Any car insurers who ignore no fault, no claim incidents? 13 July 2018 at 6:05PM edited 30 November -1 at 12:00AM in Insurance & Life Assurance 9 replies 1.4K views

Crystalline

Hi everyone. Car insurance up for renewal. Promotion at work and another year of no claims, so was expecting cheaper than last year. My renewal price was £900, £100 more than what I pay now, so headed over to price comparison. Managed to find a £400 deal, but remembered that I had two minor no claim, no fault, no damage, no injury incidents over the past year (plus one that was my fault from 2 years ago, which I've declared before). I had reported both to my insurer, so had to declare them.

The same insurer who offered me £400 was now wanting a ridiculous £2,200, with my cheapest quote now over £1,000. Called up my current insurer and managed to get down to £700, but I was stunned at the impact these incidents had on my renewal.

I get that data shows more accidents often means more future accidents, regardless of fault, but an 450% increase is outrageous when there's been no claim, damage or injury.

Does anyone know of any insurers that ignore no claim "incidents" and only factor in actual claims?

rtho782

No, none of them.

If they were no claim, no fault, no loss, no damage, no injuries, which is doubtful (not even a scratch??) Why did you inform your insurer about this non event?

Effectively they are loading you based on the 3 accidents you have had in 2 years.

Crystalline

rtho782 wrote: »

No, none of them.

If they were no claim, no fault, no loss, no damage, no injuries, which is doubtful (not even a scratch??) Why did you inform your insurer about this non event?

Effectively they are loading you based on the 3 accidents you have had in 2 years.

My concern was that the other party could submit an iffy whiplash claim or similar and I'd end up having to pay myself if I didn't report it to my insurer.

My issue is that it's impossible to log "incidents" on car insurance quote forms - you have to enter it as a claim.

Zorillo

This is a terminology issue. You've had three accidents in two years, you've done well to get a quote for £700. The fact they've not resulted in actual claims is purely luck, statistically you are more likely to have another accident than an average person , and statistically that next incident is more likely to cost your insurer money than not.

Crystalline

Zorillo wrote: »

This is a terminology issue. You've had three accidents in two years, you've done well to get a quote for £700. The fact they've not resulted in actual claims is purely luck, statistically you are more likely to have another accident than an average person , and statistically that next incident is more likely to cost your insurer money than not.

Again, I don't dispute the increased risk, it's the ludicrous 450% hike from one insurer. The cheapest quote I could get from another insurer was just shy of £1k.

Insurers seem unwilling to ignore context with these incidents. I still have 2 years no claims, but the impact appears to be trivial.

Quentin

You can see the impact of 2 years NCD by doing dummy quotes with your history and zero NCD then with 2 years

stator

You are right, insurers are really bad at taking information correctly. All of their websites have questions which are impossible to answer. They ask you about "Claims, accidents and losses" and then all the follow up questions assume you had a claim. It's a complete nonsense and needs reform.

System

The difficulty that insurers on the one hand and their customers on the other have in understanding each other arises because there are two entirely different components of what constitutes "risk".


One is obvious. You are a proven bad driver, you park an expensive car in a slum backstreet, you have three teenage children learning to drive, your house is built on a sandbank next to a river, etc. That kind of risk is understandable by everyone, it is self-evidently fair to take it into account in assessing premiums, and there are, to some extent, measures you can take that reduce the risk.


The other kind of risk is a purely statistical one. People in postcode XYZ123 have historicaly made more claims. No reason, they just have. People who get mugged tend for some unknown reason to attract more muggings. People with fluffy dice in their cars are more careless drivers, etc etc. People who are entirely blameless and whose car is rammed while parked tend to have more claims. These are not self-evidently fair. To the insurers they appear fair, but they have not succeeded in getting across to the public their reasons for thinking them fair.


Furthermore, insurers, unlike almost every other organisation in 2018, do not care about their public image. They have a nice monopoly market sewn up between them.

So tough luck.

Mrs_Ryan

rtho782 wrote: »

No, none of them.

If they were no claim, no fault, no loss, no damage, no injuries, which is doubtful (not even a scratch??) Why did you inform your insurer about this non event?

Effectively they are loading you based on the 3 accidents you have had in 2 years.

I work in insurance and you are supposed to declare them.

System

Mrs_Ryan wrote: »

I work in insurance and you are supposed to declare them.

And as the OP points out, if you don't declare every single tiny near-incident, then you are running the risk that the other driver will, and will exaggerate or invent damage or injuries.