What a bunch of TWO-FACED !!!!!! Aviva are

thedrumdoctor

Ok, I accept that 'celebrity' compensation payouts would be astronomical. But what about the normal jobbing non-famous people who scrape a living in various aspects of the entertainment industry? Why should they be tarred with the same brush?

It's time for me to come clean. Up until 1999 I used to be a professional musician. During my time in the industry it really annoyed me that I was put in the same category as the rich and famous, when I was just a clean living simple bloke trying to earn a crust.

My first contact with a 'normal' car insurance broker in the late 80's when I turned pro told me no one would touch me with a barge pole and I had to get specialist insurance.

"But I'm not famous, I don't drink and drive and I've never had any motor claims" I pleaded.

But it didn't matter. Anyone remotely connected with the entertainment industry was "persona non gratis" including jobbing musicians like myself.

So I went to a 'specialist' broker and asked the question, "why am I scum in the car insurance world?"

The answer:

Because, historically, people in my profession are alcholic, drug addicts working in the Jazz world driving home after gigs, high as a kite and liable to wrap my vehicle around a lamp-post. The broker also agreed that it was unfair that a 'one size fits all approach' was applied to anyone and everyone remotely connected with the industry, but that was "just the way it is". And so it remains.

So, as far as car insurance industry was (and still is) concerned, even though I was a complete no-mark working musician with no previous claims or convictions, I was as high risk to insure as a member of Led Zeppelin. There was no differentiation given, no personal analysis, no risk assessment no nothing. I was lumped in, right at the top of the tree with the wreckless lifestyle and high risk compensation payouts - despite not being a drug taker or anywhere near the league of multi-million pound career earners. Unfortunately, when insurance brokers deal with people in the entertainment industry, there are no grey areas. Everyone is treated the same. It doesn't matter whether you're a jobbing actor working in local theatre for most of the year with the occassional low-key walk-on TV parts; or Bruce Willis. You get treated exactly the same which I believe is totally unfair.

Looking at the complaints made about Swiftcover's use of Iggy Pop in their adverts and their refusal to insure musicians, it appears that I'm not the only one who sees the irony. But hats off to them putting their money where their mouth is and perfoming a U-turn.

If only the insurance industry really did start to look at people as individuals rather than lumping them into groups of convenience then things would be a lot fairer. But wait - isn't that what Aviva were advertising with their "this is a company built around YOU!" ideology?

For every so called single 'celebrity', I'll warrant that there a thousands of people working on fringes of the entertainment industry who will never EVER enjoy the earning potential of Katy Price or Amy Winehouse or for that matter, Sir Cliff Richard or Sir David Attenborough. So why should the majority be penalised because of the few? And I do mean penalised. When you go to a specialist insurance broker that deals with people who work in the entertainment industry, the premiums are still far higher than high street brokers. You pay for the 'privelage' of having a broker risk insure you, even if you are destined to stay in the majority low-earnings sector of the industry.

As for me, I work in IT these days so I am welcomed by Aviva with open arms who offered me house insurance for a whopping £2k+ annual premium! Now that's the sort of premium you'd pay if you worked in the entertainment industry. Go Compare came up with a quote of £227 for the year, so I'll be giving Aviva a miss on that one.

I've been buying house insurance since 1991 (when I was a pro musician) and there was never a problem with my chosen profession when getting insured. Car insurance was historically a specialist matter; but never buildings & contents insurance. Maybe the compensation culture has finally caught up and branded the £20,000 p/a earners into the same risk category as the £20,000,000 p/a earners? If it is all compensation based, then it's about time these insurance companies started assessing us as individuals with probabilty of potential earnings. Believe me, once they saw what reality is for the majority of people working in the entertainment industry, they'd see a picture vastly different to the lives of your Peter Andre's and your Katy Price's.

dacouch

It is unfair to tar Insurance brokers as being not interested in you, they are an intermediary between you and the Insurer and do not make the rules.

There are Insurance brokers that do specialise in this field and due to the size of the client bases (Money talks) and their expertise in the field they are able to secure deals with Insurers and some of these Insurers would not touch these occupations if they came through another broker or direct.

It is far easier for an underwriter at an Insurer to say no to a piece of business they do not fully understand the risks of than take a chance on it. If that business then resulted in a large claim the underwriter would have a lot of explaining to do and could have a big impact on the profitibility of his/her employer.

The other factor involved is Insurers Insure themselves with Reinsurers, this spreads some of the risk out so a run of bad luck will not wipe them out (A lot like a book maker lays some of their bets off with another Insurer). To obtain the Reinsurance they have to set out their underwritting principles to the Reinsurer so the Reinsurer can calculate a premium. Obviously if they are not accepting occupations or other factors eg high risk cars etc then they will get a lower Reinsurance premium which means they can charge lower premiums to their clients.

Insurance companies calculate premiums on the statistics they build up on what factors increase the chance of claims, as you have discovered most companies are not interested in covering entertainment occupations. This has an effect that they do not know what rate to reflect the risk and ensure they make a profit so again it makes it easier for them to say no.

One of the main factors that influences the decision is that a passenger personal injury claim for someone in the entertainment industry could be many many times more than the personal injury claim for someone employed in a normal occupation. A personal injury claim involving a celebrity not being able to work again or having limited job prospects could potentially run into many millions of pounds. This could mean the difference between an Insurer making an underwriting profit or loss

LeeSouthEast

I'm pleased to see Norwich Union under another name hasn't changed in the slightest.

My 12 months cover with them 5 years ago was such an experience I vowed never to touch them again. Even Tesco were a better experience!

Now a very happy Direct Line customer.

cogito

It's a fallacy that Aviva take risks as they are the most risk averse insurer of the lot. Their target business is sprinklered swimming pools.

thedrumdoctor

dacouch wrote: »

It is unfair to tar Insurance brokers as being not interested in you, they are an intermediary between you and the Insurer and do not make the rules.

My apologies to the insurance brokers. So it's the insurers that are not interested in my business then.

dacouch wrote: »

It is far easier for an underwriter at an Insurer to say no to a piece of business they do not fully understand the risks of than take a chance on it.

Exactly how many years do they need to "understand" the "piece of business" that is the entertainment industry? It's been going since....well...let's see. How about George Formby's era for a fair start date?

dacouch wrote: »

Insurance companies calculate premiums on the statistics they build up on what factors increase the chance of claims, as you have discovered most companies are not interested in covering entertainment occupations.

Ah yes, those wonderful statistics, a wall of convenience to hide behind once again. I for one would LOVE to see the statistics proving that people like me with no motoring offences or criminal convictions who happened to work in the low-pay-scale (that's the majority by the way) end of the entertainment industry were as risky to insure as the likes of Sid Vicious. How often are these statistics reviewed? If they're not, insurers could still be working from trends from the 1970's & 80's - for all I know. Not being privy to such information (I'm more than willing to be enlightened though) I have to assume that for the many, many people I know who are working in\have worked in the industry with moderate incomes and clean lifestyles, there must be thousands more to buck the trend for high-risk living. I don't know. I don't have the statistics so I'm just guessing. Perhaps it's time for a review of all professions. Let's start with your bankers and lawyers with their noses stuck in the Cocaine bowls. Don't believe me? A singer I used to work with attended a party back in the 90's (after he'd signed a big record deal) where the majority of guests had high ranking legal and financial positions. He sat there quietly drinking his beer whilst the rest of them plunged their noses into the powder trough. He didn't partake, even when asked, yet, he was supposed to be the 'high risk' factor at the party.

All I'm saying is that it's about bloody time that insurers reviewed how they risk assess people in the entertainment industry. Reality is a lot more sober than yesteryear statistics, believe me. Everyone I know and knew just wants to make a living and support their families like any other 'normal' person. Yet, because they find themselves in a profession that is historically bad business for insurers, EVERYONE gets tarred with the same brush. It's time for the insurance industry to wake up. The days of the 60's/70's/80's are over. Big money doesn't get thrown around any more, royalties are down and doing good business is being taught, yes taught in the creative arts educational sector. Once again, I reiterate, for the majority of people in the industry, fame and fortune will evade them and they will spend their lives making an adequate living or quitting altogether because they can't make a living. These people don't go to work with the view of getting smashed out of their heads. It's too risky. Competition is high, jobs are scarce and much sought after. One bad move and your out because there's plenty more hopefuls where you came from waiting to take your place. Being an actor, sports-person or musician is extremely competitive. Second chances don't come along very often. Therefore, a high degree of self-discipline and professionalism is needed to survive. People I worked with didn't risk their careers on whim and it's about time that insurers realised this and started treating the profession with respect rather than an unknown risk to be avoided or at best, 'specialised in'. For God's sake it's it's 2009, not 1969.

But like I said, I'm out of it and work in IT now. Unfortunately, the wounds from time spent in my old profession haven't quite healed yet and when I see insurers still treating my old industry like they did 30 years ago - despite the massive change of attitude by workers in the profession - it makes my blood boil.

dunstonh

My 12 months cover with them 5 years ago was such an experience I vowed never to touch them again. Even Tesco were a better experience!

Yet many of the Tesco branded products were actually Norwich Union products white labled.

Now a very happy Direct Line customer.

Tesco and Direct line being linked until recently (both underwritten by UK Insurance ltd) and sharing very similar portals

For reference, I have now had to deal with two issues of bad Aviva servicing today. Their service has been dire recently after years of continuing improvement.

mattymoo

cogito wrote: »

It's a fallacy that Aviva take risks as they are the most risk averse insurer of the lot. Their target business is sprinklered swimming pools.

- No, they decline those now, too big a flood risk apparently

dacouch

cogito wrote: »

It's a fallacy that Aviva take risks as they are the most risk averse insurer of the lot. Their target business is sprinklered swimming pools.

I had the NU rep out at Xmas trumpeting that they were now looking at all risks even high risk business, she was so proud. I told her I was not interested and she was shocked. I explained that NU do this every now and then and as soon as the market hardens they move out of the market and leave you high and dry. So no I was not interested in placing my high risk business with her as in the long run it would cost the customers money and if they genuinely wanted high risk business I would gladly place it with them when the market hardens and capacity has dried up. This would be enough proof for me that they were not just in the high risk market for the good times

Quote

Are AVIVA a charity now?