non fault company car claim increaseed bike insurance

holidaychicken

not sure if anyone is still watching this post but for some reason i didnt get email notification, but i eventually found out why they load a policy because of non fault claims, its because of all the fraud activity around people causing accidents at roundabouts etc by braking and causing people to run in the back of them and all of a sudden having 5 people in the car all with back injuries.

i think some people have had dozens and dozens of similar claims with big compensation payouts, and i think some people have also ended up in court.

dacouch

That is not strictly correct, it sounds like a customer services rep has told you that

holidaychicken

i am not allowed to post links but there is one guy on sky news website that cost companies 1.6m. seems like a fair answer and would certainly bump up the odds a bit, as this is not the only case.

makes a bit of sense anyway

dacouch

It is a very over generalistic view that has been made to grab headlines

The simple answer is that some (Not all Insurers) find that from their statistics a driver who has had a non fault accident is more likely to then have a further claim than a driver who has not had an accident.

Dealing with a non fault accident often costs an Insurer money in admin fees.

You could argue that there are a very very very small minority of drivers who do / have staged accidents. This would not / is very unlikely to be the reason Insurers would apply a load for someone who is unfortunate enough to have one minor non fault accident.

People who stage accidents tend to stage multiple accidents.

lisyloo

The simple answer is that some (Not all Insurers) find that from their statistics a driver who has had a non fault accident is more likely to then have a further claim than a driver who has not had an accident.

I understand what you are saying, but from a logical standpoint this is very hard to accept.
If you are rear ended it's hard to logically see why you are now more at risk of having further claims. In fact although this one is difficult to avoid, you might take more precautions in future (like leaving a gap in front so you can roll forward and allow the person behind more time to brake).

I had a fault accident last year.
I've had very few claims in over 20 years and most of them unusual circs e.g. snow.
This one happened because we had two cars parked side by side on the drive. My husband moved his for a window cleaner to get access with his ladder.
Unfortunately his car was entirely in my blind spot, so I hit it when I reversed.

Yes, I'm human, yes I make mistakes and very infrequent small claims, but even though this was a FAULT claim, it's really hard to accept logically that I'm now more likely to claim in future.
The fact is that I'm probably less likely, because for the short/medium term I'll make more effort to check my blind spots.

So whilst I accept it (have no choice).
I really find it very hard to accept logically, like many people

I do underwstand though that insurers have to categorise and lump people together because doing individual tailored quotes would cost a fortune.

dacouch

Lisyloo this topic has been debated many times on MSE of which you have also been a contributer. I was presenting a very simplistic answer to the previous post.

I did note that not all Insurers load for a non fault accident (Depending on the rest of the risk) so there are some Insurers that probably have a similar view on non fault accidents as you do. There may even be some Insurers that have the same view as you and actively price or don't load their premiums for drivers with just one non fault accident as they perceive / find they are better drivers

Insurers interpret the their OWN statisical data in different ways which is why you generally receive different rates for the same client from different Insurers.

Fortis used to apply a fairly small load to people with one Drink Driving Conviction where as most other companies applied a large load. Fortis had found from their data (They insured quite a few ex drink drivers) that with one DUI the drivers were extra extra cautious for a few years after they got their licences back so actively targeted certain drink drivers.

Underwriting Car Insurance is not an exact science, if it were acturies would be out of a job and it would be performed solely by computers.

As Benjamin Disraeli said "There are lies, damn lies and statistics".

Out of interest did you have any non fault claims prior to the fault accident

holidaychicken

dacouch wrote: »

a driver who has had a non fault accident is more likely to then have a further claim than a driver who has not had an accident.

People who stage accidents tend to stage multiple accidents.

still seems odd that if i had one non fault accident in 20 years, i am likely to have got the taste for the experience and will do it again

i do understand where you are coming from, and it was a rep from an inusrance company that explained it as the reason, but regardless, even when my no claims discount went up so did my insurance every year anyway and i didnt really question that

dacouch

I thought it might be a rep from an Insurer, companies often come up with information or surveys like this as they know it will get them on television. This gives them free publicity.

lisyloo

Out of interest did you have any non fault claims prior to the fault accident

No, only the one fault claim.
Loading was pretty small in my case cos I'm middle aged, female etc.
But it was a bit strange to be loaded on the bike and not the car when it was a car accident.
The irony is that the same sceanrio would not happen on a bike because there are no pillars to block my view.

Anyway I completely understand the point about having to apply blanket rules.
I've argued many times that completely fair individual quotations would cost several hundreds of pounds, whereas people want it for nothing and prefereably a free phone call.

I don't think it's companies trying to rip people off but I understand why people have difficulties with the logic in individual cases.

rudekid48

Logic and Statistics don't always go hand in hand. Just as statistics can be interpreted in many ways, each individual has their own perception of logic!

Here's an example...

There is a very nasty disease that is correctly diagnosed in 1 in every 1000 people.

Once diagnosed there is a 1 in 3 chance that the person will die.

If you were told by a Doctor that you had this disease and were going to die, then your own logic would more than likely tell you that the Doctor was correct and your number was up. Your logic would be influenced by your personal involvement.

However, statistically, it would be more likely that the Doctor was wrong than you being a goner as for every correct diagnosis there would have been 999 mistakes and you are more likely to be one of those than part of the 1 in 3 fatalities.

I know that this is a bit barmy, but can you see the point? Personal involvement can warp logic.