Moving to third party & theft insurance

poonkave

my 98 corolla was written off.I repaired it and re insured.
Thinking to change comprehensive cover to Third Party & Theft only.

What is the risk involved other than loosing the car?

insured with RSA

vetstu

How much are you saving doing that?

Terrontress

Actuaries believe that the sort of person on third party is a greater risk than someone who is fully comp so third party can often be more expensive or else the gains are minimal.

poonkave

sorry... I haven't talked to the insurance company.If it makes some savings then only I consider this

MugMugs

Terrontress wrote: »

Actuaries believe that the sort of person on third party is a greater risk than someone who is fully comp so third party can often be more expensive or else the gains are minimal.

Link to support that poppy-cock?

OP ,Speak to RSA. You could well lose a heap of added benefits too that you could be reliant on. Generally, Breakdown assist, windscreen damage etc are not covered under TPFT. Apart from that and you lose the car there isn't much else.... Price could well be marginally different too.

Atlantic Dawn

The savings would want to be big for me to consider it. Risk wise the biggest for me would be if I lost control of the car in ice and wrote it off which could happen easily enough it would be covered. Windsceen and breakdown cover is also usually included with fully comp, both events are likely to be couple of hundred should they occur. For me the saving would need to be €200 a year to consider it. Your car is possibly worth €1000, if you have access to cash to replace it should it be wrote off and the savings add up it could be worth getting third party fire and theft.

Terrontress

MugMugs wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

Actuaries believe that the sort of person on third party is a greater risk than someone who is fully comp so third party can often be more expensive or else the gains are minimal.

Link to support that poppy-cock?

OP ,Speak to RSA. You could well lose a heap of added benefits too that you could be reliant on. Generally, Breakdown assist, windscreen damage etc are not covered under TPFT. Apart from that and you lose the car there isn't much else.... Price could well be marginally different too.

poppy-cock? I think not son.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/insurance/compare-cheap-car-insurance

Logically, third party insurance should be cheapest as it offers a lesser level of cover than fully comp - yet this isn't always the case. So get quotes for third party and fully comp just in case its cheaper. Plus always make sure you check your policy so you know exactly what you are and argent covered for in the event of a claim.

While its likely third-party buyers are on average a higher-risk group, perhaps as overall they care less about their cars, and so prices are pushed up. To illustrate this, in one low-risk driver quote we found £290 for fully-comprehensive, compared to £406 for third-party. This isn't a hard rule, but always check both.

Third Party

The minimum level of cover you need to legally be able to drive on the road is called Third Party. It used to be the cheapest type of insurance, but bizarrely fully comprehensive policies can now sometimes be cheaper

corktina

what if you have an own fault accident and need expensive medical treatment or a Barrister?

I always think that Insurance is to cover these aspects more than it is to cover the value of the car. These two items could easily be much more expensive than replacing even a high value car.

MugMugs

I'm not your son. Believe me. Now apart from "dont assume third party is cheaper" and granted I scanned that page briefly, where's the back up to your statement?

Terrontress

MugMugs wrote: »

I'm not your son. Believe me

you certainly look like him.

Del2005

poonkave wrote: »

my 98 corolla was written off.I repaired it and re insured.
Thinking to change comprehensive cover to Third Party & Theft only.

What is the risk involved other than loosing the car?

insured with RSA

For some reason insurance companies load low value cars which they insure. Possibly for the same reason Terrontress said, low value car more risky driver!

I never insure a car for less than €4k, you'll only get book value if you claim, and found quotes dropped a good bit that when insuring for €1k

Voodoomelon

I've switched to third party, fire & theft for the first time ever on the E38, its €150 cheaper and I have all the same perks like bonus protection, drive other cars, legal fees etc.

I don't plan on hitting anyone and believe my standard of driving is higher than the average irish motorist so its not worth the extra, considering they'd only screw me in the event of a claim anyways.

L-M

I have third party fire and theft, It's 200 quid cheaper than Fully comp so I don't see a need for it.

slimjimmc

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I've switched to third party, fire & theft for the first time ever on the E38, its €150 cheaper and I have all the same perks like bonus protection, drive other cars, legal fees etc.

I don't plan on hitting anyone and believe my standard of driving is higher than the average irish motorist so its not worth the extra, considering they'd only screw me in the event of a claim anyways.

The average driver also believes their standard of driving is higher than the average .

Unfortunately none of us have absolute control over what happens so while you don't plan on hitting anything it could happen. If one accepts that risk then TPFT is good, if you prefer to be covered just in case then comp would be better.

eyesquirm

My standard of driving is absolutely appalling. I need all the insurance I can get. Fully comp for me, I'm afraid.

An Ri rua

Terrontress wrote: »

Actuaries believe that the sort of person on third party is a greater risk than someone who is fully comp so third party can often be more expensive or else the gains are minimal.

Ah that's nonsense !! I was with Quinn for years after always driving company cars. Then moved to RSA through Insure.ie. My policy went from 1500 TPFT with quinn at 27 down to about 350 TPFT, then over to Insure.ie about 2 years ago when Quinn wanted me to pay for the Anglo disaster and its remained at 300 since then. 2 litre diesel, 12 years old (the car, I'm 39) and if I went Comp it would be another 150 or more. For an extra tenner, I get personal accident insurance for me and for others in the car.

An Ri rua

MugMugs wrote: »

Link to support that poppy-cock?

OP ,Speak to RSA. You could well lose a heap of added benefits too that you could be reliant on. Generally, Breakdown assist, windscreen damage etc are not covered under TPFT. Apart from that and you lose the car there isn't much else.... Price could well be marginally different too.

Nope, I have RSA Select (I think), their most basic TPFT (plus I added on personal accident insurance for a tenner) and I have windscreen cover, unlimited brekadown assist (used twice in 2011) etc etc. people need to study policies and probabilities carefully. Fully comp (for me) is for when you have a shiny car or you don't trust your own driving.

An Ri rua

Terrontress wrote: »

poppy-cock? I think not son.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/insurance/compare-cheap-car-insurance

Thanks for that link. Always a great website. But look, I think that anyone that renews their insurance without checking ALL facts deserves to pay a premium.

I always ask myself how much can an hour's research potentially save me and then ask could I possibly earn that much in one hour? NO. So why p1ss it away so easily then?

Its horses for courses. Sometimes fully comp is the right move; sometimes not. With a 98-02 ish average car, like mine or OPs, I say TPFT.

Top Dog

The way I look at it - if my vehicle is worth €2000 or more then I insure it fully comp. Can't afford to have to replace something of that value out of my own pocket.

If its worth less than that then it's TPF&T with windscreen cover added on (the only thing I've ever claimed for in 10+ years of driving). Seems to have worked ok so far for me.

Voodoomelon

Top Dog wrote: »

The way I look at it - if my vehicle is worth €2000 or more then I insure it fully comp. Can't afford to have to replace something of that value out of my own pocket.

If its worth less than that then it's TPF&T with windscreen cover added on (the only thing I've ever claimed for in 10+ years of driving). Seems to have worked ok so far for me.

Well another way to look at it is what kind of accident are you going to have, be the cause of, and that does €2000 worth of damage to your car? The chances are slim.

On a new enough car, i'd be fully comp, but not an older, relatively low value car.

Top Dog

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Well another way to look at it is what kind of accident are you going to have, be the cause of, and that does €2000 worth of damage to your car? The chances are slim.

Given how many of the roads round my way go untreated when there's a bad weather spell, it wouldn't take too much to do €2k worth of damage. Had to replace front wheel bearing, hub, flange & drive recently - new the parts were €1200. So if I slid into a wall damaging the front corner, it could easily exceed €2k

On a new enough car, i'd be fully comp, but not an older, relatively low value car.

Maybe I wasn't that clear in what I posted - as what you've said above is pretty much exactly what I meant. To me, relatively low is €2k or less. Guess its just down to individual opinion as to where the crossover point is in either value or age

pajo1981

I used to insure my cheaper yokes 3rd party and now insure my more valuable yoke fully comp. :eek:

johndaman66

People seem to be making the assumption that windscreen cover, breakdown assist, personal injury cover, bonus protection etc. is not available with TPF&T. This is very much not the case. Sometimes, they wont be available, sometimes you can specify some or all of the afore mentioned extras for extra and moretimes they are included as standard....This has very much being my experience of shopping around at renewal time.

My own thoughts and experience for what they're worth. When I started driving I went with TPF&T as the difference between TPF&T was astronomical. Basic TPF&T was barely affordable to me but comprehensive cover was absolutely unaffordable. This remained to be the case for a number of years. The car cost me 5k so in retrospect this was a bit stupid...I probably should have went with a lower value car but touch wood I never had an accident.

My runaround I knock about in now is practically worthless. When renewing last time round there was very little difference in premium between TPF&T and comp cover from some providers but their quotes tended to be comparably higher anyway for the TPF&T. The provider who gave me the most competitive quote for TPF&T was a lot higher for comprehensive cover...not worth it for the value of the car. Anyways I'd have no problem whatsoever replacing my car with a similar one in the morning if I were to wrap it around a pole. Hence I went with TPF&T. Oh, it includes breakdown assist, personal injury cover, and full bonus protection.

As ever with motor insurance though no one rule will suit all. Depends very much on the individual and their particulars and the insurance company

dahamsta

I've never once seen a TPFT policy that was more expensive than comprehensive, dunno where that website is getting the data from.

MugMugs

dahamsta wrote: »

I've never once seen a TPFT policy that was more expensive than comprehensive, dunno where that website is getting the data from.

It's a given that insurers wont cover certain people under a certain age fully comp... The price bump is irrespective of this. It makes no logical sense for a premium to be increased for a lesser cover with lower risk. I agree.