Baffling Car Insurance

DanielStallion

Hello forum,

Currently baffled going through car insurance quotes. When asked about Convictions or Claims if I include details of incidents where my car was damaged by a 3rd party - and they made the claim - it is adding 40% to quotes.

If I don't include it, with the logic I didn't make the claim, the 3rd party did, I will eventually get a call saying the insurance company is aware of the 3rd party claims ... and quotes again up 40%.
I can understand some logic - if your car has been damaged once perhaps it could happen again - but 40%? Tried several brokers.

Insurance generally feels like a scam, but does this seem right? Are there any companies that don't so overtly pick scabs?


Regards, DS

sheramber

Insurance risk assessment says that if you are involved in one accident you  are more  likely to be involved in another.
it does not matter you  were the at fault party or not. it is what the statics show,
hence an increase in  premium.

DanielStallion

40% though..... 🤔

DCFC79

DanielStallion said:

40% though..... 🤔

Yes, you sound surprised.

Sandtree

DanielStallion said:

40% though..... 🤔

Mass market products like car insurance is based on statistics not logic. They can query their databases and see if all other things are equal what difference is there in claims experience (frequency x cost) of someone with no claims -v- someone with a single non-fault claim. If that analysis shows a 40% increase then thats the multiplier applied to the premium.

However... it sounds like you have been playing and that could be the other problem. Insurers are nervous about quote manipulation, people either out and out lying on the application or massaging the truth after doing lots of dummy quotes to find out if they get better premiums as a Labourer or Bricky.  Many insurers who see multiple quote requests coming in with the immutable truth changed will load premiums because of the fraud risk. So if you quoted without an incident and then quoted again with one the loading could be because they fear you are a liar rather than because of the incident.

Remember that all incidents, claimed for or not, need to be declared and so there is no real reason you can be testing to see what adding a claim would do unless you are planning a future accident (obv another fraud issue)

Ditzy_Mitzy

You're going to have to carry on looking and ring companies up rather than relying on identikit internet quoting engines.  I had a non-fault accident years ago, with all costs recovered from the third party, and it made no difference to my premium.  There will be an insurance company out there that doesn't load it in the manner described.

lisyloo

Sandtree said:

DanielStallion said:

40% though..... 🤔

Remember that all incidents, claimed for or not, need to be declared and so there is no real reason you can be testing to see what adding a claim would do unless you are planning a future accident (obv another fraud issue)

In this case I agree, but sometimes people test when deciding whether to claim (I know they still have to declare the incident but it wouldn’t be a claim).
if I do this then I put false details.
i don’t think its fraud to try to discovery the pricing when there is no intention to deceive or gain a pecuniary advantage.
i invest in avoiding accidents but that doesn’t seem to get much interest.

Jumblebumble

Sandtree said:

DanielStallion said:

40% though..... 🤔

Mass market products like car insurance is based on statistics not logic. They can query their databases and see if all other things are equal what difference is there in claims experience (frequency x cost) of someone with no claims -v- someone with a single non-fault claim. If that analysis shows a 40% increase then thats the multiplier applied to the premium.

An alternative view is that the insurance companies make up the premiums as they go along

Sandtree

lisyloo said:
In this case I agree, but sometimes people test when deciding whether to claim (I know they still have to declare the incident but it wouldn’t be a claim).

if I do this then I put false details.
i don’t think its fraud to try to discovery the pricing when there is no intention to deceive or gain a pecuniary advantage.
i invest in avoiding accidents but that doesn’t seem to get much interest.

Its not fraud to test, but the OP appears to have compared no incident with a non-fault claim which isnt a possible combination if looking retrospectively and so many insurers won't chance on if its testing or fraud given they are bound to sell at that price. 

It is possible to test but you have to consider factors like your IP address... insurers pay a fair amount of money to try and discover each others pricing without triggering such defences. Afterall, under cut your competitors by £1 will get you 80% of the business on Confused.com so you don;t want to be charging £20 less as you are giving £19 away for nothing.