Now Ye're Talking - to an expert on young drivers’ insurance

Special Circumstances

Avien wrote: »

Guilty as charged

It would appear you're in some fairly learned company with actuaries* making similar assumptions.

*Assumes ACTUAL actuaries are used, and not just random polls of nana's at church bake sales or whatever. "Dem japanese cars are desperate things, voltswagon are grand shturdy reliable cars" etc etc

Negative_G

"Ask me Anything" and I will give you a reply, so long as it toes the line of the company policy. I particularly liked the bit about high powered not just being about BHP but spec as well. I guess those alloy wheels, leather seats and electric windows make me an accident waiting to happen. Don't even mention the Bluetooth!

The insurance industry in Ireland is a complete farce. The consumer gets bent over regardless. The sooner another EU insurance provider comes in the better. It will be heavily opposed Im sure but the gangsters already hher but its only a matter of time.

Michael, do you as an individual think the insurance industry is fair in its current guise.

Do you think it is fair that consumers still have to pay a levy for other failed insurance companies?

Dav

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Nobody is asking for specific algorithms or trade secrets.
A fictional engineer is asking for the "dominant" factor in what I'm sure is a very complicated multi-factor equation. Telling him what the dominant factor in what looks like an otherwise ideal customer is not gonna blow the roof off the industry.

You're still asking for more than Michael can give you - it would be disastrous for Liberty to even hint at how they're rating the markets they're targeting - their competitors are reading this too

hullaballoo

Liberty Insurance: Michael wrote: »

Hi,

The challenges our industry faces have been very well covered by the media in recent times, from increasing frequency and cost of claims to impaired profitability. Inevitably, all of these factors contribute to higher premiums for the consumer. That said, however, we are working hard at Liberty to limit the impact that the market price increases have on our customers.

Why is this lie being trotted out as a reason for increased premiums? I know you are being told this is a reason by your higher-ups but even minimal critical analysis reveals it is wholly untrue.

Some of the real figures around personal injuries claims are discussed here: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/insurance-industry-misleading-public-over-reasons-for-higher-premiums-1.2660988

And you can read the Courts Service report here: http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/(WebFiles)/A9CCBEE01757C58280257FF00031EEBE/$FILE/Courts%20Service%20Annual%20Report%202015.pdf

And you can see that the number of claims dealt with at PIAB level, before lawyers are involved at all has risen by almost 3x the number over a decade here: http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/Statistics/Statistics-2014/

If you take everything together, the costs of personal injuries claims is going down rather than up, since lawyers fees, which are often a substantial part of what insurers have to pay are now being done away with since PIAB decided to get their act together and actually deal with cases reasonably.

The number of car accidents in this country are reasonably static on a per capita basis and death and serious injuries are declining.

In 2009, the maximum award for general damages was capped by the High Court for the first time and all cases that followed since then have been measured against that cap, so individual awards have been reduced on that basis.

In 2015, the jurisdiction of the Courts changed to bring the maximum awards in the District Court to €15,000 and Circuit Court to €60,000. Lower level courts historically give out lower awards in all cases and lawyers get paid less for work pertaining to lower courts so that now, the vast majority of cases will be Circuit Court or lower (excepting very serious to catastrophic injuries), which will mean both reduced awards and far lower legal costs.



The elephant in the room is that stricter solvency rules came into effect in January this year and, despite the fact that insurance companies have been aware that this was coming down the track, they played silly beggars and engaged in price wars with the likes of those amateurs in Quinn insurance and, instead of building the reserves of cash they have known for years they would need, they are now furiously loading premiums to try to ensure compliance with the regulations. (Credit: seamus)

You're collectively covering your own mismanagement over the years by deflecting from the real issue, which is the above paragraph and throwing out an easy red herring - sure blame the lawyers, it's always the lawyers. Even when it wasn't the lawyers, I knew it was the lawyers.


The gas thing about all this is that insurers have done such a piss poor job of managing themselves in the face of increased cost of regulation that they are effectively pricing themselves out of the reach of most people because it is now financially prudent for them to insure as few motorists as possible and to ensure that those motorists they do cover are driving brand new armoured tanks with sub-2L engines.


My question to you, not that I anticipate an answer, is why insurance companies are insisting that it is the way they say it is when it isn't?

WWN have even picked up on it:

Motor Premiums To Rise Because None Of Your ****ing Business - Waterford Whispers News wrote:

Meanwhile, experts in the field of bull**** are blaming the legal profession for inflating the cost of claims, which, they say, are causing the substantial premium hikes.

“Yeah, it’s the lawyers,” a spokesperson for the financial regulator told WWN, whilst trying to hold in the laughter. “Yeah, that’s it; it’s the lawyers ha ha. Those damn fees they charge ha ha, ****s sake, you people are idiots,” the spokesperson added now rolling around in laughter and insisting on taking a snapchat of my ‘pathetic stupid face’.

Special Circumstances

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I too would like to know what constitutes
1)very old
2)high powered (or even moderately powered for those who regard a 1.9tdi as WMD)

Just in case this was lost in the general noise of us questioning the wisdom of this thread.

Obviously any questions on specifics are off limits now. So nobody is going to ask what's the max you will insure, or they won't get an answer or they may get a rap on the knuckles.

We've all heard the Dara O'Briain "three states of Irish law" quote - what ballpark of BHP would put you in "Ah now don't push it" category rather than the "That's grand" category. 100BHP? 120?

Likewise with old, is my fictional 9year old focus in an "ah now don't push it" category?

Special Circumstances

Dav wrote: »

You're still asking for more than Michael can give you - it would be disastrous for Liberty to even hint at how they're rating the markets they're targeting - their competitors are reading this too

What did ye foresee coming out of this AMA?

I'm allowing him to be as vague as he can without it just being a complete waste of time.

All of the competitors are aware of the multiple other factors. There are so many many permutations even if they knew the exact multiplier attached to the dominant factor. I'm not asking for the multiplier, or even to rank all of the factors in decreasing order.

1 factor to reduce a quote of 1.6k plus for a person with a desk job and perfect driving record. That's all.

Dav

I didn't foresee anything, I had no idea this was going live till it was live - Niamh was handling it but she's out of the office today I don't think your question is unreasonable, but there was a pretty harsh dog-pile on Michael and that has to stop - I'm sure you can agree that the momentum and tone was turning sour, lets just try to keep it civil and remember that as per the charter of this forum, no one has to answer a question they don't want to - whether they're a named rep of a company or an anonymous pre-existing Boardsie.

Special Circumstances

Can't argue with what you've said there Dav.
I'm a reasonable man... but that puts me at odds with the unreasonable carry on of insurers. 2.7k for a profile that doesn't seem to me to have any serious risk factors????

nfs19719

Hi,
Im 16 and I'm looking to get comprehensive insurance on a vintage motorcycle, a Yamaha XT125 (1982) on a provisional license. I tried to get a quote from your site but it wouldn't let me as the bike was pre 1991.

Barry Badrinath

Dav wrote: »

You're still asking for more than Michael can give you - it would be disastrous for Liberty to even hint at how they're rating the markets they're targeting - their competitors are reading this too

My question was reasonable. I outlined my details and asked what drives (no pun intended) my quote over €1k.

It was a perfect opportunity for LI to help current and potential future customers understand what they can do to lower their quote.

As it stands, I personally dont know why they quoted so high. Why would I even try them next year? Especially after being blatantly ignored here.

An AMA from a company who already pays for a sponsored forum is a crazy idea. Having implied unreasonable question restrictions on the Community is also a farce.

I suggest a forum name change from "AMA" to "Ask me something simple and tell me how great I am" forum.

He could have said something as simple as "SFP, your quote exceeded €1k due to the age of your car". Simple.

I would have benefitted from the AMA then.

I'm out Michael, fair play for attempting an AMA, nothing against you at all but I will never be looking for a quote from LI again as a result of this AMA.

eman66

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

I'll take that.

It's because the worthless bonds they - and most other insurance companies - gambled their already substantial profits on, in the name of more substantial profits, turned out to be, well, erm... worthless...
So now the common person must pay because they sure as all hell aren't going to

Which leads me to my question - how much more are you lot going to load on the common person, just because you greedily gambled your profits on the bond market?
And how much longer do you reckon you can get away with it?

(Note: I'm aware you're just a representative, etc etc....)

Having worked in the insurance industry for 17 years I can tell you that this is the crux of the matter, the black and the white, the reason for the outrageous hikes in insurance premium costs. It is, ultimately, the answer to most if not all questions on here. Everything else is just fluff and lies.

Whoever they trot out on Boards, Pat Kenny, Ray Darcy, Marion Finucane, the Sunday Indepenent, the Irish Times or the Beano to try and counter the public reaction to these price rises will say exactly what they are paid and told to say.

Liam McPoyle

hullaballoo wrote: »

Why is this lie being trotted out as a reason for increased premiums? I know you are being told this is a reason by your higher-ups but even minimal critical analysis reveals it is wholly untrue.

Some of the real figures around personal injuries claims are discussed here: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/insurance-industry-misleading-public-over-reasons-for-higher-premiums-1.2660988

And you can read the Courts Service report here: http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/(WebFiles)/A9CCBEE01757C58280257FF00031EEBE/$FILE/Courts%20Service%20Annual%20Report%202015.pdf

And you can see that the number of claims dealt with at PIAB level, before lawyers are involved at all has risen by almost 3x the number over a decade here: http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/Statistics/Statistics-2014/

If you take everything together, the costs of personal injuries claims is going down rather than up, since lawyers fees, which are often a substantial part of what insurers have to pay are now being done away with since PIAB decided to get their act together and actually deal with cases reasonably.

The number of car accidents in this country are reasonably static on a per capita basis and death and serious injuries are declining.

In 2009, the maximum award for general damages was capped by the High Court for the first time and all cases that followed since then have been measured against that cap, so individual awards have been reduced on that basis.

In 2015, the jurisdiction of the Courts changed to bring the maximum awards in the District Court to €15,000 and Circuit Court to €60,000. Lower level courts historically give out lower awards in all cases and lawyers get paid less for work pertaining to lower courts so that now, the vast majority of cases will be Circuit Court or lower (excepting very serious to catastrophic injuries), which will mean both reduced awards and far lower legal costs.



The elephant in the room is that stricter solvency rules came into effect in January this year and, despite the fact that insurance companies have been aware that this was coming down the track, they played silly beggars and engaged in price wars with the likes of those amateurs in Quinn insurance and, instead of building the reserves of cash they have known for years they would need, they are now furiously loading premiums to try to ensure compliance with the regulations. (Credit: seamus)

You're collectively covering your own mismanagement over the years by deflecting from the real issue, which is the above paragraph and throwing out an easy red herring - sure blame the lawyers, it's always the lawyers. Even when it wasn't the lawyers, I knew it was the lawyers.


The gas thing about all this is that insurers have done such a piss poor job of managing themselves in the face of increased cost of regulation that they are effectively pricing themselves out of the reach of most people because it is now financially prudent for them to insure as few motorists as possible and to ensure that those motorists they do cover are driving brand new armoured tanks with sub-2L engines.


My question to you, not that I anticipate an answer, is why insurance companies are insisting that it is the way they say it is when it isn't?

WWN have even picked up on it:

I asked this of you previously and don't recall getting an answer.

What proof, actual financial statistics, do you have that legal fees are going down?

You have posted a couple of opinion pieces from the legal system.

Forgive me for being cynical but when a solicitor is saying they are earning less money, yet not a single piece of actual financial evidence is being disclosed to verify their claim then I call shenanigans.

What's even more amusing is your claim that insurers are all lying.

If people believe you then they have to believe that insurers are lying to

1) the central bank
2) their shareholders
3) their customers

Even though they have posted financial results every year.

Even though the rise in claims costs has been documented and all you need to do is Google it to find oodles of proof.

Even though the only thing you cite is a piece from the law association with not a shred of actual evidence.

I've said it before and I will say it again, insurers are not blameless but for solicitors, many of whom make money from people making insurance claims, to say its all insurers fault and to plead the poor mouth, get the boat.

The fact you have to post a spoof article from a parody website speaks volumes about your argument tbh.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Liberty Insurance: Michael wrote: »

Hi,

At Liberty Insurance we investigate the validity of all claims prior to making any settlement offer.

If we believe we hold no liability we will not make any settlement offers, if we hold any percentage liability we will make offers and pay a reasonable and fair sum based on our % liability share.

We keep our clients at the forefront of our claims process and updated on our position at all key stages during the lifecycle of a claim.

We cannot comment on the practice of other insurers in relation to rising premiums but would point to a number of factors contributing to this, to include and not limited to, increased frequency, increased awards from the Injuries Board and increased court awards.

Sorry, but I take exception to this post. Liberty, and Quinn before them, are renowned for flashing the cash rather than risk a plaintiff going to a solicitor. They are by far the biggest practitioners of settling injury claims once someone says 'ouch'. If you question it, they cite Data Protection Act has precedence over the Regulators Consumer Protection Code. This leaves their OWN clients with a large claims experience which ties them to the insurer for years and feeds the chancers

sydthebeat

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Sorry, but I take exception to this post. Liberty, and Quinn before them, are renowned for flashing the cash rather than risk a plaintiff going to a solicitor. They are by far the biggest practitioners of settling injury claims once someone says 'ouch'. If you question it, they cite Data Protection Act has precedence over the Regulators Consumer Protection Code. This leaves their OWN clients with a large claims experience which ties them to the insurer for years and feeds the chancers

completely agreed sue pa, the dogs on the street know this.
obviously michael here wont admit to it, i didnt really expect him to to be honest.

and his spheel about injuries board awards increasing is tosh as the injuries board themselves have saved the irish joe public 58% on costs by going through them instead of the courts.

insurance, the only business your cannot make a loss in (unless of course you squander your profits on bad bond deals.... oh, of course, banking might fall into that category too)

the financial regulator lets us downs again the wheel keeps turning

CantGetNoSleep

Dav wrote: »

You're still asking for more than Michael can give you - it would be disastrous for Liberty to even hint at how they're rating the markets they're targeting - their competitors are reading this too

Then what is the point in this thread? Is Ask Me Anything not about asking anything, usually with replies that don't have to toe the corporate line? At least on Reddit it is which is where I'm going when you ban me.

Are Liberty paying for this?

CantGetNoSleep

To give an example of what I think an AMA should be, take a look at the last insurance related one from a couple of years ago. Maybe we can get that guy back?

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057356381/1

Special Circumstances

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Just in case this was lost in the general noise of us questioning the wisdom of this thread.

Obviously any questions on specifics are off limits now. So nobody is going to ask what's the max you will insure, or they won't get an answer or they may get a rap on the knuckles.

We've all heard the Dara O'Briain "three states of Irish law" quote - what ballpark of BHP would put you in "Ah now don't push it" category rather than the "That's grand" category. 100BHP? 120?

Likewise with old, is my fictional 9year old focus in an "ah now don't push it" category?

In general in your experience in the industry, is diesel BHP treated differently to petrol BHP?

A diesel with 180-200bhp - insurable with normal insurers, or just with specialists who supply insurance for polluting Japanese fart cans as mentioned previously?

For the sake of this example, it's a BMW 520d. They're quite common these days.

A petrol with similar horsepower, same spec, from the same manufacturer, owned by the same person. In general about the same to insure, or significantly more due to... petrol,yo?

Special Circumstances

Again, in general in the industry (as specifics of the liberty business are off limits) there is a certain vagueness about what constitutes a modification.

In my experience the "no nonstandard audio" clause is amongst the most vague.

In your experience which of the following is a problematic modification

a) factory radio breaks, replaced with a Sony from Halfords for €120
b) a nice set of thule roofracks (€200+)
c) tyres from a top end manufacturer but without explicit approval of the car manufacturer
d) a hands free bluetooth kit
e) a diesel car with DPF gutted/removed, EGR valve deleted and ECU persuaded to ignore these. There is obviously a performance benefit as well as the reliability enhancement and extra pollution
f) a magic tree

ED E

How often do you see Dav posting and getting Zero thanks? Says it all really.

boredatwork82

<SNIP>
A question for Michael, with the continuous increasing charges in insurance prices, do you think we might see an increase in the uninsured drivers premiums as many people start taking chances with driving with no insurance as the costs of fines might start been less than insurance. Couple of hundred quid to the court poorbox is probably more use to society too! I know it's definitely a consideration for me as I don't do a huge amount of mileage.

Bongalongherb

Here we all are in the European Union and we cannot apply for insurance from any other EU state, it's a joke. Or am I missing something that would not allow this ?.

FalconGirl

Motor insurance providers are acting like a cartel. I know I'm off the road from midday Friday as I can't afford the hike in my premium. My premium went €800 to €1650 but Ive found a better quote of €1356 with another provider. That's an 29 yr old office workers with 6 years no claims on a 1.6 Nissan Almera. It doesn't make sense and I am not paying up. Hope others take a stand and do the same if they can.

Bongalongherb

FalconGirl wrote: »

Motor insurance providers are acting like a cartel. I know I'm off the road from midday Friday as I can't afford the hike in my premium. My premium went €800 to €1650 but Ive found a better quote of €1356 with another provider. That's an 29 yr old office workers with 6 years no claims on a 1.6 Nissan Almera. It doesn't make sense and I am not paying up. Hope others take a stand and do the same if they can.

I checked over my years budget and I could possibly afford to pay the €1,228.05, but I am not going to pay it either way as I don't like being ripped-off and made a fool of. That is the lowest quote I could find.

1hnr79jr65

Michael as a comparrision when i went to renew my insurance within last 2 weeks i comparred many companies and brokers for best possible value i could get.

I have taken quotes from my spreadsheet of the top 7 companies/supplies of insurance in the irish market as i would see it.
My previous 3 years i was with 123.ie as they gave a good rate with services offered however after a disasterous offer this year i walked ran away from them.

My quote this year based on last years value increased by 45.67%, which is an insane markup.

From calling Liberty i got the following quote €927.15 which is 29.68% of a mark up on last years quote.

I am 34, male, 11 years NCD (even though companies only give 5 or 6 year cert), 9 years hold full Irish license, no penalty points, no convictions, no restrictions on license, no claims, no accidents and i dont drive like a jackass.

I drive a 2008 2.2 CDTI Honda Civic Sport, which yes is a fair bit of a powerful car however i drive a fair bit to commute to work and regulary visit family other side of country.........

So my questions to you Michael are the following:

1. How is it that insurance companies think it is competative to charge such extortionate rate to consumers knowing that austerity, reduction/cuts in wages, increased cost of consumer goods and services (such as childcare and transport food) is good for the insurance industry as it will cause more people to use public transport?

2. Is there an expectation that deregulation will come in from Europe where by a crash in insurance costs will be driven by increased competition, how will like of Liberty survive with insane premiums now if that were to happen?

Oh and just to show a comparrison of my quotes this year, i took Allianz's offer as it was best value for me even though 10.18% more expensive than my best quote with services offered.

Company Quote Total Saving % Diff from 2015
Aviva €1,452.25 49.44% 55.10%
Axa €1,375.00 46.60% 52.58%
123.ie €1,200.00 38.81% 45.67%
AA €931.83 21.20% 30.03%
Liberty €927.15 20.80% 29.68%
Allianz €817.44 10.18% 20.24%
FBD €734.26 0.00% 11.20%

Special Circumstances

To be fair, those quotes pale in comparison to the 2.7k for perfect driving record, 9year old 1.4 petrol ford focus owning engineer 35.



Now.... Michael, this is a good one:
That 2.7k was on a policy where I included a 15k non fault claim.


Is there any possibility that there is a loading for people having claimed for accidents that were 100% not their fault?

I've been assured that irish companies are not following the same model as UK insurers, but is there any other explanation for that 2.7k quote for 9 year + full licence, 9 years + ncb, 35, 80hp 1.4l Ford focus?

Dravokivich

Dav wrote: »

You're still asking for more than Michael can give you - it would be disastrous for Liberty to even hint at how they're rating the markets they're targeting - their competitors are reading this too

What a load of bollox, to be frank. Other industries have been able to survive with competitors being able to poke and pull at what they do. So why should insurance have a blanket preventing a potential customer from being able to understand what the service one is looking to buy may cost and why?

It's insulting reading Micheals post's on behalf of Liberty throughout this AMA because it's complete and utter arrogance.

- can't afford a new car, we'll make sure you can't afford to run an old'un so.
- Targeting young drivers, but expecting them to have high NCB for a lower quote.
- Make sure you have a low powered car, even though it could be completely inefficient for your intended use.

Looking forward to the gearbest AMA.

1hnr79jr65

Dravokivich wrote: »

Looking forward to the gearbest AMA.

:eek: :pac:

1hnr79jr65

Special Circumstances wrote: »

To be fair, those quotes pale in comparison to the 2.7k for perfect driving record, 9year old 1.4 petrol ford focus owning engineer 35.

By everyone showing prices like this we can see the massive disparity in way companies like liberty extort the general public.

Special Circumstances

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

By everyone showing prices like this we can see the massive disparity in way companies like liberty extort the general public.

What bhp is the civic. Grand cars, would fancy one myself. Cheaper to insure than a 1.4 petrol focus at least!!!

edit, 138bhp vs the rrrrampant 80bhp of the focus.
Insurance group 23 of 50(highest) in the UK, versus insurance group 6 for the fictional focus.

So my 2.7k quote is definitely not due to the car in any sane version of this universe, and my fictional driving record couldn't be any better.

I'm left assuming that
Limerick is 10 times more dangerous than other locations and Liberty just don't want any customers from there.
Or
Non fault claims are now being used to punish blameless motorists.
Or
A little from column A, a little from Column B

Liberty Insurance: Michael

nfs19719 wrote: »

Hi,
Im 16 and I'm looking to get comprehensive insurance on a vintage motorcycle, a Yamaha XT125 (1982) on a provisional license. I tried to get a quote from your site but it wouldn't let me as the bike was pre 1991.

Hi,

Can you PM your details and we will organise for someone to contact you regarding your application

Thanks,
Michael.