Hit by a hire car

Bantex_2

force_ten wrote: »

an insurance company should not penalize you for declaring a no fault claim so you should not suffer any financial loss

that said insurance companies do a lot of things that they shouldn't do, but i personally wouldn't want to jeopardize any future claim by not declaring

I also feel the same about loosing out when it is not my fault

There is some logic to increasing premiums after no fault claims. Stastiscaly you are a higher risk than someone who does not put themselves in harms way.

JustinR1979

Bantex wrote: »

There is some logic to increasing premiums after no fault claims. Stastiscaly you are a higher risk than someone who does not put themselves in harms way.

Which is hardly fair without knowing the circumstances of the non fault claim.

DoctorFoster

Bantex wrote: »

There is some logic to increasing premiums after no fault claims. Stastiscaly you are a higher risk than someone who does not put themselves in harms way.

I'd like to see actual mathematical figures to back that up rather than the insurance companies showing us people who have had more than one bump.

How can you be at greater risk from a collision when someone who was asked to define one used the word random. How would that factor into it? It's like trying to say exactly where lighting will strike.

DoctorFoster

JustinR1979 wrote: »

Which is hardly fair without knowing the circumstances of the non fault claim.

Exactly, if you visited a place once and were involved in a non fault collision with a drink driver. If you never went there again how are you statistically at a greater risk?

JustinR1979

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Exactly, if you visited a place once and were involved in a non fault collision with a drink driver. If you never went there again how are you statistically at a greater risk?

The only logic is that insurance companies will make more money from this declaration.


Years ago I had to stop a bit sharply, heard screeching and car behind was coming at me; I pulled forward as far as I could and he just missed me.
So sometimes there is something you can do.
Having words with bloke behind, it was all the other cars fault for stopping too quick. I didn't quite agree with him on that one!

dacouch

DoctorFoster wrote: »

I'd like to see actual mathematical figures to back that up rather than the insurance companies showing us people who have had more than one bump.

How can you be at greater risk from a collision when someone who was asked to define one used the word random. How would that factor into it? It's like trying to say exactly where lighting will strike.

It's calculated by each Insurer calculating their claims costs against different variables for their clients one of which will be customers with and without non fault accidents.

Most (Not all) Insurers apply a small loading for a non fault accident, if it made no difference to overall claims statistics then far more Insurers would not apply a load and could then hoover up all the customers with non fault customers to be their clients.

pvt

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Exactly, if you visited a place once and were involved in a non fault collision with a drink driver. If you never went there again how are you statistically at a greater risk?

Because you've demonstrated to the insurer that you're a person who goes to places that drunk drivers go to crash their cars.

DoctorFoster

dacouch wrote: »

It's calculated by each Insurer calculating their claims costs against different variables for their clients one of which will be customers with and without non fault accidents.

Most (Not all) Insurers apply a small loading for a non fault accident, if it made no difference to overall claims statistics then far more Insurers would not apply a load and could then hoover up all the customers with non fault customers to be their clients.

Yes calculated by the insurance industry to make money.

Sounds like something for The school of hard sums, to prove them wrong.

DoctorFoster

pvt wrote: »

Because you've demonstrated to the insurer that you're a person who goes to places that drunk drivers go to crash their cars.

On a road, so by that logic you are an equal risk as you drive on one too.

dacouch

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Yes calculated by the insurance industry to make money.

Sounds like something for The school of hard sums, to prove them wrong.

Calculated by an industry that employs highly skilled number crunchers and IT to give them a competitive edge in order to price their product to attract customers. As I said before, if an Insurer spots that a certain part of the market is a good risk going by their own data and / or their competitors not pricing their products correctly then they would adjust their prices accordingly which has the obvious result in them attracting customers with that risk profile.

The motor insurance market in the UK is one of the most competitive motor insurance markets in the world.

Are you aware that most Insurers net around 5% after deducting claims and expenses from their premium income?