A guide to motor insurance & FAQ's

jimgoose

Business Cat wrote: »

How many people like that do you know?

You are being hyperbolic to try and make a point.

There is also specific, specialized insurance companies for motor homes in the market.

I am not being hyperbolic. Woman is making camper-van noises the last couple of years, and my notion is to make the one job of it, as 'twere, with a second-hand artic with a refrigerator trailer, possibly the best insulated object this side of a zero-carbon house. This would have adequate space to do what everyone needs it to do, including a ready-to-go donkey engine for backup power, etc. Long weekend in Mondello, followed by a jaunt down to the Ring of Kerry for a week, ST1300 in the back for touring. You can also drop the trailer and drive the tractor unit around in comfort and surprising economy, when necessary. It makes a lot of sense to me, but when you mention this to Ultan or Aoife they don't know what you're talking about, it's like something out of Mork and Mindy! :pac::pac::pac:

acronym Chilli

jimgoose wrote: »

I am not being hyperbolic. Woman is making camper-van noises the last couple of years, and my notion is to make the one job of it, as 'twere, with a second-hand artic with a refrigerator trailer, possibly the best insulated object this side of a zero-carbon house. This would have adequate space to do what everyone needs it to do, including a ready-to-go donkey engine for backup power, etc. Long weekend in Mondello, followed by a jaunt down to the Ring of Kerry for a week, ST1300 in the back for touring. You can also drop the trailer and drive the tractor unit around in comfort and surprising economy, when necessary. It makes a lot of sense to me, but when you mention this to Ultan or Aoife they don't know what you're talking about, it's like something out of Mork and Mindy! :pac::pac::pac:

Mork and Mindy? My recollection is Mindy drove some sort of open top jeep thing (way up there in colorado).

Your plan reminds me more of some other 80s TV: the truck that Miles and Bonnie hung out in in Knight Rider, the truck/trailer/tractor setup that Matt Trakker had in MASK, or even Optimus Prime (detachable tractor with a bit of a base in the trailer):):)

You've gotta wonder what it would cost to insure a Transformer...
http://pbfcomics.com/156/

Carbon125

The AA is making noises for reforms to cut insurance costs:

Press Release: AA’s 5 key reforms to cut car insurance costs

Tazium

Thanks to MugMugs for the sticky on the first page. Renewal premium up by 35% and using a combination of links ended up paying just 9 euro more than last year. Very very wildly differing prices from insurers and brokers. Shopping around is absolutely critical. Thanks again.

jenjoeful

I was in a minor accident last year, my fault on paper...
I just got the settlement in at €17,450 for the total cost of the claim. Now my car cost €3,500 to fix out of that. I didn't claim an injury (cause I wasn't) but the other guy did (even though he wasn't... Not important I know) anyways.. It went through PIAB and he got a solicitor etc. From that what do you think he got on compensation out of it? I'm just curious.
Oh his car was 99 puegeot 206 so they wrote it off as the cost to fix was more than the car was worth... It all went through our insurance companies.

Any ideas?

To Elland Back

Firstly, as you were at fault, you wouldn't have been able to claim injury. Take your own damage out of the total and you are left with approx. €14k. Damage to the 3rd party's car, car hire, towing etc an you would be left with €12k. Leaves €10k for injuries and €2k for his solicitor.

All guesstimates of course

scamalert

Id say from experience he got paid for car soon after the accident,thus depending at what price it was insured most likely your company paid out in full or close to that,also towing etc would been covered by his insurance and then claiming it back from other insurer depending on companies who they have contracts with.final payment is most likely is medical alone for claimed injuries thus as mentioned most likely few grand for solicitor and rest is bank.

To Elland Back

scamalert wrote: »

........towing etc would been covered by his insurance and then claiming it back from other insurer depending on companies who they have contracts with.

What are you talking about? If the poster was at fault, his insurer would deal with all costs in the 1st instance. If the 3rd party did claim under their own policy that insurer would seek recovery (subrogate) from the poster's insurance after they had looked after their client.

There are no 'contracts' in these matters. The wrongdoer's insurer foots the tab at the end of the day and the law, not contracts, decide that

Tippjohn

Some insurers still do knock for knock to avoid lawyers bills. Never admit liability, it is amazing what is actually right and wrong.

To Elland Back

Tippjohn wrote: »

Some insurers still do knock for knock to avoid lawyers bills. Never admit liability, it is amazing what is actually right and wrong.

The truth and being able to prove the truth are two totally different things. How do you sort out a scenario where 2 single motorists have an impact on a quiet country road? One lad is speeding and over the centre of the road, the other under the limit and well within his lane. Each will tell their own version of events to their insurer.

Unless someone is killed or badly injured, the Irish equivalent of CSI Miami is not going to the scene. Knock for knock is the best solution

Tippjohn

It also means no points, always call the police. They will only prosecute if it really apt. As a young man I hit an unlit road barrier at night ( big timber about a foot square and 20 foot long, dark colour) All the witness's were jeering at me, young speeding hooligan etc etc. Well I was in the RAC, it took 9 months and dozens of letters before the council admitted liability and I got a full write off and salvage plus costs.
It seemed a simple case of my negligence but it was not mine in law.
A friend of man killed a pedestrian on a main unlit road. The police found no fault with him becasue the person was impossible to see.
But, as he was paying insurance in stages the company would only pay 3/12 s ( 3 months paid) of the claim. Lawyers soon sorted that out but the worry nearly finished him.
Being uninsured is plain stupid.

To Elland Back

Tippjohn wrote: »

A friend of man killed a pedestrian on a main unlit road. The police found no fault with him becasue the person was impossible to see.
But, as he was paying insurance in stages the company would only pay 3/12 s ( 3 months paid) of the claim. .

Apologies and I don't mean to be personal, but you're talking through your hoop there. Never heard of such such a thing. So much wrong in such a short sentence

Tippjohn

I have appraised a very complex thing. Long straight A road in Britain. In dark, no pavement, no street lights. Line of traffic, say 50 yards apart at 60 mph. Pedestrian in black wandered into road, my friend felt a bump, never saw him. Impossible to see.
What happened with the insurance company was the absolute truth. This was 15 years ago.
It was xmas, just what no one wants.
As for talking through my hoop that is offensive and I am sorry I bothered to warn people about what can happen.
All I know is that I watch my left hand side at all times because that is where you may hit someone. You can do nothing about what happens on the right.
45 years years and at least a million miles but I am still aware it can happen any moment.
Here is another one, my Father was knocked down on a crossing at night. The one eyed person got away with it because he said a Bee flew in his open window and temporarly blinde him.
IT WAS NIGHT, pity I was not the counsel because Bees do not fly at night.

wonski

Tippjohn wrote: »

I have appraised a very complex thing. Long straight A road in Britain. In dark, no pavement, no street lights. Line of traffic, say 50 yards apart at 60 mph. Pedestrian in black wandered into road, my friend felt a bump, never saw him. Impossible to see.
What happened with the insurance company was the absolute truth. This was 15 years ago.
It was xmas, just what no one wants.
As for talking through my hoop that is offensive and I am sorry I bothered to warn people about what can happen.
All I know is that I watch my left hand side at all times because that is where you may hit someone. You can do nothing about what happens on the right.
45 years years and at least a million miles but I am still aware it can happen any moment.
Here is another one, my Father was knocked down on a crossing at night. The one eyed person got away with it because he said a Bee flew in his open window and temporarly blinde him.
IT WAS NIGHT, pity I was not the counsel because Bees do not fly at night.

Insurance pay out doesn't depend on how the premium is paid. The insured has to pay it in full when claim arises ( in other words you can't cancel the policy after it is claimed against).

I believe he hit the pedestrian, but I don't believe in 3/12 part.

To Elland Back

Tippjohn wrote: »

The one eyed person got away with it because he said a Bee flew in his open window and temporarly blinde him.
IT WAS NIGHT, pity I was not the counsel because Bees do not fly at night.

Don't know what to say with all of that

Tippjohn

First of all these incidents were in Britain. Before the claim culture. Insurance companies have one aim and that is to make profit for their shareholders. They are not there to help clients who have to comply with legislation. The company really did try it on with the 3/12, it took 6 months for them to accept liability for the full claim. The police were wonderful. The whole thing ruined my friends life.
Whether you believe it or not is not relevent. I wished I had not posted at all, it was just to try to show people that correct cover is important.
The 3/12 try on would not work now. Ireland is/was very different to Britain. The awards here are in some cases ridiculous.
BTW as a 61 year old, self employed man, my Father got maximum for his age and lack of dependents. 7K for a life that was never the same. Unfourtunately he kept the trial secret from me being too proud.
Fatal accidents here have reccuring causes which I am sure we are all aware of.

readytosnap

Can someone answer me this. I have fully comp with full NCB and full NCB protection in fact I took every option available on the website when I took out the insurance.
I had to make a claim because my engine got contaminated by dodgy fuel and the engine needed to be replaced at a cost of just under €7000. (thankfully the insurance company paid out unlike some) The company told me my NCB wont be affected as it is protected (that rhymes) anyway my question is my renewal is coming up in about 4 weeks and i usually shop around online for quotes, but how do I respond to the have you had any claims in the last 3-5 yrs or whatever timeframe they are going to ask, if I say yes ( as I am required too) will that affect my quotes from other companies? even though I was not at fault in the claim, will other companies just see the 7k payout or will my renewal (when it arrives) have the usual NCB letter saying x amount of years claim free, even though I have had a claim. I hope I am making sense here.

To Elland Back

You have had a claim for €7,000 which must be disclosed to any potential insurer. You paid an additional premium to your current insurer to keep your bonus intact with THEM. No other insurer is obliged to recognise that. As a side issue, 'blame' is not required for anybody to have their bonus affected, it is a no 'claim' bonus

readytosnap

To Elland Back wrote: »

You have had a claim for €7,000 which must be disclosed to any potential insurer. You paid an additional premium to your current insurer to keep your bonus intact with THEM. No other insurer is obliged to recognise that. As a side issue, 'blame' is not required for anybody to have their bonus affected, it is a no 'claim' bonus

So in theory if I go elsewhere i will have no NCB but if I stay with my current insurer I will have an NCB, sounds like a bit of a rip off to me because it is only protected if you stay with us and we can charge you whatever we want because you wont be able to go anywhere else.
I just checked online and my renewal is 482€ last year I paid 280€, i entered my details (same car, address, DOB etc) on their website and I got a quote for 316€. big difference that is (obviously based on the claim) despite the NCB protection. do other companies look at the claim cause or just "its a claim"

To Elland Back

Where's the rip off? You gave extra premium to your insurer and you want a competitor to ignore their usual underwriting criteria because of it?

Your insurer is keeping your bonus allowance but the base rate for all insurers is going up and you will have to face that with your current insurer. And yes, a claim is just a claim. The level of it is dealt differently by the market

readytosnap

To Elland Back wrote: »

Where's the rip off? You gave extra premium to your insurer and you want a competitor to ignore their usual underwriting criteria because of it?

Your insurer is keeping your bonus allowance but the base rate for all insurers is going up and you will have to face that with your current insurer. And yes, a claim is just a claim. The level of it is dealt differently by the market

The rip off is they can charge me what they want because if i go elsewhere my NCB was not protected and through no fault of my own I am being penalised financially with the quote. like i said an online (same company same details) quote gets me 160 less than my renewal so that is a rip off, don't know why you cannot see that.
As for "blame" surely if you had a crash and it was your fault then rightly so your premium should go up, if the crash was not your fault but you still had to make a claim then why should your premium go up because of someone else's negligence. That is the way i am reading the situation. at the end of the day I have done nothing wrong never had a crash and my NCB has gone out the window because of some scumbag selling contaminated fuel. I realise I am lucky enough that they even paid out but that's why we have insurance no?.

To Elland Back

It's a No CLAIM Bonus, nothing is hidden in the language insurers use. As for NCBs in general, I've said it before, it is just a marketing tool generally used in the industry. Claim or No Claim, an insurer is not obliged to provide a discount because you have a piece of paper confirming your driving history. There is nothing, for example, preventing any insurer charging everyon €500 a policy regardless of whether you are a novice driver or someone who is claim free for 30 years

readytosnap

To Elland Back wrote: »

It's a No CLAIM Bonus, nothing is hidden in the language insurers use. As for NCBs in general, I've said it before, it is just a marketing tool generally used in the industry. Claim or No Claim, an insurer is not obliged to provide a discount because you have a piece of paper confirming your driving history. There is nothing, for example, preventing any insurer charging everyon €500 a policy regardless of whether you are a novice driver or someone who is claim free for 30 years

I understand what you are saying.

No point in arguing with you about it we are never going to agree. An increase of 72.4% is not in line with my NCB being protected,nor is it in line with any previous increases. I have never in the last 30 years had an increase of that magnitude, in fact the last 3 years I paid 280 and the previous 2 I paid 260.
The company i am with is obliged to provide that discount they told me, we will give you a discount based on the amount of NCB you have. the longer the NCB (upto 5 yrs) the higher the discount.

To Elland Back

Read the dozens of threads here about huge increases across the board this year for everyonea

wonski

readytosnap wrote: »

I understand what you are saying.

No point in arguing with you about it we are never going to agree. An increase of 72.4% is not in line with my NCB being protected,nor is it in line with any previous increases. I have never in the last 30 years had an increase of that magnitude, in fact the last 3 years I paid 280 and the previous 2 I paid 260.
The company i am with is obliged to provide that discount they told me, we will give you a discount based on the amount of NCB you have. the longer the NCB (upto 5 yrs) the higher the discount.

To be fair 116 euro increase after 7000 euro claim doesn't sound that bad.

Renewals are often more expensive than new customers rates.

I once let my policy lapse to avail of better rate.
Happens all the time.

Liam McPoyle

readytosnap wrote: »

So in theory if I go elsewhere i will have no NCB but if I stay with my current insurer I will have an NCB, sounds like a bit of a rip off to me because it is only protected if you stay with us and we can charge you whatever we want because you wont be able to go anywhere else.
I just checked online and my renewal is 482€ last year I paid 280€, i entered my details (same car, address, DOB etc) on their website and I got a quote for 316€. big difference that is (obviously based on the claim) despite the NCB protection. do other companies look at the claim cause or just "its a claim"

No, you still have your NCB.

The only issue is that some insurers may not quote you as you had a claim.

Liam McPoyle

readytosnap wrote: »

I understand what you are saying.

No point in arguing with you about it we are never going to agree. An increase of 72.4% is not in line with my NCB being protected,nor is it in line with any previous increases. I have never in the last 30 years had an increase of that magnitude, in fact the last 3 years I paid 280 and the previous 2 I paid 260.
The company i am with is obliged to provide that discount they told me, we will give you a discount based on the amount of NCB you have. the longer the NCB (upto 5 yrs) the higher the discount.

That level of premium is waaaaaay too low. It doesnt matter how many years claims free you have tbh. If you could guarantee that you would never have to claim then fair enough but as you discovered, some things happen that are beyond your control.

As an aside, who was responsible for putting the incorrect fuel in your car? If it was an attendant in a filling station then I would be very surprised if your insurance company are not trying to seek recovery (ie get the filling stations public liability insurance to pay them the cost of what they paid you). If it was a case that the fuel you bought was tainted then the same thing should happen. You should ask that question of the insurance company, presuming that it wasnt a case of you our someone on your behalf putting petrol in a diesel car or vice versa.

The fact of the matter is that if people had been paying between €400 and €500 a year over the last number of years for common or garden cars then the current increases would not be needed as there would be sufficient funds there to cover costs. The issue is because alot of people were paying less than €300 for fully comp with all the extras, ridiculous levels of premiums in other words.

Tippjohn

Business Cat, your statements about "common cars" and low premiums are in part right but not neccasarily financialy totally correct ( thats an open statement by me) What may happen is that profits at the end of the years have been distributed with little thought or even care to build up a fund. Possibly because rolled forward funds can become a huge corporation tax liability. In other words, make money, get it out, hope for the best.
This is why high interest rates for loans and investments led to a massive bank collapse when it got out of balance and there was insufficient to weather the storm.
Tighter controls on driving standards may be a better option than charging more, but that is for the state to decide.
Fact is that for many of us it has been a rip off that seems to be the result of a cartel.

Liam McPoyle

Tippjohn wrote: »

Business Cat, your statements about "common cars" and low premiums are in part right but not neccasarily financialy totally correct ( thats an open statement by me) What may happen is that profits at the end of the years have been distributed with little thought or even care to build up a fund. Possibly because rolled forward funds can become a huge corporation tax liability. In other words, make money, get it out, hope for the best.
This is why high interest rates for loans and investments led to a massive bank collapse when it got out of balance and there was insufficient to weather the storm.
Tighter controls on driving standards may be a better option than charging more, but that is for the state to decide.
Fact is that for many of us it has been a rip off that seems to be the result of a cartel.

Part of it is down to solvency II which is an EU requirement that insurers have a certain fund available to pay their claims, it was upped substantially (think it is officially in place January next) which is leaving insurers with a hole in their reserves.

Tippjohn

In other words it is nothing to do with 99.9% of drivers and all to do with being underfunded for competition reasons.
A bit like the banks, spent it all on bad investments for long term interest income to avoid tax.
What happened to the equality promise. Females no longer given cheaper prices against a similar male.
In fact they could all double their prices and we would still need them.