Insurance Companies. Arses and elbows.

goz83

I have given up trying to tack logic to insurance companies. The people on the phone don't seem to know their arses from their elbows.

The background problem, is that i was in a car accident last year. I was rear ended and suffered a serious enough injury. The third party admitted liability. Their insurance paid out for my written off car. I notified my insurance company, but did not make any claim on my policy.

Fast forward a couple of months and I had major trouble getting quotes for my own renewal. I had to stay with my current insurer, because there was (or would be) a claim for personal injury. The insurance reps seemed not to care that the accident was ever so clearly not my fault and in most cases, flat out refused to quote me.

And then yesterday, when ringing around for quotes for my wife, I ran into the same problem when I was being added as a named driver. They wouldn't add me to the quote, because there is an open claim. The claim, I explained, is not against my policy and I was not at fault. What confused me was that AA insurance agreed to quote me once I explained the nature of the claim, but other insurers would not. It generally makes our policies cheaper when we are added as named drivers, so the quotes were more expensive as a result.

I don't think insurance companies should be allowed to refuse to quote on the basis of a no fault claim. PI claims can last years and aside from medical costs and loss of earnings, I have to stomach higher insurance on my own policy and now my wifes policy, because these fooking idiots say so. It doesn't make sense. Surely they would suffer no exposure, even if, in the unlikely event, a claim were to be made against the person who was not at fault. Wouldn't any claim be made against the policies held on the date of the accident, rather than any new insurer?

sunnysoutheast

goz83 wrote: »

I have given up trying to tack logic to insurance companies. The people on the phone don't seem to know their arses from their elbows.

The background problem, is that i was in a car accident last year. I was rear ended and suffered a serious enough injury. The third party admitted liability. Their insurance paid out for my written off car. I notified my insurance company, but did not make any claim on my policy.

Fast forward a couple of months and I had major trouble getting quotes for my own renewal. I had to stay with my current insurer, because there was (or would be) a claim for personal injury. The insurance reps seemed not to care that the accident was ever so clearly not my fault and in most cases, flat out refused to quote me.

And then yesterday, when ringing around for quotes for my wife, I ran into the same problem when I was being added as a named driver. They wouldn't add me to the quote, because there is an open claim. The claim, I explained, is not against my policy and I was not at fault. What confused me was that AA insurance agreed to quote me once I explained the nature of the claim, but other insurers would not. It generally makes our policies cheaper when we are added as named drivers, so the quotes were more expensive as a result.

I don't think insurance companies should be allowed to refuse to quote on the basis of a no fault claim. PI claims can last years and aside from medical costs and loss of earnings, I have to stomach higher insurance on my own policy and now my wifes policy, because these fooking idiots say so. It doesn't make sense. Surely they would suffer no exposure, even if, in the unlikely event, a claim were to be made against the person who was not at fault. Wouldn't any claim be made against the policies held on the date of the accident, rather than any new insurer?

Pretty much the same thing happened to me after a clearly no-fault accident in the UK in 2013. On renewal I had to declare a potential claim which impacted the premium. When I moved to Ireland I had a rare old time even getting a company to quote me with an open claim. Of course the kicker is that my insurance company in the UK at the time had actually CLOSED the claim as clearly no-fault when I sent the accident report in to them a few weeks after it happened, without actually telling anybody! So in the eyes of new insurers I didn't have an open claim at all from that point onwards.

It might be worth asking your previous insurers whether they have or will close the claim (in my case the other driver was prosecuted which made fault obvious). My solicitor also told me that, should a claim be closed as non-fault, any additional premium due to the potential "open" claim should be refunded - but there is a loading applied even on no-fault claims which is not recoverable. I am still trying to get the additional premium refunded from Zurich in the UK. Liberty said that they didn't apply any loading for the open claim.

Good luck with it!

goz83

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

It might be worth asking your previous insurers whether they have or will close the claim


Liberty said that they didn't apply any loading for the open claim.

With both my renewal and the renewal for my wife, I just kept the insurance with Liberty, who already knew about the accident and the claims being made through the other insurer.

Luckily, the renewal prices were both pretty good, but I know I could have done a little better, had I not been in an accident at all. I'll be dreading every renewal until the claim is closed.

I don't suppose the ombudsman would be of any use here? It seems to be a very recent problem, because I had no insurance issues after a similar, less serious accident in 2011. I could understand people not mentioning no-fault accidents. It's completely unfair and totally senseless.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I have found insurance companies to be generally clueless when it comes to anything related to their own business. They have absolutely no idea or knowledge in cars they're insuring and still operate in the basis that if the car is a 2 litre then it must be as powerful as God himself and so they charge a premium. They have no idea about Japanese imports and are stuck in 1980 and of the opinion that all Japanese imports are rare obscure models and impossible to get parts for. They really are ****e at their own business.

peckerhead

goz83 wrote: »

I could understand people not mentioning no-fault accidents. It's completely unfair and totally senseless.

I agree, but anyone doing this is providing the insurer with an instant "out" in the event of a claim.

I don't think it's just incompetence, tbh. You never see these kinds of anomalies operating to the benefit of the customer — unless someone can ciite me an example of, say, having been offered a ridiculously low premium on the basis of such misunderstanding?

Insurance companies are staffed essentially along two lines — one office full of BS salespeople tasked with overselling/misselling insurance in such a way as to maximise profit, the other full of claims adjuster sharks whose primary target is to avoid or reduce as far as possible any payouts under these policies. And in the back office, generally on far higher salaries, the actuaries who plan, structure and price the companies' products to make sure that "the house always wins". I distrust insurance companies more than I would distrust a door-to-door salesman offering cheap carpets.

It's not for nothing that they regularly figure at the top of the league tables for consumer complaints.

Clearlier

I don't think that it's quite as simple as being made out in this thread. It might be worth taking a look at this thread for a more rounded view of motor insurance.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057356381

edburg

AA done me over to, got hit by a bloke in 2012 who admitted liability at scene but after couple days reused to tell his insurance as he wanted a slap n dash filler merchant to fix my car privately. Phoned AA asked what could be done if chap did not inform insurance. Got the info went to slap n dash chap he agreed couldn't be done and chap in end told his insurance. Great I thought.

8 Months later AA NCB cert with open claim through them, scratching head phoned they told me they had started a claim and were waiting my response still. I pointed I had not claimed just wanted to options NOT claim and chap had sorted it out mean time. They agreed that was the case and said they send out new NCB cert with max NCB. Got a cert with step back and only step 6, fumed explained again they agreed again to send out new cert got exactly same cert again.

Several more phone calls and eventually told as I made call that it effectively was a claim and was left on history and that was that.


Insurance is dark mirky world of grumpy con artists.

goz83

Clearlier wrote: »

I don't think that it's quite as simple as being made out in this thread. It might be worth taking a look at this thread for a more rounded view of motor insurance.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057356381

Well, I wasn't saying that insurance was simple, but I don't see why a person should be penalised for being in an accident, which another person is to blame for.....especially when the property part of the claim is settled by the other insurer.

Thanks for the link to the thread by the way. Very informative. I only wish I had the chance to ask my question there.

Leprechaun77

I had a similar situation and came across this practice. It is absolutely ridiculous that you are penalised for someone else crashing into you. I even had a letter confirming liability from the other party's insurer. I believe this is more common in the UK where they load your premium, even when the claim is closed. They believe that if somebody is involved in an accident, regardless of fault, that they have a higher chance of being involved in another one, and more likely to claim/litigate. I think this goes too far into the risk profiling, regardless of what the actuarial stats say.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I have found insurance companies to be generally clueless when it comes to anything related to their own business. They have absolutely no idea or knowledge in cars they're insuring and still operate in the basis that if the car is a 2 litre then it must be as powerful as God himself and so they charge a premium. They have no idea about Japanese imports and are stuck in 1980 and of the opinion that all Japanese imports are rare obscure models and impossible to get parts for. They really are ****e at their own business.

No, they are great at their own business.
They use any excuse to charge more and make more of a profit.

fwiw I hate insurance companies and would not have insurance if it were not a requirement

Boskowski

Its really down to lack of correct regulation They just shouldn't be allowed to do this.

goz83

Boskowski wrote: »

Its really down to lack of correct regulation They just shouldn't be allowed to do this.

I wonder what can be done to stop them from doing this. Its bad enough when someone crashes into you, especially if you're injured, but the insurance screwing you over is a bridge too far.

Chris_Heilong

You should be able to get a letter from your last insurance company stating 'claim reported Non fault nil payout' thats what I done when someone crashed into me, If you got a payout from the other parties insurance then the claim should be closed. If you were both with liberty then maybe its a little more complex.

goz83

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

You should be able to get a letter from your last insurance company stating 'claim reported Non fault nil payout' thats what I done when someone crashed into me, If you got a payout from the other parties insurance then the claim should be closed. If you were both with liberty then maybe its a little more complex.

Hi Chris. Most of the insurance companies and brokers said that "any open claim" regardless of blame, meant that they couldn't quote. Now, the title of the thread is adequate, because AA wouldn't quote me a few months ago for my own policy when I told them about the non-fault claim (which I hadn't yet put through, but still told them about it for full disclosure) and this time around, after some explaining, the AA rep did quote with me on the policy. So, it's safe to say, that at best, their criteria is as clear as mud.