My OH had a rise in her premium because there is a recorded 'incident' on file, when someone when into the back of her car on black ice. She chose not to claim out of fear of her car being written off, and TBH the damage was only cosmetic. Her premium still went up.
Debate about No Fault claims
- Thread starter Johnnytoxic
- Start date
I'm sure you could make the statistics back it up, in much the same way you can make statistics back up almost anything if you manipulate them the right way.
Unfortunately I don't think there are any stats for people who've had non-fault accidents who never claim again versus people who've not had non-fault accidents who never claim (happy to be proven wrong).
I'd be inclined to think there are more people on the road who have been involved in an accident of some kind, than there are those who haven't, so of course the stats will show that there are more people who've previously had accidents claiming than people who haven't.
I'm sure I've worded that extremely confusingly, as even I don't understand it! (Although I know what I mean
)Also, to all those claiming that insurers are blatantly profiteering, look up their combined ratios.
The Admrial group, who I believe rather a significant proportion of people on here utilize, and are considered to be by far and away one of the best insurers for young drivers (me included), report a combined ratio for the 2011 financial year of 87%, down from 91% the year before. That means 87% of the money taken in for premiums was paid out in claims last year, and 91% the year before! There's less than a 15% margin on the insurance premiums themselves.
It's also important to note that Admiral are by far one of the best performing insurers, in 2010, the UK averaged combined ratio was 119% - yep. Insurers were LOSING money on the premiums they took in. The year before it was even greater. Of course this is mitigated and often reversed by the fact that insurers invest the money you put into them, but it does put to rest that they are ripping you off on the cost of your premium.
This also sort of suggests that maybe, just perhaps, insurers know what they are doing when they are setting premiums, however illogical it may seem to the consumer at times.
Like I said, if you think there is a better way of judging insurance premiums, go propose it to someone and get backing; if there's money to be made by the way you want to do it, you'll make an awful lot of it.
(source: Admiral Group 2011 FY reports)
The Admrial group, who I believe rather a significant proportion of people on here utilize, and are considered to be by far and away one of the best insurers for young drivers (me included), report a combined ratio for the 2011 financial year of 87%, down from 91% the year before. That means 87% of the money taken in for premiums was paid out in claims last year, and 91% the year before! There's less than a 15% margin on the insurance premiums themselves.
It's also important to note that Admiral are by far one of the best performing insurers, in 2010, the UK averaged combined ratio was 119% - yep. Insurers were LOSING money on the premiums they took in. The year before it was even greater. Of course this is mitigated and often reversed by the fact that insurers invest the money you put into them, but it does put to rest that they are ripping you off on the cost of your premium.
This also sort of suggests that maybe, just perhaps, insurers know what they are doing when they are setting premiums, however illogical it may seem to the consumer at times.
Like I said, if you think there is a better way of judging insurance premiums, go propose it to someone and get backing; if there's money to be made by the way you want to do it, you'll make an awful lot of it.
(source: Admiral Group 2011 FY reports)
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 467
Thinking about this from a technical angle, surely what the insurance companies do is collect a load of data on drivers, their location, their job, their car, their mileage, and tons of other variables and feed it into a machine learning algorithm.
By telling the insurance company you've had an accident the model then looks at all the data and creates a model from which to predict the likelihood of a driver's likelihood to have an accident based on the data he provides when requesting a quote.
While I think it's highly likely that insurance companies are a bunch of extortionate parasites, I think it's probably equally likely that people, like me, who've had a "no fault claim" are more likely to be a greater risk. Either that or they just want to get their money back on previous pay outs...
By telling the insurance company you've had an accident the model then looks at all the data and creates a model from which to predict the likelihood of a driver's likelihood to have an accident based on the data he provides when requesting a quote.
While I think it's highly likely that insurance companies are a bunch of extortionate parasites, I think it's probably equally likely that people, like me, who've had a "no fault claim" are more likely to be a greater risk. Either that or they just want to get their money back on previous pay outs...