Do you think Insurance is far too expensive?

phoenix0250

Taking account of:
1) value for money 2)how people are afraid to claim something due to the fear of their premium going up 3) Age etc.

Is it too expensive? what would you change about it?

Atomic Pineapple

I think its badly run and under regulated industry more than too expensive, its a lot cheaper these days for young people than it was 10 - 15 years ago.

The problem I have with it is the attitude insurance companies have and are allowed to have towards people who don't want to be stuck in a run of the mill boring under powered car.

If you ring up wanting to insure anything remotely fun you start hitting brick walls, and god forbid you change anything slightly on the car, its like your trying to summon the devils minions!

I mean I drive a Focus ST and its considered as a "high performance vehicle" only in Ireland would a 225 PS car that ways a tonne and a half be considered high performance.

I'm paying €300 at the moment so happy enough, when I was paying £IR2500 I thought it was dear alright :pac:

Vicxas

I think it is, but my brother crashed my car on my insurance so i cant complain really that i got insured for under 1500

Eoin

I often get quotes from the UK sites to see if we're really getting screwed over here as much as people claim. For the last few years, the quotes I get in Ireland have been at least as competitive as from the UK, and often a good bit under. Given the much smaller market, I think that's pretty good.

draffodx wrote:

its a lot cheaper these days for young people than it was 10 - 15 years ago.

Absolutely - it is a hell of a lot cheaper than it was 10 years ago. I couldn't get a quote under £2500 on any 1.0 car when I was 22.

Atomic Pineapple

LIGHTNING wrote: »

A Focus ST is a high performance car in all fairness, apart from the RS ford dont do a higher model.

But in terms of a bigger picture its not really, a performance car maybe but high performance to me would be something over 300bhp. The ST's 0 - 60 is only around 7 seconds so its not incredibly fast.

TrailerBob

I find it to be quite inconsistent, previous car was a Passat TDI - €1600 to insure comp, changed to a Landcruiser, commercial policy - bang - €650 fully comp including S,D&P use

Toyota is bigger, more powerful, faster (believe it or not) and more valuable. it seems they just have cars in risk categories that have nothing to do with power or value sometimes

dell1211

I think thats it too cheap, bit of a silly question tbf

Eoin

TrailerBob wrote: »

I find it to be quite inconsistent, previous car was a Passat TDI - €1600 to insure comp, changed to a Landcruiser, commercial policy - bang - €650 fully comp including S,D&P use

Toyota is bigger, more powerful, faster (believe it or not) and more valuable. it seems they just have cars in risk categories that have nothing to do with power or value sometimes

Yep - my insurance went up when I switched from a 2.5 petrol 5 series 192BHP to a 1.9 Alfa GT 150BHP.

I can understand why they have different categories that aren't strictly tied into the power - but that's a massive difference in your two quotes!

Eoin

dell1211 wrote: »

I think thats it too cheap, bit of a silly question tbf

No, it's not. I think my insurance is reasonably priced - or at least I don't think it's "far too expensive" anyway.

Voodoomelon

Considering how much the insurance companies make (look up some of the annual published accounts), insurance is very expensive. Their profits are incredibly high, it seems a little unfair that such an important service that is required by law, and is required by so many people who are dependent on motoring can be run and dictated by huge private companies. How many hundreds of millions in profit is enough?

These companies are allowed operate by governments in markets that will always be dependent on motor insurance, how about a discount for this privilege?

Most premiums are fair enough once you get out of teenage/early twenties years, but what gets me is the little shítty fees they charge, like for changing your address, changing vehicle like for like or for cancelling your policy etc. The cost in man hours is negligible for these kind if things and they have to nerve to charge €40-50.

Vicxas

I would of considered a ST a highpowered model in contrast to many cars on irish roads. And they'd be targets for boyracers, thats just my opinion. I could be wrong but id give my left nut for an ST...

Atomic Pineapple

Vicxas wrote: »

I would of considered a ST a highpowered model in contrast to many cars on irish roads. And they'd be targets for boyracers, thats just my opinion. I could be wrong but id give my left nut for an ST...

Thankfully the high tax keeps them out of most boy racers hands And of course they are high performance compared to most cars on Irish roads but that's because most Irish cars are of such a low standard.

johndaman66

For younger people trying to get on the road to assist them in making a living motor insurance is an absolute b!tch. I feel its all done wrong. I paid what I consider severe motor insurance pemia to get on the road many moons ago. I had a number of friends who got on the road under Mammy or Daddies name for a fraction of the cost.

A few of them had very serious accidents, but were back on the road with the insurance being only loaded slightly. One guy in particular was totally negligant, kept the shoe in at a crossroads crossing a busy main road. The elderly lady passenger in the car pwhich he hit was nearly killed, suffered a punctured lung, several broken bones, severe bruising etc. Total payout was between €80k and €100k as I recall. Yet this guy was on the road again with not a major loading on Daddies insurance. Meanwhile muggins here, despite no accidents or claims was paying much bigger premia for many years before it levelled out with the afore mentioned guy...Like where would you be going in fairness?

A lot is down to the claims culture here too. Thankfully it is a problem that would seem to be slowly but surely being addressed I think. However, more needs to be done.

I wont go into massive detail here but a few years back a neighbour ran into the back of another car in slow moving stop go traffic. A guard was on point duty nearby and actually witnessed the accident. No doubt about it, it was my neighbours fault. The guy he hit was grand, actually pushed his car into the hard sholder with my neighbour while the Guard steered. In the end he actually drove off in the car. The car was pretty old. It may have being a write off in account of the fact it was so old and not worth a lot but the damage was by no means severe all the same. The case was a couple of months back. Turns out this guy had to take 3 years leave from his high paid job due to "whiplash" and "other" back injuries. Total settlement made €250K!!!!! In fact I think the insurance company may have even settled just before the case went to court but not completely sure on that one...would need to ask again. Imagine what this guy was looking for in the first place and serious question marks remain over his injuries if any.

Above is one if maybe an extreme example of many I'm aware off. Also, many out there know they can put in a claim up to a certain figure without it being investigated or going to court and take full advantage.

Also, I feel that premia rising of late to cover insurance companies investment losses is an absolute complete joke. The fact is that motor insurance is compulsary and an essential for many. As such motorists should not be at the mercy of how good or bad the stock markets are performing

Anan1

johndaman66 wrote: »

For younger people trying to get on the road to assist them in making a living motor insurance is an absolute b!tch. I feel its all done wrong. I paid what I consider severe motor insurance pemia to get on the road many moons ago. I had a number of friends who got on the road under Mammy or Daddies name for a fraction of the cost.

A few of them had very serious accidents, but were back on the road with the insurance being only loaded slightly. One guy in particular was totally negligant, kept the shoe in at a crossroads crossing a busy main road. The elderly lady passenger in the car pwhich he hit was nearly killed, suffered a punctured lung, several broken bones, severe bruising etc. Total payout was between €80k and €100k as I recall. Yet this guy was on the road again with not a major loading on Daddies insurance. Meanwhile muggins here, despite no accidents or claims was paying much bigger premia for many years before it levelled out with the afore mentioned guy...Like where would you be going in fairness?

A lot is down to the claims culture here too. Thankfully it is a problem that would seem to be slowly but surely being addressed I think. However, more needs to be done.

I wont go into massive detail here but a few years back a neighbour ran into the back of another car in slow moving stop go traffic. A guard was on point duty nearby and actually witnessed the accident. No doubt about it, it was my neighbours fault. The guy he hit was grand, actually pushed his car into the hard sholder with my neighbour while the Guard steered. In the end he actually drove off in the car. The car was pretty old. It may have being a write off in account of the fact it was so old and not worth a lot but the damage was by no means severe all the same. The case was a couple of months back. Turns out this guy had to take 3 years leave from his high paid job due to "whiplash" and "other" back injuries. Total settlement made €250K!!!!! In fact I think the insurance company may have even settled just before the case went to court but not completely sure on that one...would need to ask again. Imagine what this guy was looking for in the first place and serious question marks remain over his injuries if any.

Without meaning to sound smart, are you a doctor? Did you examine the man? If the answer to either of these questions is no then you have no idea what if any his injuries were. Furthermore, you cannot judge the forces to which the occupants of a car were subjected by the damage to the car. Having the brakes off when you're hit from behind will result in less damage to the car but more shock to the occupants.

ando

draffodx wrote: »

I mean I drive a Focus ST and its considered as a "high performance vehicle" only in Ireland would a 225 PS car that ways a tonne and a half be considered high performance.

How much are you paying Draffodx? I remember back when I was 21.. 9 years ago I paid €4609 for 3rd party fire and theft on a 1.4 focus... :O I was MENTAL, seriously :O But I really wanted to drive a car. Stupid youth lol.

I was paying about €800 on a 225 BHP car last year so Im curious how much you're paying on the ST?

Atomic Pineapple

ando wrote: »

How much are you paying Draffodx? I remember back when I was 21.. 9 years ago I paid €4609 for 3rd party fire and theft on a 1.4 focus... :O I was MENTAL, seriously :O But I really wanted to drive a car. Stupid youth lol.

I was paying about €800 on a 225 BHP car last year so Im curious how much you're paying on the ST?

€970 at the minute with full NCB protection.

Henry Ford III

draffodx wrote: »

€970 at the minute with full NCB protection.

I paid about the same in 2006. You have to pay for your fun.

bijapos

phoenix0250 wrote: »

Taking account of:
1) value for money.

Is it too expensive? what would you change about it?

I'd change everything about it, starting first of all with the whole compensation culture that exists in this country. Payouts are in 90% of cases far too high, payments should be based on a predetermined rate and not just on the whimsy of a judge or jury. A predetermined rate would negate the need for a lot of solicitors work thus reducing final pay outs and speeding up payouts. Its obvious that medical expenses should be guaranteed for life for a particular injury but the one off compensation should be reduced.

For this to happen it would need the introduction of a new system, the system they have in New Zealand is noteworthy, we could learn from that, learn from whats gone right and what went wrong. But as this system can only be intrroduced by a Minister for Justice and so long as they and their colleagues are inevitably solicitors and are supping at the golden pig trough that is Irish insurance compensation there is little or no chance that will happen.

2)how people are afraid to claim something due to the fear of their premium going up

Happens in most countries, thats one of the reasons they have a NCB and a minimum excess of say €500. Its to encorage you not to claim on the small accidents.

As regards different quotes for different cars, its not the power of the car, its the chance that car will be involved in an accident. Get a hypothetical quote for a 21 year old in a 1.4 Civic and a 1.4 Renault Modus and you'll get the idea.

If you want an example of how bad quotes here are, at 24 in Germany I was paying around €800 for a then 3 year old Merc 300TE, I would just about get that here at the age of 40 with a full NCB and no points. Madness. And btw brokers are usually cheaper than insyrance companies directly.

Eoin

Does the injuries board not do what your first point suggests?

I don't disagree that we have a compo culture over here though, thank God that those no-win-no-fee ambulance chasers aren't allowed advertise here.

@draffodx - how old are you?

johndaman66

Anan1 wrote: »

Without meaning to sound smart, are you a doctor? Did you examine the man? If the answer to either of these questions is no then you have no idea what if any his injuries were. Furthermore, you cannot judge the forces to which the occupants of a car were subjected by the damage to the car. Having the brakes off when you're hit from behind will result in less damage to the car but more shock to the occupants.

Fair enough points Anan1 and no offence taken. I'm not a Doctor and didn't examine the bloke. I'm not saying the guy didn't get injured (and certainly not saying he did for that matter). I was told to keep the story to myself so don't want to go into any further detail that could potentially expose my neighbours identity. From the way my neighbour describes the case in full, albeit a biased viewpoint you may say, a payout of €250k seems just wrong. Apart from not working for 3 years he appears to be carrying on life as normal with no medical implications apart from claiming to have a bad back. Back injuries can be difficult for a doctor to prove or disprove due to their nature and quite often they will sign off medical reports based on the patients word of mouth alone. Not saying the man is lying but it all seems very bloody dodgy to me by the way its was told.

I don't want to dwell too much on the afore mentioned case as fair enough neither of us do truly know whether or not the man is faking his injuries. My intention moreso was to highlight the extent of the fraudulant claims culture that exists. Most of us are all too familiar with the Prime Time investigates type programmes where people are claiming to be wheelchair bound and suffering life changing back pain etc. only to be caught playing tennis and running marathons. Thats what I want to draw peoples attention to.

Voodoomelon

Was he perhaps on a very good salary and most of the €250k was lost earnings?

johndaman66

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Was he perhaps on a very good salary and most of the €250k was lost earnings?

Yes, that was part of the settlement along with compensation for the "injuries" he sustained and his costs made up the total compensation settlement package it would seem.

What I tend to find farsical about these compensation packages for loss of earnings is that they quite often take into account assumed salary increases. Yet if the injured party is able to stay at home minding the kids and as a result the wife is enabled to go out working they fail to take that side of it into account.

listermint

Anan1 wrote: »

Without meaning to sound smart, are you a doctor? Did you examine the man? If the answer to either of these questions is no then you have no idea what if any his injuries were. Furthermore, you cannot judge the forces to which the occupants of a car were subjected by the damage to the car. Having the brakes off when you're hit from behind will result in less damage to the car but more shock to the occupants.

Without also meaning to sound smart, My father was rammed from behind by a drunk driver who had taken command of a girls car after a late night party.

He was hit from behind going around 50km by a car travelling in excess of 70 kmph. Only for his car was a well protected and large Audi A4, it could have been worse. Car was wrote off, so was the other one, in fact in ended up on its side with the drunk guy still drinking from a can he was pissed so much. He didnt give a sh**e.

Pain , yes he went to doctor had to take 2 weeks of work with back pain etc.


He claimed for exactly the days off, his car and nothing more. Why? because he felt for the poor girl involved plus the fact that he was raised differently. He doesnt take something he feels no entitlement to. No doubt if this had of happened to many others it would be 7 months or more off work and a generous court case on top.


Were already too much like the states here and its sickening. One doctor can say one thing another can say something else. It depends on what you want him to say. If you want to claim you can easily find a doctor that will back you up. So thats crap.

Eoin

That doesn't really contradict what anan1 said though. It was just a similar story with different details. And none of us know the actual details of the other story.

Anan1

listermint wrote: »

Without also meaning to sound smart, My father was rammed from behind by a drunk driver who had taken command of a girls car after a late night party.

He was hit from behind going around 50km by a car travelling in excess of 70 kmph. Only for his car was a well protected and large Audi A4, it could have been worse. Car was wrote off, so was the other one, in fact in ended up on its side with the drunk guy still drinking from a can he was pissed so much. He didnt give a sh**e.

Pain , yes he went to doctor had to take 2 weeks of work with back pain etc.


He claimed for exactly the days off, his car and nothing more. Why? because he felt for the poor girl involved plus the fact that he was raised differently. He doesnt take something he feels no entitlement to. No doubt if this had of happened to many others it would be 7 months or more off work and a generous court case on top.


Were already too much like the states here and its sickening. One doctor can say one thing another can say something else. It depends on what you want him to say. If you want to claim you can easily find a doctor that will back you up. So thats crap.

How does any of the above even relate to my post, let alone make it 'crap'?

Edit: Eoin beat me to it!

listermint

Anan1 wrote: »

How does any of the above even relate to my post, let alone make it 'crap'?

Edit: Eoin beat me to it!

I didnt say your post was crap, i said that just because a doctor says something doesnt make it actually true. So relying on one medical opinion is just the same as relying on made up stories. (so thats crap)



And my post was stating that Ireland has an in bred compo culture which usually arises after the 'victim' gets home and discusses the incident with friends that generally goad said 'victim' into seeking compo. Its ingrained now.

And to think otherwise is to live in fairy land. ive seen both sides of it.

listermint

Eoin wrote: »

That doesn't really contradict what anan1 said though. It was just a similar story with different details. And none of us know the actual details of the other story.

Im always cynical when someone pushes their car to the side of the road then drives off happy as larry only to be off work for 3 years afterwards. Sorry its the cynic in me.

CiniO

I think car insurances in Ireland are not only too expensive, but to complicated.

Few years back I had my car (Fiat Bravo 1.6) in Poland, and was paying there about 150 euros a year for full comprehensive cover.
When I got my car in Ireland (Fiat Cinquecento 0.9) I was asked to pay 700, at which price I was absolutely shocked.

At the moment I pay 470 for 1.8 car worth couple of grand, which I think is OK.
I was quoted about 420 for third party only, 450 for third party + fire + theft, or 470 for comprehensive, so the choice for comprehensive was obvious, as difference in price is negligable.

To compare in Poland for the same car, I would probably have to pay about 120 for third party and another 200 for theft and own car damage, which would add to 320, which is not that much cheaper that I pay here. That's why I think the price I pay is fair.

But I really can't believe that my friend, which is young lad (he's 20) by paying over 2 grand for a corsa 1.0 is not ripped off. Is he really over 4 times more likely to cause an accident than me?

listermint

One thing I have wondered though.

If you die in a car accident (lone car accident) does your car insurance payout any bereavement payment?

grim i know, but interested none the less...

Needler

Insurance is the greatest scam going. An entire industry created and held up by the government


You're in an accident? TUFF! No claims, no bull****. Maybe throw an extra 100e onto the car tax to pay for people who are genuinely crippled for life and cant work anymore.

Eoin

Not sure if you're being serious?

CiniO

Eoin wrote: »

Not sure if you're being serious?

Generally speaking, an average person pays more in insurance premium that he/she will ever got from the insurance claims.
Otherwise insurance business couldn't exist.

So if there was no insurances, an average person would save money.

Obviously in that case everyone would have to cover all the costs of damage, including third party claims from it's own pocket.

But in most cases it would be still cheaper than paying the premium all life.
Just few people which are very unlucky would have to pay up for horrendous claims, and be flat broke to the end of their life.

If I didn't have to pay insurance premium for last 12 years since I started driving, and saved all the money, by now I would have a quite big lump of money which would be enough to cover most claims.

I would probably chance it to stay without insurance if it wasn't required, but I understand that there are people who don't like to take a risk.

Atomic Pineapple

Eoin wrote: »

@draffodx - how old are you?

27

phoenix0250

Considering how much the insurance companies make (look up some of the annual published accounts), insurance is very expensive. Their profits are incredibly high, it seems a little unfair that such an important service that is required by law, and is required by so many people who are dependent on motoring can be run and dictated by huge private companies. How many hundreds of millions in profit is enough?

These companies are allowed operate by governments in markets that will always be dependent on motor insurance, how about a discount for this privilege?

Most premiums are fair enough once you get out of teenage/early twenties years, but what gets me is the little shítty fees they charge, like for changing your address, changing vehicle like for like or for cancelling your policy etc. The cost in man hours is negligible for these kind if things and they have to nerve to charge €40-50.

But I really can't believe that my friend, which is young lad (he's 20) by paying over 2 grand for a corsa 1.0 is not ripped off. Is he really over 4 times more likely to cause an accident than me?

Insurance is the greatest scam going. An entire industry created and held up by the government

Thank you guys, these were my thoughts exactly. Sadly i very much doubt that this will change any time soon,,,

Eoin

CiniO wrote: »

I would probably chance it to stay without insurance if it wasn't required, but I understand that there are people who don't like to take a risk.

Only you're not the one chancing it really. It's the person you crash into whose bills you can't afford to pay.

Obviously the average person will pay more than any payouts - otherwise it would be a loss making industry that we would have to subsidise through some other method - but at any given time, I'd say the average person wouldn't have 5, 10, 20K or whatever available to cover mechanical and medical damages to a 3rd party who have been crashed into through no fault of their own.

phoenix0250 wrote:

Thank you guys, these were my thoughts exactly

Seriously - you're crashed into and you can't claim at all? That's your exact thought as well?

Needler

I'd say noone should have to pay for damage to another car and whatever you bring onto the road is your own risk unless someone smashes it up on purpose then they're after commiting a crime.

The fact that third party claims are allowed and are so high is also the government's fault, in its effort to support the insurance industry.

If you have a car you cant afford to lose Insurance should be optional, but if its just an ould banger then it should be optional. mandatory third party insurance is a scam

Anan1

listermint wrote: »

I didnt say your post was crap, i said that just because a doctor says something doesnt make it actually true. So relying on one medical opinion is just the same as relying on made up stories. (so thats crap)

Which is why more than one medical opinion will be sought. The insurance companies don't just pay out on the evidence of the claimants' doctors, you know.

listermint wrote: »

Im always cynical when someone pushes their car to the side of the road then drives off happy as larry only to be off work for 3 years afterwards. Sorry its the cynic in me.

Are you cynical when people fall and hit their heads, are apparently fine, and die the next day? Honestly, wisdom is sometimes knowing what you don't know.

Needler

Needler wrote: »

I'd say noone should have to pay for damage to another car and whatever you bring onto the road is your own risk unless someone smashes it up on purpose then they're after commiting a crime. ..............

lol, glad you're alone with that looney theory

Atomic Pineapple

Since its mandatory, would it make sense for the government themselves to offer 3rd party only insurance? Something akin to some regions of Australia where when you pay your tax your also paying for 3rd party insurance and then if you want better cover you have the option to seek it out.

Henry Ford III

draffodx wrote: »

Since its mandatory, would it make sense for the government themselves to offer 3rd party only insurance? Something akin to some regions of Australia where when you pay your tax your also paying for 3rd party insurance and then if you want better cover you have the option to seek it out.

Yes. Mightn't be a bad idea.

Not sure it's a runner here, but in certain jurisdictions you can "self insure"
i.e. put up a bond asset backed by your own assets. For the very wealthy only.

Cookie_Monster

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Not sure it's a runner here, but in certain jurisdictions you can "self insure"
i.e. put up a bond asset backed by your own assets. For the very wealthy only.

It's doable here, but highly restricted. Dublin Bus do (did?) self insure for example.

Needler

How much money would you need to self insure?

Henry Ford III

Needler wrote: »

How much money would you need to self insure?

Several millions.

Needler

if someone is rendered unable to work or needs full time care after an accident is it the insurance company that foots 100% of the bill or do those people still end up getting disability allowance?

johndaman66

draffodx wrote: »

Since its mandatory, would it make sense for the government themselves to offer 3rd party only insurance? Something akin to some regions of Australia where when you pay your tax your also paying for 3rd party insurance and then if you want better cover you have the option to seek it out.

Most certainly a good idea I'd think. Motorists should not be at the mercy of Insurance companies investment gains or losses where at least third party only cover is a mandatory minimum requirement.

Also there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the vast majority of young males are paying over the odds for motor insurance. Granted, there will be the one who will go out and cause a very serious accident but for this one I genuinely believe that there quite a few good and careful young male drivers....My question is why should these guys alone be picking up the tab and subsidising their counterparts? Should all drivers be picking up the tab as opposed to exclusively other young males. This would be more in line with the proposed spirit of motor insurance in Ireland anyway. I believe they operate or at least used to operate a system in Canada where everyone pays the same for motor insurance regardless of age or gender. The only stipulation that I would put in is that your insuarance is loaded heavily if and when you have an serious accident where you are negligant and relative to the extent of your negligance and damage caused as a result.

Bear in mind that younger people are heavily subsidising older people when it comes to medical insurance, at least with VHI. A car is no less of a necessity than medical insurance for many as I see it.

johndaman66

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Yes. Mightn't be a bad idea.

Not sure it's a runner here, but in certain jurisdictions you can "self insure"
i.e. put up a bond asset backed by your own assets. For the very wealthy only.

To the best of my knowledge its possible to do here or at least was up until recently anyway if not still. It used to be a figure that was in the grasp of many people but overnight changed to a silly figure well over €10 million as I recall. Also, the associated legal and administrative costs involved of going down this avenue can be quite high as I recall.

Henry Ford III

Needler wrote: »

if someone is rendered unable to work or needs full time care after an accident is it the insurance company that foots 100% of the bill or do those people still end up getting disability allowance?

Depends on who is at fault.

If in general somebody is injured by the fault of a 3rd party their insurance will be liable for whatever damages are agreed.

For larger cases legal proceedings are normal.

Needler

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Depends on who is at fault.

If in general somebody is injured by the fault of a 3rd party their insurance will be liable for whatever damages are agreed.

For larger cases legal proceedings are normal.

Are there just lump sum payments or are the insurance companies supporting people with disabilities full time? just trying to find out what is the burden on the insurance company, is there a maximum payout?

Henry Ford III

Needler wrote: »

Are there just lump sum payments or are the insurance companies supporting people with disabilities full time? just trying to find out what is the burden on the insurance company, is there a maximum payout?

It's a lump sum, which presumably can be invested to produce income.

I'm not sure if the injuries board (formerly PIAB) limits liabilities. Perhaps that relates to cases using their system only? Damages in Ireland tend to be quite high compared to other countries.