Car insurers using social media to find policies to void?

Toyotafanboi

i've read on TOC-IRL before (a site where a lot of cars would be modified) of people, who have had their policies cancelled from insurers finding their cars on Donedeal and the likes, noting that they are modified from the photos and ad description, then contacting the owner, asking for proof (photos) that the car is not modified and if they can-not prove it that the policy gets cancelled.

as far as i can see from threads posted, numerous members found themselves in that situation.

another method that i always found far fetched but that people did mention was insurers using fake Facebook profiles to get to see what people post about their cars on social media; again, photos or comments suggesting it's modified. the talk was that insurers would use a fake female profile that would suggest that the female is car enthusiast and add young men to get talking/ watching etc. now i always thought that this one might be a bit "urban legend", but low and behold it happened to me today.

got a Facebook friend request from an a generic female name, from a recently created profile, which has not got one single female friend in it's friends list and has a car as it's profile picture.

my Faceballs profile doesn't scream i'm a car guy, but i would have liked one or two Irish car scene/ photography pages, so that's clearly where they picked me up. Luckily my cars are unmodified and properly insured, but someone really needs to work on their game, a photo of a 5 Series in middle England, a LHD Polish 3 series, and an Irish Evo.

is this really an insurance tactic, has anybody heard of this? Business Cat? or is it just paranoia on the part of the young lads.

here's Michelle if anybody would like to talk mods
https://www.facebook.com/michelle.reddy.94214

Henry Ford III

I don't see any issue tbh.

If car enthusiasts want to mod their cars and disclose and insure them properly what's the problem?

Toyotafanboi

No issue myself, just thought it might make an interesting discussion.

We very quickly and very rightly complain that insurers seem to do nothing to counteract fraud and just keep rising prices in line with rising payouts for often spurious claims.

Yet here is a potential, very good example of them being very proactive around a particular line of fraud/ false declaration even if human nature would leave you to feel distinctly underhand.

Atlantic Dawn

It would be poor business sense for them to cancel the policy while it's active, would make more sense for them to add notes to the policy internally and then to use this to void any claim that comes up later down the line. I do believe when claims come in they currently use social media to initially see if there's a relationship between the two parties of a claim but if someone also posts up on Facebook that their lovely new M3 is 1.6 on book they will use this to avoid paying out to the insured party. The privacy level you have Facebook set to shouldn't be public if your posting up incriminating evidence that insurers or anyone could use against you.

Anyone accepting friend requests from unknown people is asking for trouble.

Lellostag

Seems sneaky in the extreme, but seeing their reluctance to insure anyone bar a 47 year old accountant driving a '12 Micra its not beyond the realms of possibilty...

kirving

I don't think they can knowingly take your money if they have a note against your policy which would void it in the event of a claim - even if it does make sense from a business perspective.

mullingar

Yes, Ive heard that too.

The policy simply has to match all declarations of any modifications to the car.

It was in the news a few months and Liveline that even a "fuel saving adapter" :rolleyes: on a 320d has voided insurance when as assessor discovered it.

Liam McPoyle

Its not something I've heard of tbh and I'd find it surprising if its common practice outside of a claims scenario.

There would be alot of work involved in putting it into practice so I'd suspect unless they think a customer is pulling a fast one or someone reports an ad then its prolly just an urban legend.

biko

I don't think they actively seek out modders but they do check your social media if you make a claim

Part of the new claims-investigation process is for an adjuster, agent or insurance company to look for the Facebook, Twitter or other social media account of a person claiming bodily injury stemming from an accident, Helfand says. They're looking for proof that the person is filing a fraudulent claim, he says.

If the part of your accident claim is for a back injury and you share post-accident pictures of you golfing, surfing or playing ball with the kids, your claim could be denied.

"Over the years, social media has killed a bunch of claims," says Helfand.

"Almost every insurance company has a special investigation unit (SIU), and policyholders should work on the assumption that SIUs will look into questionable or fraudulent claims," says Michael Barry, vice president of media relations for the Insurance Information Institute.

"Mining social media for clues is one of the fastest-growing areas of insurance-fraud investigation," says James Quiggle of the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud in a report published in 2012.

http://www.edmunds.com/auto-insurance/car-insurance-companies-use-facebook-for-claims-investigations.html

Alanstrainor

You would be quite foolish to assume that these companies don't look up facebook profiles when the **** hits the fan. Banks do when you have credit card debt, social welfare will when you're on the dole. Assume everyone does it. Lock your profiles as much as possible and don't put silly things online.

Stinicker

What would happen if two people who did know each other and were friends just happened to crash into each other genuinely. This could happen easily enough in a rural area for example.

millington

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It would be poor business sense for them to cancel the policy while it's active, would make more sense for them to add notes to the policy internally and then to use this to void any claim that comes up later down the line. I do believe when claims come in they currently use social media to initially see if there's a relationship between the two parties of a claim but if someone also posts up on Facebook that their lovely new M3 is 1.6 on book they will use this to avoid paying out to the insured party. The privacy level you have Facebook set to shouldn't be public if your posting up incriminating evidence that insurers or anyone could use against you.

Anyone accepting friend requests from unknown people is asking for trouble.

Surely this makes more sense! I've heard the rumours but it makes no sense that they would add the person on Facebook, see pictures, and then ask for more pictures to prove its standard when they have the proof its not.

Coincidence I reckon.

Liam McPoyle

Stinicker wrote: »

What would happen if two people who did know each other and were friends just happened to crash into each other genuinely. This could happen easily enough in a rural area for example.

Once people are 100% upfront then genuine claims will be paid.

The case last year when a couple denied knowing each other was clearly a case of them engineering the claim.

To Elland Back

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It would be poor business sense for them to cancel the policy while it's active, would make more sense for them to add notes to the policy internally and then to use this to void any claim that comes up later down the line. .

For an insurer to refuse a claim for non-disclosure and void a policy, they have to give all the premium back. In other words, treat the policy as if it never existed. If they wait, there is a chance that a 3rd party claim may come in and they can't walk away from that. Better to cancel immediately

joujoujou

The best way to avoid all that is NOT to have any (anti)social media account at all.

Socialize yourself in a pub, live show, sports event on here, on Boards.

End of story. :cool:

ironclaw

Business Cat wrote: »

There would be alot of work involved in putting it into practice so I'd suspect unless they think a customer is pulling a fast one or someone reports an ad then its prolly just an urban legend.

Speaking from the technical side, it actually wouldn't be that hard to mine the data from the various sources. All the social networks have amazing API's for all sorts of data collection. Ireland is quite small and the hot spots for finding this sort of information even smaller. I wouldn't put it beyond possibility at all especially given the money that insurance companies would have to throw at this.

Take for example Car Zone, you could mine every ad for photos, and run them through character recognition to likely expose a reg or partial reg. Then mine the text for gems such 'Only XYZ on the book' or 'Uprated' etc. Those two processes alone are easily achievable on very cheap hardware and minimal development effort. Most forum's have a bypass for Web Crawlers to index and they are usually not very well calibrated, so harvesting from forums is easy. Keep all this info nicely collated and searchable in the event of a claim, hey presto, you got yourself a tidy business.

The flip side however is the Data Protection involved, are companies at liberty to snoop like this, I'd argue if its public domain then they are.

Yakuza

Insurance companies routinely employ (and have done so for years) PIs to check that some bloke with a whiplash claim isn't moonlighting as a trapeze artist etc (ok so I'm being a bit glib here, but you get the point) so this is just a 21st-century, social media equivalent.

If it cuts down on claims due to non-declaration of modifications, then that's only a good thing for the vast majority of people who don't mod their cars as it will hopefully mitigate the inexorable rise of claim numbers and costs.

_Brian

Why not.

Anything that reduced overall risk and so in the long term may lower premiums has to be welcomed.

If Cars are modded by "enthusiasts" then surely they should insure them properly.

dar83

_Brian wrote: »

If Cars are modded by "enthusiasts" then surely they should insure them properly.

If only it was that easy...

TheShow

if it helps stop the cost of insurance from rising, I cant see any issue with this.
if yo disclose fraudulent information then why wouldnt they cancel the policy.

Asmooh

the rules are absolutely rubbish, you should be able to mod anything you want about your car as long its road worthy and thats the only thing they should care about.

If you gain more power you should tell this so they can maybe change it in the registration but other than that the most performance parts are better than OEM (if you buy real stuff and not some crappy brand).


I rather see people that are driving in a modified car but actually care about their car because its their hobby than people that just use the car driving the same road every day and don't even notice their car is falling apart, thinking they know everything just because they have a "standard" car.

Henry Ford III

Asmooh wrote: »

the rules are absolutely rubbish, you should be able to mod anything you want about your car as long its road worthy and thats the only thing they should care about.

If you gain more power you should tell this so they can maybe change it in the registration but other than that the most performance parts are better than OEM (if you buy real stuff and not some crappy brand).


I rather see people that are driving in a modified car but actually care about their car because its their hobby than people that just use the car driving the same road every day and don't even notice their car is falling apart, thinking they know everything just because they have a "standard" car.

Motor underwriting is a bit of a maze but I don't think there's any disputing that more performance equals a higher risk is there?

Asmooh

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Motor underwriting is a bit of a maze but I don't think there's any disputing that more performance equals a higher risk is there?

Lets tell people not to use their phone in traffic, that will make sure the risks are less high, not the performance of the car (at least if you can drive)

Liam McPoyle

Asmooh wrote: »

Lets tell people not to use their phone in traffic, that will make sure the risks are less high, not the performance of the car (at least if you can drive)

It's illegal to use your phone when driving?

bladespin

Asmooh wrote: »

Lets tell people not to use their phone in traffic, that will make sure the risks are less high, not the performance of the car (at least if you can drive)

Wow, just wow - no matter what you do don't FB that!!!

Asmooh

Business Cat wrote: »

It's illegal to use your phone when driving?

I see more people holding their phone in traffic than people that are not -_-

Caliden

Yea it's done.
The policy is cancelled and a note is put on the car in the main insurance DB so that it's flagged for other insurers. The person is also flagged with the insurer and any brokers they deal with so any future policies they try to get, they will have to speak directly with someone and won't get a quote online.

Golfgorfield

Or another great idea, declare modifications made to a car to the insurer as per what they require you to by law.
I had a scrote crash into me in his Civic that was registered as a 1.4, however was fitted with full Type R running gear, unknown to his insurers.
They refused to pay out based on the fact his car wasn't as described and therefore the insurance was null and void.

Toyotafanboi

Golfgorfield wrote: »

Or another great idea, declare modifications made to a car to the insurer as per what they require you to by law.
I had a scrote crash into me in his Civic that was registered as a 1.4, however was fitted with full Type R running gear, unknown to his insurers.
They declared his car uninsured and i lost my car.

I thought that they still had to cover third party claims?

emeldc

Golfgorfield wrote: »

Or another great idea, declare modifications made to a car to the insurer as per what they require you to by law.
I had a scrote crash into me in his Civic that was registered as a 1.4, however was fitted with full Type R running gear, unknown to his insurers.
They refused to pay out based on the fact his car wasn't as described and therefore the insurance was null and void.

And you accepted that ???????

Golfgorfield

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

I thought that they still had to cover third party claims?

Thats what i thought, it may be the case now, but this was 2002 so not sure what the difference may be.

Still doesn't mean its ok to give fraudulent info to an insurance company.

Golfgorfield

emeldc wrote: »

And you accepted that ???????

Of course not, months and months of correspondence with the insurance ensued, my solicitor got involved, i didn't get a penny.

Toyotafanboi

Golfgorfield wrote: »

Thats what i thought, it may be the case now, but this was 2002 so not sure what the difference may be.

Still doesn't mean its ok to give fraudulent info to an insurance company.

Oh yeah, i'm not trying to justify it. Just struggling with the idea that they managed to get away without having to fix up with you. Did you take it to court or what?

emeldc

Golfgorfield wrote: »

Of course not, months and months of correspondence with the insurance ensued, my solicitor got involved, i didn't get a penny.

They paid you for the car surely???
If you ask an insurance company if you are insured to drive while you have a bandage on your big toe, the chances are they'll say no.
So how come you can get behind the wheel pissed as a fart and still be covered to drive??
It wasn't your fault that his car was modified.

Golfgorfield

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

Oh yeah, i'm not trying to justify it. Just struggling with the idea that they managed to get away without having to fix up with you. Did you take it to court or what?

To be honest i couldn't afford it based on the damage, i took it on the chin eventually.

emeldc

Golfgorfield wrote: »

To be honest i couldn't afford it based on the damage, i took it on the chin eventually.

My pi$$ is boiling here. You should have been compensated for your car and any personal injuries. If you got legal advice your solicitor should be shot.

Special Circumstances

emeldc wrote: »

My pi$$ is boiling here. You should have been compensated for your car and any personal injuries. If you got legal advice your solicitor should be shot.

Golfgorfield's solicitor shortly after gg gave up the case...

emeldc

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Golfgorfield's solicitor shortly after gg gave up the case...

Bast**d

Sh1tbag OToole

How does the insurance industry staffer looking through facebook profiles know the person isn't talking sh1te? I'm sure at least one person has exaggerated the extend to which they customised their car in order to be in with the kool kids on social media, when in fact all they done was throw on some aftermarket exhaust tips

Henry Ford III

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

How does the insurance industry staffer looking through facebook profiles know the person isn't talking sh1te? I'm sure at least one person has exaggerated the extend to which they customised their car in order to be in with the kool kids on social media, when in fact all they done was throw on some aftermarket exhaust tips

They don't.

p.s. Pics are prima facie evidence though.

Liam McPoyle

emeldc wrote: »

My pi$$ is boiling here. You should have been compensated for your car and any personal injuries. If you got legal advice your solicitor should be shot.

Something doesn't add up here.

The road traffic act 1961 garauntees that an innocent third party will be compensated in the event of a loss caused by another.

The ONLY time an insurer can refuse a third party claim is if the policy holder had gotten the policy by fraudulent means AND they had a previous conviction for fraud.

In that instance it falls to the MIBI as the policy holder is deemed to be uninsured.

Asmooh

My advice is to have all your posts for friends only, also all your information. It's not good to have stuff online for others that are not your friends to see, specially if you use your own name

emeldc

Business Cat wrote: »

Something doesn't add up here.

The road traffic act 1961 garauntees that an innocent third party will be compensated in the event of a loss caused by another.

The ONLY time an insurer can refuse a third party claim is if the policy holder had gotten the policy by fraudulent means AND they had a previous conviction for fraud.

In that instance it falls to the MIBI as the policy holder is deemed to be uninsured.

Yep, that's it in a nutshell. Either we're not being told the full story or his solicitor hadn't a clue what was going on.

Asmooh wrote: »

My advice is to have all your posts for friends only, also all your information. It's not good to have stuff online for others that are not your friends to see, specially if you use your own name

I don't have a FB page myself so excuse the ignorance but can your 'friends' not share your posts and pictures making them as good as public again.

Asmooh

emeldc wrote: »

Yep, that's it in a nutshell. Either we're not being told the full story or his solicitor hadn't a clue what was going on.




I don't have a FB page myself so excuse the ignorance but can your 'friends' not share your posts and pictures making them as good as public again.

You get a notification if someone shares your posts and you can tell that person to delete it or go away

emeldc

Asmooh wrote: »

You get a notification if someone shares your posts and you can tell that person to delete it or go away

Closing the gate after the horse as bolted 'like' :rolleyes:

endacl

I hope the silly cnut I was nearly wiped out by at the Blanch exit to the M50 veering all over the road taking selfies posts them to her Twatface page. In feckin' rush hour traffic. I hope insurance companies are picking up on that shyte if they are monitoring social media.

To Elland Back

Golfgorfield wrote: »

Of course not, months and months of correspondence with the insurance ensued, my solicitor got involved, i didn't get a penny.

I can only assume that the 'scrote' was not the cause of the accident. Just because he misrepresented his car to his insurers does not make him liable for what happened in the accident

Either that or you hired the most incompetent solicitor in Ireland

LawlessBoy

emeldc wrote: »

I don't have a FB page myself so excuse the ignorance but can your 'friends' not share your posts and pictures making them as good as public again.

Still won't go past your friends. As long as you have your privacy settings right and Facebook are pushing the privacy thing a lot lately. Get a pop up at the top of my page every time I log in now a days.

bladespin

emeldc wrote:

Closing the gate after the horse as bolted 'like'

There are caching systems out there, if it's been published at any stage there's a reasonable chance it can be found.

emeldc

LawlessBoy wrote: »

Still won't go past your friends. As long as you have your privacy settings right and Facebook are pushing the privacy thing a lot lately. Get a pop up at the top of my page every time I log in now a days.

Last question on this .
So if I send you, my best 'friend', a picture of my bits, can you not save that picture to your laptop and then post it somewhere else without me knowing.

Del2005

emeldc wrote: »

Last question on this .
So if I send you, my best 'friend', a picture of my bits, can you not save that picture to your laptop and then post it somewhere else without me knowing.

Yes. They can even take pictures of your car in your driveway, if you don't have a 2.5m high solid gate and wall, and post them pictures on Facebook or anywhere else on the internet.