Insurance has gone up because another drive hit me. !!!!!!

lisyloo

Because some numb nut runs into my car I am more likely to claim again ?

Yes Bob, you work/live/drive/park near numb nuts.
Now the insurer knows this your premium goes up (with some insurers).

Why its a random event !

NO, it's not random.
I walk to a nearby supermarket. My chances of my car getting hit there are zero.
People who park at supermarkets near numb nuts are at MORE risk of getting hit than me.
It's NOT random I'm afraid.
It's not your fault, but it's not random either.

Ergo, they are taring us all with the same brush as con artists and fraudster

No they aren't.
They are saying you ar higher risk as your behaviour (where you live/work/park/drive) take you near numb nuts.
There is no implication of a con here.

bob_a_builder

You are still talking about the standard insurance risk which we can all understand and accept, but not addressing the specific point

" if you have suffered a 'claimable event' you are more likely to do so in future." ?

In the context of No Fault claim we are talking, which is when the line above line is trotted out by the insurance cos

It would be a random event in my driving record and would be causing the victim to suffer a loss - put it on the perpetrator, thats all this is about - they are the one more likely to cause more claimable events !

somewhat tongue in cheek

was referring to the fact that I'm unlikely yo be able to find out if the insurnace company would or wouldn't bump premium after a NF claim - there was a icon to give a clue about the vein of the comment

lisyloo

" if you have suffered a 'claimable event' you are more likely to do so in future." ?

I think I am addressing that specific point.

Let's suppose some numb nut has hit you in a busy supermarket ok?
This mean you park in busy supermarket.
I don't drive to busy supermarkets, I leave the car at home and walk.
By virtue of the fact that you drive and place yourself in the "line of fire" of numb nuts and I don't, you are more likely to be hit again in future than me.
The insurer didn't know this nuggett of information about you before, but now they do and they have your claims experience to indicate it.

was referring to the fact that I'm unlikely yo be able to find out if the insurnace company would or wouldn't bump premium after a NF claim

But you can.
You can compare the prices with and without the NF claim (and keep all other factors the same).
You cannot tell what any insurer will do in future (unless they are a very reliable company that you trust- but I agree those are few and far between).
I think we all agree that what they do today is somewhat irrelevant as it might all have changed by the time to renew.
So simply shop around when you renew.

lisyloo

" if you have suffered a 'claimable event' you are more likely to do so in future." ?

Bob - I think I get and understand the specific question now.
You are wondering why am I more at risk tomorrow that I was yesterday?
I totally get that.
Clearly you are not - we agree.

The insurers risk assesement system is not perfect - I agree.
There is no question that says
"Do you drive/live/work/park near numb nuts?"
There is no way to assess this.
What has happned after your claim is that information that was not previous available to the insurer (and is very difficult/impossible) to asses has come their way.

So I agree with you.
If you have a non-fault claim, you personally are of NO MORE RISK of having an accident than you wer previous to the accident.
However yesterday the insurer did not know you drive/lived/worked/park near numbmuts as there are no qeustions they can formulate to asses that, therefore they UNDER assessed your risk and UNDER charged you.
Now the new information has come to light they can charge you more fairly.

I totally agree the system isnt' perfect.
but I'd say you were wrongly assesed before not afterwards.
I expect that's not going to be a popular view.

Quote

bob_a_builder wrote: »

...the standard insurance risk which we can all understand and accept...

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

property.advert

When you put in a fake name and number, remember to put in a fake address. Near your address, perhaps a few doors away but never use your address because they do keep it all on their systems.

starrystarry

property.advert wrote: »

When you put in a fake name and number, remember to put in a fake address. Near your address, perhaps a few doors away but never use your address because they do keep it all on their systems.

If that's the case I'm not sure we should be using someone else's address. Are we not creating a potential problem for that person in the future?

Quentin

Unfortunately there's nothing to stop a neighbour using your address to get a virtual quote.

Isn't the worst that could happen is you get some junk mail as a result of it? And easily resolved should any other issue arise.

starrystarry

If the worst that can happen is some junk mail, why not use your own address?

raskazz

bob_a_builder wrote: »

Ok - back on topic again

Because some numb nut runs into my car I am more likely to claim again ?

Why its a random event !

The only assumption can be, that once I find out I can make a no fault claim (for a genuine incident), I'll think, next when I reverse into that bollard or whatever, I know I'll claim someone else ran into me.

You need to understand that there can be a correlation between non-fault claims and risk which exists regardless of whether we know the mechanics of the causation.

I know that - all other things being equal -the more recent non-fault claims an individual has, the riskier they are. How do I know it? I have seen the stats first-hand. Insurers do not care what the causation is - bluntly, it is not in their interests to find out - so there is no such 'assumption' as the one you suggest; but the correlation exists and that is sufficient to price risks accordingly.