involved, or no win no fee cases were abolished.

You probably missed the bit where your insurance pays in excess of £10K but her insurance company tries to get away with paying much less.

[doodab]

It doesn't mean that you couldn't sue the person who is to blame for whatever you lose; you could sue a burglar but most people don't because they're happy enough that their insurance pays for their stuff.

Don't you think this might lead to people buying third party liability insurance to mitigate the risk of being sued?

People don't sue burglars because there is little point, you won't recover anything because they are generally not that well off.

[MyUserName]

you could sue a burglar but most people don't because they're happy enough that their insurance pays for their stuff.

Isn't it more to do with the fact you won't get anything but hassle if you do that?