why pay every year

markanthony

Can anyone tell me why i should pay my car insurance every year?
surely once i have bought a policy that is mine until i make a claim on it & i should not need another one a year later.To pay for something/nothing each year seems ludicrous i don't buy a freezer,washing machine,cooker etc.
We are just being ripped off by insurance companies & it should be stopped immediately.:mad:

raskazz

Congratulations. The award for 2011's stupidest post has surely now got your name all over it.

markanthony

Ta.
you must work in insurance if you think its good to pay every year.The policy you buy should last till you make a claim,then you have to buy another.Simple really.All the safe drivers don't get ripped off & all the false claimers just have to buy a more expensive policy why is that so daft?

raskazz

markanthony wrote: »

Ta.
you must work in insurance if you think its good to pay every year.The policy you buy should last till you make a claim,then you have to buy another.Simple really.

Because the whole point is that the policy is priced according to the risk of you claiming IN ONE YEAR.

real1314

markanthony wrote: »

Ta.
you must work in insurance if you think its good to pay every year.The policy you buy should last till you make a claim,then you have to buy another.Simple really.All the safe drivers don't get ripped off & all the false claimers just have to buy a more expensive policy why is that so daft?

As a newbie, people are expected to cut you some slack, so I'll just say this:
If people disagree with you, DO NOT retort with "You must work for xxxxx". It's really tedious, and adds nothing to any discussion. :cool:

markanthony

If i haven't claimed my policy should just run until i do.If you think its good to pay every year for something you haven't used you must be mad!!

vaio

raskazz wrote: »

Because the whole point is that the policy is priced according to the risk of you claiming IN ONE YEAR.

Whilst I’m tempted to agree I’m also inclined to say that the practice that some insurance companies have of ending a policy on a total loss claim and not allowing refunds on a cancelled policy if a claim has been made are almost as nonsensical.

I’d say you pay a premium which covers specified risks for a defined period (normally a year) and that’s what you should get. If the cost of covering those risks on my car is say £25 a month and I choose to forgo (ie relieve the insurance company of the cost of covering those risks) 4 months cover then it seems reasonable I should get £100 back irrespective of whether I’ve made a claim or not.

rs65

If you drive your car on the road, you have used your insurance. Just because you haven't made a claim doesn't mean you haven't used it

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

Whilst I’m tempted to agree I’m also inclined to say that the practice that some insurance companies have of ending a policy on a total loss claim and not allowing refunds on a cancelled policy if a claim has been made are almost as nonsensical.

I’d say you pay a premium which covers specified risks for a defined period (normally a year) and that’s what you should get. If the cost of covering those risks on my car is say £25 a month and I choose to forgo (ie relieve the insurance company of the cost of covering those risks) 4 months cover then it seems reasonable I should get £100 back.

The concept of a contract being discharged by performance is enshrined in decades, if not centuries of case law. You pay a premium, in return for indemnity against loss of or damage to the subject-matter arising as a result of specified perils occuring in a defined period of time - whether day one or day 365 of the contract. If a claim has been made then the contract has fulfiled its purpose and is thus discharged by performance. I don't see anything odd there.

If insurers allowed what you propose then drivers not incurring claims would suffer increased premiums to subsidise the cancellation refunds of those who claimed. Not something that I will be encouraging as a driver with a clean record.

vaio

raskazz wrote: »

The concept of a contract being discharged by performance is enshrined in decades, if not centuries of case law. You pay a premium, in return for indemnity against loss of or damage to the subject-matter arising as a result of specified perils occuring in a defined period of time - whether day one or day 365 of the contract. If a claim has been made then the contract has fulfiled its purpose and is thus discharged by performance. I don't see anything odd there.

If insurers allowed what you propose then drivers not incurring claims would suffer increased premiums to subsidise the cancellation refunds of those who claimed. Not something that I will be encouraging as a driver with a clean record.

Nah, I’d say the contract is for a year, not for a claim. To suggest that the contract is fulfilled and ends if a claim is made is as nonsensical as the OP suggesting that it continues indefinitely until a claim is made.

peterod1

The premium you pay is 1 year therefore 1 years cover the alternative would be to pay a premium of say £60,000 for life and then get your relatives to ask on here how to claim the premium back if you die say in 5 years time. If you don't like how it works then take out a policy where they install a smart box and you pay just for the trips you make that way you won't feel ripped off.