non fault company car claim increaseed bike insurance

holidaychicken

hi, hope someone can help, i am renewing my bike insurance which has been claim free for approx 12 years, and my 1996 zx7r was quoted as £144 fully comp with hastings.

i told them i was involved in an accident in 2007 where i was hit from behind when stationary, in a company car on company insurance and they increased it to over £200

how on earth can they justify this?

i have run through loads of comparision websites and they all increase the premium and also increase the excess from around £200 to
£5-600

surely this has to be another rip off

hope someone can help

A

FlameCloud

Its not a rip off. Insurance is all about risk- think of it as a big gamble that you will have an accident whilst on cover (whether your own fault or not). There are statistics showing that drivers who have had a non fault claim are more likely to claim, hence increasing your risk to insurance companies.

Tallymanjohn

Also, even though it was a 'no fault' claim as far as you were concerned, the insurance companies probably negotiated between themselves & paid part each, so any claim, no fault or otherwise, goes against you. Unfair, I know, but then the whole insurance game is unfair.

cogito

FlameCloud wrote: »

Its not a rip off. Insurance is all about risk- think of it as a big gamble that you will have an accident whilst on cover (whether your own fault or not). There are statistics showing that drivers who have had a non fault claim are more likely to claim, hence increasing your risk to insurance companies.

Whenever I've asked to see these statistics, strangely enough no one seems able to provide them.

MarkyMarkD

Why would any insurer want to give out its own commercially sensitive claims data?

cogito

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Why would any insurer want to give out its own commercially sensitive claims data?

Does the data actually exist? I have my doubts.

lisyloo

how on earth can they justify this?

1) You are the sort of person that makes claims (most of us would of course).
2) You drive in areas, places and times where there are bad drivers.
3) You're not very good at avoiding accidents**

**I accept that's very harsh for a rear ender.
But MOST accidents could be avoided by ANY party, so the general principle applies here.

You have been unlucky that a genuine non-fault accident lumps you under the same general principles.

I ride a motorcycle (like you) and cos I'm not surrounded by metal I put a lot of effort into avoidance.
For example to avoid a rear ender I would leave myself space to shoot into and practise rear observation (mirrors).
If I was stationary I would be in neutral to stop the bike shooting off if I was rear ended.
Harder with a car I know but demonstrating the point that a lot of people who are not "at fault" or not "liable" could actually have done something to avoid the accident in most cases (according to the police).

You've just had the rough end of the rules I'm afraid.

Strangely enough I had a car claim (entirely my fault) and it affect my bike insurance but NOT my car insurance.
That was probably because I had full NCD on the car but not on the bike, but it still seems strange.

Fact is they HAVE to use rules to keep costs down and that sometimes affects individuals unfairly.

raskazz

cogito wrote: »

Whenever I've asked to see these statistics, strangely enough no one seems able to provide them.

Well it looks like it's your lucky day cogito, as I have some pertinent statistics for you. These are based on data from an underwriting pool of a few hundred thousand private cars, averaged over 4 years from 2003. Clearly this is pretty raw data, and some of the differences could be attributed to multicollinearity (hence why the actual loads for non-fault claims are generally lower than the percentage increases below, i.e. around maybe 5% for only one recent non-fault incident), but after the actuaries have worked their magic on it, it does confirm that statistically those who are involved in non-fault claims do present an increased risk over someone who is totally incident-free. The figures are rounded as I'm not going to jeopardise my job for the sake of this.

1 non-fault claim (in the last three years) correlates with increased average total claim costs for a policy by around 15%
2 non-fault claims correlates with increased average total claim costs for a policy by around 25%
3 non-fault claims correlates with increased average total claim costs for a policy by around 45%
4 non-fault claims correlates with increased average total claim costs for a policy by around 55%

Quentin

raskazz wrote:

4 fault claims correlates with increased average total claim costs for a policy by around 55%

Doesn't seem too enlightening?? How much have they been paid to produce these stats for cogito?

Anyone can see that someone who has had 4 at fault claims in just 3 years should get a 55% loading - if not much more!

raskazz

Quentin wrote: »

Doesn't seem too enlightening?? How much have they been paid to produce these stats for cogito?

Anyone can see that someone who has had 4 at fault claims in just 3 years should get a 55% loading - if not much more!

Well spotted. They should all read 'non-fault'. I'll edit the post now - it's been a long day!

cogito

raskazz wrote: »

Well it looks like it's your lucky day cogito, as I have some pertinent statistics for you. These are based on data from an underwriting pool of a few hundred thousand private cars, averaged over 4 years from 2003. Clearly this is pretty raw data, and some of the differences could be attributed to multicollinearity (hence why the actual loads for non-fault claims are generally lower than the percentage increases below, i.e. around maybe 5% for only one recent non-fault incident), but after the actuaries have worked their magic on it, it does confirm that statistically those who are involved in non-fault claims do present an increased risk over someone who is totally incident-free. The figures are rounded as I'm not going to jeopardise my job for the sake of this.

1 fault claim (in the last three years) correlates with increased average total claim costs for a policy by around 15%
2 fault claims correlates with increased average total claim costs for a policy by around 25%
3 fault claims correlates with increased average total claim costs for a policy by around 45%
4 fault claims correlates with increased average total claim costs for a policy by around 55%

Much obliged.