National demonstration against the rising cost of insurance

ThisRegard

Kiangriffin wrote: »

Hi Guys, I'm the one organising this. We have no intention of blocking up the M50, we'll try to avoid it as much as possible. We'll be going directly into the city. We chose a Saturday as more people are available to go without having to rearrange work commitments and it also will have less of an impact on the ordinary workers of Dublin.
The idea is to show numbers, not disrupt everyone. Also we are very adamant that anyone coming along will not be allowed to do any messing in their cars whatsoever. That message is being drilled to all the local organisers. Any messing would (obviously) be counter productive.

Again you'll only be inconveniencing the general public who'll just be pissed off with you, regardless of your well intention motives.

And I'd drop the 'ordinary workers' phrase, it has associations with unions and certain corners of the political spectrum.

Kiangriffin

What's the alternative? Lie down and take it?

Kiangriffin

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Presumably you have done your home work on the insurance industry?

You would be familiar with Solvency 2, the collapse of Setanta, the changes to district and circuit court awards that have more than doubled the limits that can be awarded, the prevalence of claims farming, the requirement that insurance companies have to reimburse the social welfare system for claimants, the increased costs of reinsurance, the worldwide financial downturn that has resulted in significant reductions in interest rates that means previously profitable investment streams for insurers are now near useless.

You know, the things that are effecting the insurance industry rates.

Im sure you are completely au fait with all of that and have a cast iron way that insurers can write policies and not lose money.

Instead of protesting you should contact the biggest insurers in the world because they will pay you what ever you want for information like that.

The primary issue we have is with the excessive and fraudulent claims. It's currently cheaper for insurance companies to simply pay out claims they know to be false. that's where change has to begin, in the justice system. Insurance fraud has to be properly tackled and the massive payouts have to be reigned in.
I don't blame the insurance companies for increasing charges to keep up profitability, thats the whole point of business. The aim here is to start a real discussion at government level about what can be done in legislature to ease the costs on those same insurance companies. I would, of course, expect the companies to pass those savings onto us, should anything come of this.

robarmstrong

It just needs to be regulated, too many companies have saturated the market.

Each company uses different risk analysis statistics from what I'm aware of so that's why the quotes vary when realistically it should be regulated so they all at least use the same software/algorithm.

Chiorino

robarmstrong wrote: »

It just needs to be regulated, too many companies have saturated the market.

Each company uses different risk analysis statistics from what I'm aware of so that's why the quotes vary when realistically it should be regulated so they all at least use the same software/algorithm.

It is regulated, heavily some would say, by the Central Bank. More companies = greater competition and lower end prices for the consumer. Why would you want to reduce this?

Companies may use different underwriting criteria because of the type of market/customer they target. Are you saying all insurers should quote the same prices?

Special Circumstances

It would be interesting to see if they would consider ANY engagement with Joe Public, rather than the "anyone driving a 15year old car is a scammer" type interactions they favour.

Insurance grouping? A little transparency maybe?
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/insurance/car-insurance-groups/volkswagen/passat/saloon-2005/

Chris_Heilong

Good for the protesters if they get noticed, its not the people's problem to 'fix' the system from its root, they should protest the Government and let them investigate the reasons and solutions. An overhaul of how insurance works here would be the best option.

Cortina_MK_IV

We ask you to write to your local TD's to ask their support for this.

I wrote to my local TDs in January about not being able to see a GP so I wont hold my breath on this.

Liam McPoyle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Would ye be open to releasing any kinda sanitized facts and figures? Top 10 loaded everyday cars. Top 10 loaded areas. Top 10 loaded occupations?

There's a lot of opacity for something people are legally obliged to spend 800 on average on.

People around these parts are fond of describing the insurance industry as a cartel. If they did as you suggested then a cartel would be what would develop.

Think about it.

Insurer A suffers a disproportionate amount of claims in a particular area on home insurance due to theft.

It was a roving gang that has since moved on but of course, the companies cannot know this.

The information goes out into the public domain and two things will happen.

Firstly other insurers won't want the business because its not a black spot leaving people uninsured.

Secondly it will become a target for criminal gangs due to the fact its been documented that there were a number of successful break ins in the area.

The same could be said for motor insurance.

One insurer may suffer disproportionate losses based on a particular vehicle make, that doesn't necessarily mean the particular vehicle make is more likely to crash, they may just have been unlucky but if its in the public domain then other companies won't want the business and the customers lose again.

If they all operated from the exact same criteria then a cartel would develop.

It will also mean an increase of fraud as people will try to lie / bend the truth to suit the acceptance criteria.

We are going through the insurance cycle, see diagram below. We are currently in the hard market but as things improve then it will change.

Special Circumstances

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

People around these parts are fond of describing the insurance industry as a cartel. If they did as you suggested then a cartel would be what would develop.

Think about it.

Insurer A suffers a disproportionate amount of claims in a particular area on home insurance due to theft.

It was a roving gang that has since moved on but of course, the companies cannot know this.

The information goes out into the public domain and two things will happen.

Firstly other insurers won't want the business because its not a black spot leaving people uninsured.

Secondly it will become a target for criminal gangs due to the fact its been documented that there were a number of successful break ins in the area.

The same could be said for motor insurance.

One insurer may suffer disproportionate losses based on a particular vehicle make, that doesn't necessarily mean the particular vehicle make is more likely to crash, they may just have been unlucky but if its in the public domain then other companies won't want the business and the customers lose again.

If they all operated from the exact same criteria then a cartel would develop.

It will also mean an increase of fraud as people will try to lie / bend the truth to suit the acceptance criteria.

We are going through the insurance cycle, see diagram below. We are currently in the hard market but as things improve then it will change.

I do see what you mean - the situation you describe sounds very like a group of insurers refusing to insure cars older than 15 years.

I guess the industry in the UK must be rotten as fvck so if they can list not only the top ten loaded cars but actually assign a rating to each and every sub model. Madness isn't it?

robarmstrong

Chiorino wrote: »

It is regulated, heavily some would say, by the Central Bank. More companies = greater competition and lower end prices for the consumer. Why would you want to reduce this?

Companies may use different underwriting criteria because of the type of market/customer they target. Are you saying all insurers should quote the same prices?

Sorry I was unintentionally vague.

Regulated as in the Insurance Ombudsman should be more heavily involved in some of the more ridiculous quotes circulating lately on online quote forms, the whole hesitancy to insure cars older than 12-15 years old leaving a considerable gap between that and classical insurance? It does seem to show that they have a bias towards newer cars probably without realizing that Joe Average will believe that he's been screwed over because he has to buy a new car that he cannot afford and whatnot.

The amount of excessive payouts needs to be clamped down, I was told that my company paid out €20000+ for the claim against me which was completely fraudulent and wasn't worthy of a claim whatsoever.

I love the older sporty looking Corolla's(97-99). I would like to own one and if I had one it would be maintained perfectly and would be validly NCT'ed (NCT is a farce anyways, your car can have NCT but it won't get insured because of "age", brilliant!) serviced as regularly as possible. Why should it cost astronomical amounts to insure that car when I can buy one for around 800-1000 (with NCT) and look after it myself to ensure it's in the best condition possible?

Special Circumstances

Kiangriffin wrote: »

What's the alternative? Lie down and take it?

I applaud anyone willing to stand up and make a decent peaceful protest in this country.

The "I'm alright Jacks" and the "Wouldn't want to be making a Fuss nows" are significant part of why this country is the way it is.

Give it yer best shot anyway.

Chiorino

robarmstrong wrote: »

Sorry I was unintentionally vague.

Regulated as in the Insurance Ombudsman should be more heavily involved in some of the more ridiculous quotes circulating lately on online quote forms, the whole hesitancy to insure cars older than 12-15 years old leaving a considerable gap between that and classical insurance? It does seem to show that they have a bias towards newer cars probably without realizing that Joe Average will believe that he's been screwed over because he has to buy a new car that he cannot afford and whatnot.

The amount of excessive payouts needs to be clamped down, I was told that my company paid out €20000+ for the claim against me which was completely fraudulent and wasn't worthy of a claim whatsoever.

I love the older sporty looking Corolla's(97-99). I would like to own one and if I had one it would be maintained perfectly and would be validly NCT'ed (NCT is a farce anyways, your car can have NCT but it won't get insured because of "age", brilliant!) serviced as regularly as possible. Why should it cost astronomical amounts to insure that car when I can buy one for around 800-1000 (with NCT) and look after it myself to ensure it's in the best condition possible?

Agreed, the sums being paid out are ridiculous. One of the real missed opportunities of the troika calling the shots a few years back was that the legal system was not tackled. Another option would be to have the book of quantum placed on some sort of statutory footing which judges would be obliged to follow.

I don't agree with the current trend re older cars, I drive one myself, always have, always will. If it has a valid NCT/DOE then it should be possible to insure at comparatively reasonable rates.

Aongus Von Heisenberg

Kiangriffin wrote: »

The primary issue we have is with the excessive and fraudulent claims. It's currently cheaper for insurance companies to simply pay out claims they know to be false. that's where change has to begin, in the justice system. Insurance fraud has to be properly tackled and the massive payouts have to be reigned in.
I don't blame the insurance companies for increasing charges to keep up profitability, thats the whole point of business. The aim here is to start a real discussion at government level about what can be done in legislature to ease the costs on those same insurance companies. I would, of course, expect the companies to pass those savings onto us, should anything come of this.

Fair play and best of luck. The extent to which this issue has been avoided up to now is shameful and it's good to see someone highlighting it. There are plenty of very workable solutions to spiraling claims that have been proven to work in other, similar jurisdictions with minimal injustice to genuinely injured claimants. The only thing barring such solutions here is lobbying from the legal profession.

ironclaw

Kiangriffin wrote: »

What's the alternative? Lie down and take it?

Actually the alternative is to educate people. 'The banks' or 'The bankers' or 'greedy executives' apparently are all out to screw us. Maybe if we showed the hard facts of what these companies are actually up against in this claim culture we are developing? I'm no fan of insurance companies but the reality is there need to make a profit and cover their liabilities to be able to pay out to people who actually need it.

€14k for whiplash is a joke. That's before costs on either side, so call it a round €30k, or another way, 30 drivers premiums. Have we completely lost the run of ourselves? Life changing and serious injury, I have no objection. But for everything else, it should at least be vouched or bench-marked. Two crashes a year equates to a graduates salary, that sure is attractive for a certain element of society and you'd be a right fool if you thought people weren't in on this game.

Kiangriffin

ironclaw wrote: »

Actually the alternative is to educate people. 'The banks' or 'The bankers' or 'greedy executives' apparently are all out to screw us. Maybe if we showed the hard facts of what these companies are actually up against in this claim culture we are developing? I'm no fan of insurance companies but the reality is there need to make a profit and cover their liabilities to be able to pay out to people who actually need it.

€14k for whiplash is a joke. That's before costs on either side, so call it a round €30k, or another way, 30 drivers premiums. Have we completely lost the run of ourselves? Life changing and serious injury, I have no objection. But for everything else, it should at least be vouched or bench-marked. Two crashes a year equates to a graduates salary, that sure is attractive for a certain element of society and you'd be a right fool if you thought people weren't in on this game.

Completely agree, I've raised those exact issues with TD's over the past few months but I've grown frustrated with the lack of progress, hence the demonstration.

Special Circumstances

ironclaw wrote: »

€14k for whiplash is a joke. That's before costs on either side, so call it a round €30k, or another way, 30 drivers premiums. Have we completely lost the run of ourselves? Life changing and serious injury, I have no objection. But for everything else, it should at least be vouched or bench-marked. Two crashes a year equates to a graduates salary, that sure is attractive for a certain element of society and you'd be a right fool if you thought people weren't in on this game.

I don't think costs are awarded at the PIAB. It's your own choice to engage legal representation.

How much does somebody's insurance increase now even if the claim was not their fault. How long must you declare that for? Insurance companies are ratcheting their own costs in many ways but because their product is a legal obligation they just keep pushing all these things back on Joe Public rather than dealing with things intelligently.

Random UK information - "As if someone crashing into the back of your car isn't annoying enough, finding that you are being charged almost a third more for car insurance as result is likely to provoke road rage in even the calmest of motorists."

There is a LOT more to how you lose out when you are the innocent victim of an idiot's driving. Not saying 15k is the right figure, but I think insurers count on a lot of people thinking "oh a couple of nurofen = 15k FREE money", so that they can influence a "ban" on soft tissue injuries.
Akin to a "ban" on physics and biology in my book but heh, let's not drag science and common sense into these things :pac:

Del2005

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I don't think costs are awarded at the PIAB. It's your own choice to engage legal representation.

People go to the PIAB, reject the award and go to court where costs are covered. You'd want to be an idiot to accept the PIAB offer when the courts award huge sums.

hi5

The best of luck to you OP, remember you don't need to know all the facts and figures, you just need to know that you are paying an unaffordable amount and that you and many others are sick and tired of it.
You will always get those vested interests coming out of the woodworm with all sorts of pseudo intellectual crap to try and put you back in your box before you even get started.
So get lots of people on your side and keep repeating that your paying too much and you want change over and over and that's really all you need to do.
It's like pester power, you become a thorn in the side of those who can make changes, you just keep repeating the mantra and something will be done.
Look at the water protesters!

Btw, have a look at Adrian S Flux he tried to get insurance on his kit car, nobody would insure him so he set up his own brokers, 600 people working for him now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Flux_Insurance_Services

Brian Scan

Kiangriffin wrote: »

What's the alternative? Lie down and take it?

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I applaud anyone willing to stand up and make a decent peaceful protest in this country.

The "I'm alright Jacks" and the "Wouldn't want to be making a Fuss nows" are significant part of why this country is the way it is.

Give it yer best shot anyway.

Special Circumstances

Brian Scan wrote: »

What will you be doing January 2nd Briany boy? We need details now. Specific details smirk face.

Lol at bonkers auto correct. July 2nd. But shur January 2nd too. It is imperative that I must account to you for my whereabouts at all times so I guess I need to know that from you too?

shietpilot

Ah now, no need to have a scrap. At the end of the day we all want the same, chape inchewrence and chape tax!

Brian Scan

Special Circumstances wrote: »

What will you be doing January 2nd Briany boy? We need details now. Specific details smirk face.

Lol at bonkers auto correct. July 2nd. But shur January 2nd too. It is imperative that I must account to you for my whereabouts at all times so I guess I need to know that from you too?

Where did I suggest that?

JohnBoy26

Whatever about the cost of insurance the age rule that needs to be looked at. You should be able to insure a car no matter what age it is as long as it's roadworthy. It's totally wrong of insurance companies to introduce such a rule imo.

I think in this regards they have lost the run of themselves.

ironclaw

:P

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Whatever about the cost of insurance the age rule that needs to be looked at. You should be able to insure a car no matter what age it is as long as it's roadworthy. It's totally wrong of insurance companies to introduce such a rule imo.

I think in this regards they have lost the run of themselves.

I have two minds on that:

1) Its statistically more likely for an older car to be involved in a collision. Therefore, the actuaries have decided its placing too much risk on the portfolio overall, and it designed to limit risk and exposure. After all, insurance is a numbers game.

or

2) (And Tin Foil Hat Securely On) Insurance companies, traced back, are deeply seated in the finance game. They are a great source of cash, to both make and lose on the markets. They are essential for covering leverage in the markets and are a pillar really. The 15 year rule is a ploy to drive people into new cars, increase PCP and finance (Which is really taking off at the moment) and therefore increase overall the underlying financial markets buoyancy. Net result is a healthier financial market and more credit, which insurance companies and the overall financial world rely on.

Jesus.

Kiangriffin wrote: »

Hi Guys, I'm the one organising this. We have no intention of blocking up the M50, we'll try to avoid it as much as possible. We'll be going directly into the city. We chose a Saturday as more people are available to go without having to rearrange work commitments and it also will have less of an impact on the ordinary workers of Dublin.The idea is to show numbers, not disrupt everyone. Also we are very adamant that anyone coming along will not be allowed to do any messing in their cars whatsoever. That message is being drilled to all the local organisers. Any messing would (obviously) be counter productive.

Fair play lad. I'll be in your convoy

MarkAnthony

Can't wait for the inevitable insurance claims off the back of this :pac:

Kiangriffin

Jesus. wrote: »

Fair play lad. I'll be in your convoy

Look forward to having you

shietpilot

I feel like a moaner too so I will probably go :pac:

Special Circumstances

Del2005 wrote: »

People go to the PIAB, reject the award and go to court where costs are covered. You'd want to be an idiot to accept the PIAB offer when the courts award huge sums.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uncertainty-in-motor-insurance-sector-can-be-eased-1.2640251

Kevin Thompson, chief executive Insurance Ireland:

"Higher payouts
In addition, the average cost of claim was up approximately 8 per cent in private motor and approximately 27 per cent in public liability from 2012 to 2014. This means more claims and higher payouts; a routine whiplash case settles for €15,000 in Ireland, and €5,000 in the UK.
Of course, only a minority of such claims end up in court. For those that do, legal costs account for 60 per cent of compensation, according to the Injuries Board. This is especially costly as the average Circuit Court awards were up 14 per cent in 2014. Most claims are straightforward with no dispute over fault."

Somebody would want to get on to him and tell him get on side with the insurance industry reps line on boards.ie !