MSE News: Car insurance prices 'to soar by 25% this year' – check yours now

rudekid48

Onan & Jamie, watch those glass houses lads

Of course no reputable law firm would dream of ambulance chasing or buying leads would they? Can't imagine who could be buying the leads from the cold callers that we all get, can you? How do those calls always lead to a solicitor somewhere down the line?

Of course the insurance industry is full of !!!!, so is banking, energy, car sales, mobile phones, broadband, retailing, oh and erm legal firms who regularly screw customers for fees.

Crazy_Jamie

zagfles wrote: »

So we're all to believe this is a big conspiracy by greedy insurance companies to raise their profits are we? Really?

No, it's not a 'conspiracy'. There's plenty that could be done to improve the way that personal injury litigation works and combat fraudulent claims. What it is is insurance companies spinning the situation in an attempt to secure major changes that will increase their profits. Is that really that hard to believe?

zagfles wrote:

Sounds like drivel propagate by those with a vested interest, like ambulance chasing lawyers and claims management companies. It seems they're finding ways round the 2013 changes...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/11795162/Return-of-whiplash-scandal-to-add-15-to-car-insurance-costs.html

Except the contributions by myself and Onan are not the ones being circulated in the media. Besides, I actually don't have a vested interest on any side of this debate. I'm just calling it as I see it, and on this particular issue I'm seeing an awful lot of misleading on the part of both the government and the insurance companies.

Case in point, that article you've linked to deals with fraud. Yet nowhere in the article does it actually say what percentage of whiplash claims are found to be fraudulent, and what percentage are estimated to be fraudulent (the two figures, of course, are different). The reason for that is that such articles actively want readers to subconsciously wrap up fraudulent claims with all whiplash claims, despite the fact that the majority of claims are legitimate.

rudekid48 wrote:

Onan & Jamie, watch those glass houses lads

As I've already stated, I'm not standing in a glass house. I'm actually about as neutral a commentator as you're going to get on this issue. As it happens I have plenty of criticism of those firms and claims management companies that do employ various methods to inflate claims. It's just that they're not the topic of this thread.

For the record, there is plenty wrong with the way that personal injury litigation operates, on both sides of the fence. There are also still a number of ways that, in my view at least, the process as a whole could be improved. However, what is important is that changes clamp down on unscrupulous claimants, firms and claims management companies, whilst not penalising legitimate claimants and those firms that operate within the rules. The problem with the current proposals (i.e. raising the small claims track limit to £5,000 for personal injury and abolishing general damages for whiplash injuries) is that they will seriously prejudice the position of virtually all legitimate claimants. It is quite simply not the right way to go about it.

OnanTheBarbarian

Jamie, what are your views on the insurers succeeding in getting home on the "ban on minor whiplash injuries"?

The £5k small claims limit is a given, but surely they have an obsticle with getting around the law of tort?

OnanTheBarbarian

And to put matters into context, late train = compensation, get injured on the road and suffer for a year, miss social engagements, messed up family holiday, can't play golf or whatever = zilcho, but the insurers are happy and did you get your £50 back?

SailorSam

dacouch wrote: »

That will have a small impact.

I don't know who it was speaking on the radio, I think he was a spokesman for the Insurance industry, But what he said the decrease in the petrol price had resulted in more miles being driven by younger (under 30) and older (over 60) and it was them having more claims.
He also suggested how we could help ourselves was to get a dashcam, to prove who was at fault. Or what is becoming more and more common, are 'black boxes'

Crazy_Jamie

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Jamie, what are your views on the insurers succeeding in getting home on the "ban on minor whiplash injuries"?

The £5k small claims limit is a given, but surely they have an obsticle with getting around the law of tort?

I don't think the issue is necessarily with the law of tort. Banning general damages for whiplash injuries would require legislation. That in and of itself requires a number of hoops to be jumped through, but providing it happens it would supersede both the common law and relevant legislation that has come before it. As much as I would like to think that such legislation would face difficulties in the face of scrutiny and debate, ultimately it is hardly legislation that MPs would rebel over, and I therefore suspect that it will get through.

The bigger issue is the wording of such legislation. The mere proposal itself is fraught with potential pitfalls in that regard. For example, what is the definition of whiplash? Does a medical expert have to define it, or will it cover any soft tissue injury to the neck? What about soft tissue injuries to the thoracic spine or lumbar spine? Will it cover pain radiating to the shoulders? What if the Claimant suffers from associated headaches? Furthermore, what is the definition of 'minor'? Is that defined by prognosis period, required treatment, valuation, medical assessment or something else?

Purely from an academic perspective, getting the wording of that legislation right is going to be extremely difficult. To my mind I do expect that the ban will come into force, but whether or not it has the desired effect is another matter entirely.

zagfles

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

No, it's not a 'conspiracy'. There's plenty that could be done to improve the way that personal injury litigation works and combat fraudulent claims. What it is is insurance companies spinning the situation in an attempt to secure major changes that will increase their profits. Is that really that hard to believe?

We should see a big rise in their share prices then. Doesn't seem to have happened yet...

Except the contributions by myself and Onan are not the ones being circulated in the media. Besides, I actually don't have a vested interest on any side of this debate. I'm just calling it as I see it, and on this particular issue I'm seeing an awful lot of misleading on the part of both the government and the insurance companies.

Case in point, that article you've linked to deals with fraud. Yet nowhere in the article does it actually say what percentage of whiplash claims are found to be fraudulent, and what percentage are estimated to be fraudulent (the two figures, of course, are different). The reason for that is that such articles actively want readers to subconsciously wrap up fraudulent claims with all whiplash claims, despite the fact that the majority of claims are legitimate.

Really? So we have a situation where the roads are becoming far safer, since 2000 the number of road deaths have halved, but the number of whiplash claims have more than doubled. Despite cars having headrests, airbags etc which many didn't in the past. And I noticed you didn't address the point about why the French rarely getting whiplash in accidents. Why is that?

As I've already stated, I'm not standing in a glass house. I'm actually about as neutral a commentator as you're going to get on this issue. As it happens I have plenty of criticism of those firms and claims management companies that do employ various methods to inflate claims. It's just that they're not the topic of this thread.

They're not the topic of a thread about why insurance costs are rising?

For the record, there is plenty wrong with the way that personal injury litigation operates, on both sides of the fence. There are also still a number of ways that, in my view at least, the process as a whole could be improved. However, what is important is that changes clamp down on unscrupulous claimants, firms and claims management companies, whilst not penalising legitimate claimants and those firms that operate within the rules. The problem with the current proposals (i.e. raising the small claims track limit to £5,000 for personal injury and abolishing general damages for whiplash injuries) is that they will seriously prejudice the position of virtually all legitimate claimants. It is quite simply not the right way to go about it.

The whole concept of getting financial compensation for non-financial loss is morally corrupt. You're in pain, here have a few grand, that'll make the pain go away.

Personally I'd like to see financial compensation only ever paid for proved financial loss, not to supposedly "compensate" someone for pain, trauma etc. If someone self employed is injured and so can't work, fair enough, they'll need financial compensation to make up their income.

But if someone is in pain as a result of someone else's carelessness, recklessness, or deliberate act, then the idea that justice is done by bunging them a few grand paid for by everyone else's motor insurance premiums is bulls**t. The person responsible should pay, not everyone else, whether that be through points on their licence, a fine, a prison sentence in the most serious cases, or maybe just a warning in the case of a one off mistake by a usually careful driver.

My daughter's just passed her driving test. I asked my insurance for a quote to get her added to my car insurance. They wouldn't even insure her, a point blank refusal. Insurance company looking to increase their profits is it? When they refuse business? Really? A check on GoCompare showed others wanting around £4000 upwards. Why would my insurance company not want to "profit" from such large premiums?

When my parents put me on their insuance when I was 17 in the early 1980's it cost hardly any more. And the roads were far more dangerous in those days, far more people were killed, cars were less safe, no airbags, often no headrests, people didn't even need to wear seatbelts. Yet you could get reasonably priced insurance for a newly qualified 17 year old driver. Maybe the insurance companies weren't interested in making profits in those days :rotfl:

Crazy_Jamie

zagfles wrote: »

We should see a big rise in their share prices then. Doesn't seem to have happened yet...

Share prices aren't my area of expertise, so I wouldn't know. Logically given that insurance companies are currently promising to pass the savings on, I wouldn't have thought share prices would have been notably affected so far, but as I say I'm not in a position to comment. Though you'd be wrong to think that the share market hasn't reacted to the news. I'm pretty sure the shareholders of Slater & Gordon have noticed.

zagfles wrote:

Really? So we have a situation where the roads are becoming far safer, since 2000 the number of road deaths have halved, but the number of whiplash claims have more than doubled. Despite cars having headrests, airbags etc which many didn't in the past.

This point doesn't follow on from the point that I was making about how fraud cases are represented in the media. Nevertheless, it's probably too obvious to state that dead people don't bring whiplash claims. Cars have become safer, and those safety features prevent serious injury. But there is a logical argument to state that therefore it makes sense that the number of more minor injuries would increase.

It is true that officially reported injuries in road traffic accidents have fallen year on year, but finding accurate data in that regard is nigh on impossible, with most commentators concluding that the actual figure is probably a number of times the reported figure. Why? Because official figures come from the police, and police are incredibly reluctant to attend minor road traffic accidents nowadays. A search through threads in this forum where people have called the police but they've said they don't need to attend will show you that. The fact is, arguments based on figures for accidents and injuries don't really lead to definitive conclusions either way because that data doesn't seem to be reliable.

zagfles wrote:

And I noticed you didn't address the point about why the French rarely getting whiplash in accidents. Why is that?

Because it's an area that I know nothing about. I do not know about French law, the French litigation system, or French policy that may affect figures that I haven't seen. Unless you do, that is a question that neither of us can answer, making your point entirely moot.

zagfles wrote:

They're not the topic of a thread about why insurance costs are rising?

I don't think they're relevant to the discussion that we're having, no. If they were I expect it would have been raised before I did so spontaneously to make a point.

zagfles wrote:

The whole concept of getting financial compensation for non-financial loss is morally corrupt. You're in pain, here have a few grand, that'll make the pain go away.

Personally I'd like to see financial compensation only ever paid for proved financial loss, not to supposedly "compensate" someone for pain, trauma etc. If someone self employed is injured and so can't work, fair enough, they'll need financial compensation to make up their income.

I'm not sure you would feel the same way if your daughter sustained a permanent scar to her face. Or a back injury that left her in manageable but permanent pain. Or a hip injury that didn't interfere with her ability to work, but meant that she couldn't really run, stand for long periods, or take part in sports or other physical activity. Then again, maybe you would.

Either way it seems that your views generally on this issue come from a position that is some considerable distance from my own. My view as to the legitimacy of the basis of those views is somewhat irrelevant, because irrespective your views are clearly entrenched. We're not necessarily in 'agree to disagree' territory, but we've certainly reached the point where this discussion isn't really serving any constructive purpose.

zagfles

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Share prices aren't my area of expertise, so I wouldn't know. Logically given that insurance companies are currently promising to pass the savings on, I wouldn't have thought share prices would have been notably affected so far, but as I say I'm not in a position to comment. Though you'd be wrong to think that the share market hasn't reacted to the news. I'm pretty sure the shareholders of Slater & Gordon have noticed.

Yeah - their shares plummeted after the autumn statement. My heart bleeds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/insurance/12017931/slate-and-gordon-whiplash-george-osborne-autumn-statement.html

Slater & Gordon, the law firm that took over Quindell's insurance claims business in March, has lost half its value after the UK announced sweeping changes to injury claims from car accidents.
Shares in the company, [...] tumbled on the news in the Autumn Statement that the right to cash compensation for whiplash claimants could come to an end in the UK.

But where's the rise in insurance company shares if they're all supposedly profiteering from the recent changes? The market has reacted in the case of S&G it seems. But not to reflect the bigger profits insurance companies are going to make, if you're right. Why is that?

This point doesn't follow on from the point that I was making about how fraud cases are represented in the media. Nevertheless, it's probably too obvious to state that dead people don't bring whiplash claims.

What a ridiculous statement. The numbers are about 1,700 less deaths. A tiny fraction of the increase in whiplash claims. And how much compo is paid for a death rather than a sore neck?

Cars have become safer, and those safety features prevent serious injury. But there is a logical argument to state that therefore it makes sense that the number of more minor injuries would increase.

Really? I know two people who had whiplash injuries, in both cases they were in cars with no headrest. A headrest, they were told, would have almost certainly made the injury far less serious or even prevented it. Virtually all cars these days have headrests.

It is true that officially reported injuries in road traffic accidents have fallen year on year, but finding accurate data in that regard is nigh on impossible, with most commentators concluding that the actual figure is probably a number of times the reported figure. Why? Because official figures come from the police, and police are incredibly reluctant to attend minor road traffic accidents nowadays. A search through threads in this forum where people have called the police but they've said they don't need to attend will show you that. The fact is, arguments based on figures for accidents and injuries don't really lead to definitive conclusions either way because that data doesn't seem to be reliable.
Because it's an area that I know nothing about. I do not know about French law, the French litigation system, or French policy that may affect figures that I haven't seen. Unless you do, that is a question that neither of us can answer, making your point entirely moot.

What do you think causes it? A difference in the types of car in France? A difference in the type of accident? A difference in the way an accident affects a Frenchman compared to an Englishman? Or a difference in the compensation culture?

I don't think they're relevant to the discussion that we're having, no. If they were I expect it would have been raised before I did so spontaneously to make a point.
I'm not sure you would feel the same way if your daughter sustained a permanent scar to her face. Or a back injury that left her in manageable but permanent pain. Or a hip injury that didn't interfere with her ability to work, but meant that she couldn't really run, stand for long periods, or take part in sports or other physical activity. Then again, maybe you would.

Of course I would. I'd want to see the person responsible receive a punishment related to their level of intent/carelessness/recklessness. That's justice. That's what I think most people see as justice. Not effectively getting the proceeds of a whipround of all people who are forced to buy insurance. Mainly from totally innocent young people who are forced to pay massive premiums just because of their age, not their culpability.

Simply getting a pile of cash not even paid for by the person responsible might be justice in the eyes of ambulance chasers. It's not in mine. Appropriate punishment of the perpetrator is. When people complain about injustice it's usually that, eg, the drunk driver who killed their child didn't get a long enough sentence, not that the cash compensation for the death of their child wasn't enough.

Either way it seems that your views generally on this issue come from a position that is some considerable distance from my own.

Clearly.

Crazy_Jamie

zagfles wrote: »

What do you think causes it? A difference in the types of car in France? A difference in the type of accident? A difference in the way an accident affects a Frenchman compared to an Englishman? Or a difference in the compensation culture?

As I at least intimated above, I see little point in continuing this discussion generally because we've long since passed the point where it is constructive. However, given that you've raised this again I thought I'd do a bit of research and actually inform myself on this subject. I found the answer to your question here. It's the second page if you're interested, but this is the important part;

Since 1958, there has been an obligation on motorists to be insured. A no-fault scheme has replaced claims for road traffic injuries. The no-fault law extinguishes the legal rights of those who have suffered injury in return for a guarantee of compensation, regardless of who was to blame for the accident.

Where there is no basis for finding a person liable for an accident, such a victim will be compensated by the Social Security system. Although this system provides for only limited compensation, the victim will be automatically and immediately indemnified for any injuries suffered.

There has also been a realisation that it is necessary to insure against health care costs whether or not the event which gave rise to the accident (or illness) was caused by the fault of another or are occupational injuries. The insurer is entitled, by means of a complicated process, to recoup its expenses from the award of damages.

So essentially, there are no whiplash claims in France because all motorists that are injured in accidents benefit from a 'no fault law' that automatically pays out compensation whether they are at fault or not. In other words, they don't need to claim. Given your stance on compensation for injuries, I doubt you think that's a better system than here. I certainly don't.