Car Insurance - To Disclose or not to Disclose ?

GunnerH

I normally drive a small family car for commuting and trips out but I recently hired a LWB van to help a friend move house. I promptly pranged it. Fortunately, I had the foresight to purchase excess insurance cover so I should not be out of pocket but my concern is whether to disclose that I have made a claim against that excess insurance when it comes to renewal of my normal motor insurance. 
My thoughts are that the van hire was a one-off incident that should not affect my normal driving habits and should not affect my usual maotor insurance premium. But I understand that I am obliged to fully disclose my driving history and if I fail to disclose this accident it may invalidate my car insurance.
Can anyone advise if an insurer is likely to increase the premium on my normal car insurance as a result of this accident ? If I fail to disclose this accident will an insurer be able to identify my claim in any event ? 

facade

You insurer at the inception of the policy will ask to to declare that you have not had any accidents, made any claims or suffered any losses in respect of a motor vehicle. They may require you to inform them mid term if this changes, check your policy.

If you make a false declaration they likely won't notice until they have reason to check the CUE database (where all insurance claims are recorded), e.g. should you try and make a future claim (they always want to avoid paying out if they can).

Unless you cannot be traced from the van insurance or the excess insurance they will find out at the precise moment that you really don't want them to.

Declare it and pay the additional premium, it might not make much difference, but it will almost certainly increase it to reflect your statistically higher risk.

Nobbie1967

Yes, and I suspect yes. I would think there is a good chance that the excess insurance company will share details with the Claims and underwriting Exchange CUE.

GunnerH

Thanks to both. I was afraid that would be the outcome.

DullGreyGuy

GunnerH said:

My thoughts are that the van hire was a one-off incident that should not affect my normal driving habits and should not affect my usual maotor insurance premium. But I understand that I am obliged to fully disclose my driving history and if I fail to disclose this accident it may invalidate my car insurance.

So you are asking on a public forum if you should commit fraud or not?

Unfortunately there will be those that answer yes, some maybe slightly more coy and say they wouldn't declare it rather than saying you shouldn't. 

There are threads on this forum from people who decided to run the risk of making false declarations and are now having to pay 5 figure settlements to the third party after their insurance was voided after an accident when it came to light they'd told lies when buying the insurance... and that doesn't include the cost of the damage to their own vehicle!

Ultimately your choice but insurers have data sharing protocols and have widely used databases like CUE to check if customers are trying to defraud them.

PS. everyone says their accident was a just a one off, even the ones that made a claim last year.

Goudy

I've done exactly this.
I pranged a hire car around 18 months ago but had full CDW.

I informed my insurance company and they asked a few questions like who was at fault, costs involved etc and I answered them as best as I could.
I had no idea of the repair costs and who was at fault was contentious as we were both backing out in a car park.

That was it, no claim or accident was reported on my account as I can log in and see them with Swiftcover's portal.

This year's renewal I had reason to contact them before my recent renewal (to haggle).
The guy on the phone went through my insurance history, last five years are clear though this incident was noted in my details, he told me it was just entered as a "customer note".
Basically they were made aware of the incident but no action needed or made.

I think that maybe if I had a few similar "customer notes" on file that might make a difference but as it turns out, they didn't seem bothered.

GunnerH

Thnx Goudy. That is more encouraging !

[Deleted User]

One thing I've learned - two things, actually. 1) Always declare everything that's relevant and could be verified by investigation 2) It's impossible to predict the impact of declaring anything.
1) Because they'll use every trick in the book to avoid paying out, and 2) because they run everything through an algorithm that is, in my experience, little better than random. My latest declaration belly laugh was being told that a £5k engine mod to my weekend car, boosting power by 28%, would cost me nothing... then six months later being told that refurbing the wheels to a slightly darker shade of grey would add £37 to my premium, with a £30 admin fee. My neighbour had his premium increased for adding a dash cam to his car. Figure that one out. Now that's something I wouldn't tell the insurance about, as it's not a required notification.

DullGreyGuy

[Deleted User] said:

One thing I've learned - two things, actually. 1) Always declare everything that's relevant and could be verified by investigation

That investigation also includes running you through cognitive questioning and voice stress analysis... a notable percentage of people that decide to "forget" to declare things that get caught end up dropping themselves in it 

[Deleted User] said:

1) Because they'll use every trick in the book to avoid paying out

Given payout rates are well 90% on motor and that includes all those claims not paid because 1) customer reported for info only 2) customer denied being involved in the accident 3) customer called because their engine seized unrelated to an accident etc 4) they hit their own wall and want to claim for the wall 5) damage is below the excess

Love to see your basis for the comment and how you rationalise the fact the vast majority get paid

[Deleted User] said:

My latest declaration belly laugh was being told that a £5k engine mod to my weekend car, boosting power by 28%, would cost me nothing... then six months later being told that refurbing the wheels to a slightly darker shade of grey would add £37 to my premium, with a £30 admin fee. My neighbour had his premium increased for adding a dash cam to his car. Figure that one out. Now that's something I wouldn't tell the insurance about, as it's not a required notification.

 
People make the mistake of thinking that insurance is priced by some hyper intelligent bloke sitting in an ivory tower postulating what different changes make to the risk profile... for mass market consumer insurance it works nothing like that. It's all done by statistical analysis, they have vast quantities of data from millions of customers over many years. No need to theorise that maybe cars that are red have a worse claims exposure than silver cars, just write a query and your data will tell you in seconds what level of correlation there is, what level of certainty and plot it over time. 

Power means little in a car, a VW Up is going to do very similar damage to a SL65 if it hits 2 school kids crossing the road. You may rate on what sort of driver wants 28% more power but that could potentially already be factored in with the type of car it is premodification

Aesthetic changes often have an impact on premium, prior analysis I did showed the 107 GT and the basic 107 with the GT bodykit had the identical theft rate and nearly identical accident experience as each other  and both were vastly higher than the basic 107 without the bodykit despite the fact the body kit does nothing but asthetics. Wheels in particular are much more easily damaged than engines and so more likely to increase claim costs as it's no longer an off the shelf part. 

Dashcams are very much a double edged sword, sure you catch a few more hit and runs but you also get a load more theft and glass claims as people smash the window to grab the toy. Liability goes both ways, they show your policyholder is at fault for the accident as often as they show the other party is when in the absence of the camera it probably would have gone 50/50 as one persons word against the other.

[Deleted User]

"That investigation also includes running you through cognitive questioning and voice stress analysis... a notable percentage of people that decide to "forget" to declare things that get caught end up dropping themselves in it "

Voice stress tests are worthless. Their only conceivable benefit is to discourage deceptive claims, much like the TV 'detector van', which amazingly I found some people still believe exists. As I say, people should declare everything relevant and verifiable.

"Love to see your basis for the comment and how you rationalise the fact the vast majority get paid"

They're a business, and like any insurance business they're not keen on giving money away when they are not obliged to. A settled claim doesn't mean settled in full, and there's no doubt that failing to declare a pertinent factor will see your claim refused or reduced if it's discovered, or blame apportioned (which monetarily can amount to the same thing when your NC is reduced).

"Power means little in a car"

It's a mystery why you wrote that.

"Aesthetic changes often have an impact on premium, prior analysis I did showed the 107 GT and the basic 107 with the GT bodykit had the identical theft rate and nearly identical accident experience as each other  and both were vastly higher than the basic 107 without the bodykit despite the fact the body kit does nothing but asthetics."

And that's the problem. You - and the insurance companies - lump all aesthetic change into one category. Changing the entire appearance of a low budget car popular with young male drivers has no relationship to slightly deepening the shade of wheels on a relatively rare performance car. One tells you literally nothing about the other. The additional facts that the driver of this car has 28 years no claims and no convictions or accidents in 40 years of of driving, is not taken into account, because the algorithm is basic and the person operating it is unauthorised, and unqualified, to factor in context. Thus, slightly darker wheel colour = £37 please; reason; "Computer says 'Boy Racers in 107GTs'."

DullGreyGuy

[Deleted User] said:

"That investigation also includes running you through cognitive questioning and voice stress analysis... a notable percentage of people that decide to "forget" to declare things that get caught end up dropping themselves in it "

Voice stress tests are worthless. Their only conceivable benefit is to discourage deceptive claims, much like the TV 'detector van', which amazingly I found some people still believe exists. As I say, people should declare everything relevant and verifiable.

Voice analysis is typically only used as one of the tools to identify claims that should be investigated further, it's not the only tool and no claim would be rejected on the basis of voice analysis alone. Most will operate a fraud scorecard  but also rely on the experience of the claims handler. All three can trigger the claim being referred to special investigations. 

[Deleted User] said:

"Love to see your basis for the comment and how you rationalise the fact the vast majority get paid"

They're a business, and like any insurance business they're not keen on giving money away when they are not obliged to. A settled claim doesn't mean settled in full, and there's no doubt that failing to declare a pertinent factor will see your claim refused or reduced if it's discovered, or blame apportioned (which monetarily can amount to the same thing when your NC is reduced).

Obviously they cover what they promised to cover, you can't call your Car insurers and try to claim for a fire in your kitchen, I assumed that was a base level of understanding. 

"Trying every trick to avoid paying out" clearly means that you are alleging they are attempting to go much further than checking the claim against the policy terms. 

When a customer is forced by their insurer to accept a split liability situation and therefore their NCD is reduced... how many of those customers do you think renew with their prior insurer? Plus from an insurer perspective getting all their outlay back from the third party is vastly preferable to having to pay a portion of the claim "but getting to reduce the customers NCD"

[Deleted User] said:
"Power means little in a car"

It's a mystery why you wrote that.

Because it's true? An SL500 was cheaper to insure than a Mini Cooper S (both quoted as brand new, just acquired) despite being massively more powerful and more expensive. Again reiterate that pricing is done on statistical analysis not ivory tower thinking but the rest of the response explains why. Hit a kid at 40mph and it makes no difference if you have 80bhp or 850bhp. 

[Deleted User] said:

"Aesthetic changes often have an impact on premium, prior analysis I did showed the 107 GT and the basic 107 with the GT bodykit had the identical theft rate and nearly identical accident experience as each other  and both were vastly higher than the basic 107 without the bodykit despite the fact the body kit does nothing but asthetics."

And that's the problem. You - and the insurance companies - lump all aesthetic change into one category. Changing the entire appearance of a low budget car popular with young male drivers has no relationship to slightly deepening the shade of wheels on a relatively rare performance car. One tells you literally nothing about the other. The additional facts that the driver of this car has 28 years no claims and no convictions or accidents in 40 years of of driving, is not taken into account, because the algorithm is basic and the person operating it is unauthorised, and unqualified, to factor in context. Thus, slightly darker wheel colour = £37 please; reason; "Computer says 'Boy Racers in 107GTs'."

Dont know which insurer you used but in our systems changes to alloys were a different option to body kits, as internal aesthetics and change of colour, each was individually analysed and priced... I wasnt a pricing analyst so can't say what the difference the other options made off the top of my head but did do the example given so can give more detail on that one. 

Clearly other insurers will segment their customers differently, they will have different claims experience on which their analysis is based and their algorithm will be different. Ours at the time was a simple set of percentage tables, most 1 dimensional a few 2 dimensional (eg age and gender before gender was prohibited as a rating factor). Other insurers use decision trees so can have greater interdependence between answers. 

Mass market consumer insurance, by its very definition is intended to deal with the masses not the outliers. It's very much accepted the pricing models are imperfect but when consumer want fast cheap quotes aiming to deal with the 99% is sufficient. At the other extreme is the likes of Lloyds of London and the wider London Market where a human underwriter, an actuary and a lawyer will be looking at creating a price for you personally based on any number of different data points and will consider any changes from the standard wording you want but there is a very material cost in time and money for having those people involved. Most my current clients won't charge less than £10,000 for an open market policy. 

Maybe you'd be better off with a specialist insurer? Pricing sits between the two because it does have empowered people involved who can take into account other factors. Can also help when you come to have your "relatively rare performance vehicle" written off rather than just getting the CAP or Glass' book price.