Insurance Companies will not Insurer Cars over 10 yeas old disgusting behaviour

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Sosurface wrote: »

No profit in it so? I guess you're all just legit heroes so. Just in it for the love of the game and a concern for the safety of Irelands citizens. Aww. Warm hugs.

Yes, they are all making a killing. Which is why some of them are refusing cover on old cars altogether. They don't need the huge profit such policies are obviously making for them..

Something does not add up.

KERSPLAT!

Mod

Sosurface, don't post in this thread again. You had your chance.

worded

so we are being discouraged from keeping old cars and get new ones for the sake of carbon foot print ...

But there is a huge carbon foot print creating a new car ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car


With this in mind, unless you do very high mileage or have a real gas-guzzler, it generally makes sense to keep your old car for as long as it is reliable – and to look after it carefully to extend its life as long as possible. If you make a car last to 200,000 miles rather than 100,000, then the emissions for each mile the car does in its lifetime may drop by as much as 50%, as a result of getting more distance out of the initial manufacturing emissions.

beauf

Lina Immense Self-denial wrote: »

Yes, they are all making a killing. Which is why some of them are refusing cover on old cars altogether. They don't need the huge profit such policies are obviously making for them..

Something does not add up.

They lost big on investments. So they are making it back via premiums. Also scams which most often are cheap (old) cars are costing them money. So they don't want the business.

That said if the scam gets 10~40k in compensation, then the cost of the car isn't really going to dissuade the scammers.

At stake was compensation of up to €60,000 and if he won, the remaining four plaintiffs could also expect a satisfactory day in court.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/anatomy-of-a-scam-six-men-and-an-attempted-insurance-fraud-1.2647462

beauf

Somehow I don't think buying a 5yr old car is going to be a problem for scammers.

Cheerful Spring

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Utter rubbish.

Insurance is a risk based business. Your premium is based primarily on how much or how little of risk you or vehicle or area etc are.

If you are a higher risk you will rightly be charged a higher premium. That's not leeching, it's common sense.

And like any business Insurers need to be able to stay afloat and make profits so yes of course that comes into the premium calculations too. That's how businesses work.

And before you ask, yes I work in the Industry but the dogs on the street know the above to be true.

We got professionals testing cars at NCT centers. If the car passed it's roadworthy. You are only encouraging people to drive without insurance, if you ask me.

AudreyHepburn

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

So, if an older vehicle in sound condition and in receipt of a state recognized certificate of road worthiness (NCT), Why do the insurance companies either refuse to quote or load the owners if they do quote?

Because it could be hard to source parts for an older vehicle or more costly meaning they'll have to pay out a large sum if you claim.

Equally just because a car was roadworthy on the day of the NCT does not mean it remains that way and things are more likely to go wrong with an older vehicle.

I am not saying it's right or wrong, but this is Insurers look at it.

AudreyHepburn

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We got professionals testing cars at NCT centers. If the car passed it's roadworthy. You are only encouraging people to drive without insurance, if you ask me.

It's roadworthy that day, it might not be a few months down the line.

Again I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just stating this is how the Insurers look at it.

AudreyHepburn

Sonics2k wrote: »

Aren't a lot of the larger Insurance companies making record profits?

Don't be talking any nonsense about trying to stay afloat when it really is profiteering.

edit:
Should add in I'm more than happy to be corrected on whether or not Insurance companies are making higher profits or not.

I think you'll find they are making more losses than profits at the moment between having to pay for companies like Setanta who went bust, being forced to pay out a crazy number of extortionate and often fraudulent personal injury claims and making up for the serious undercharging of premiums that occurred during the boom many providers are faced with no choice but to hike prices to stay in business.

It's not nonsense, it's common sense but I can appreciate that if you don't work in the Industry as I and others do it's hard to see past the figures on your quote.

beauf

If someone is running a 10 or 15yr old car.

Unreliability, or getting parts its obviously not an issue they are having.

Regardless of the limited imagination of some bean counter.

beauf

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think you'll find they are making more losses than profits at the moment between having to pay for companies like Setanta who went bust, being forced to pay out a crazy number of extortionate and often fraudulent personal injury claims and making up for the serious undercharging of premiums that occurred during the boom many providers are faced with no choice but to hike prices to stay in business.

It's not nonsense, it's common sense but I can appreciate that if you don't work in the Industry as I and others do it's hard to see past the figures on your quote.

How much did they lose on their investment income.

Pedro K

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Because it could be hard to source parts for an older vehicle or more costly meaning they'll have to pay out a large sum if you claim.

Equally just because a car was roadworthy on the day of the NCT does not mean it remains that way and things are more likely to go wrong with an older vehicle.

I am not saying it's right or wrong, but this is Insurers look at it.

This comes up a lot, but I don't buy it.

If they're concerned about sourcing parts in the future, then just offer third party insurance. Old car gets damaged, the insured has to sort it.

Also, the majority of cars over 15 years old won't be very valuable and would be written off by a ding.

My own car is probably only worth €300, if even. So even if I had it insured comprehensively (I don't. No point for a car of such low value) and made a claim I'd have to pay the excess, which is around 250-300 on most comprehensive policies, leaving the insurance company with a payout of €0-50.

please helpThank YOU

Pedro K wrote: »

This comes up a lot, but I don't buy it.

If they're concerned about sourcing parts in the future, then just offer third party insurance. Old car gets damaged, the insured has to sort it.

Also, the majority of cars over 15 years old won't be very valuable and would be written off by a ding.

My own car is probably only worth €300, if even. So even if I had it insured comprehensively (I don't. No point for a car of such low value) and made a claim I'd have to pay the excess, which is around 250-300 on most comprehensive policies, leaving the insurance company with a payout of €0-50.

Very Well Said.

Liam McPoyle

beauf wrote: »

How much did they lose on their investment income.

You keep going on about insurers losing their shirts on investments.

Care to provide some evidence of this (other than a propaganda piece from the law society)

Investment income is down due to the global economic downturn over the last few years.

That is different entirely from insurers gambling and losing so please provide some actual proof to back up the accusation.

beauf

Rod Munch wrote: »

You keep going on about insurers losing their shirts on investments.

Care to provide some evidence of this (other than a propaganda piece from the law society)

Investment income is down due to the global economic downturn over the last few years.

That is different entirely from insurers gambling and losing so please provide some actual proof to back up the accusation.

How about quoting where I mention "shirt" or "gambling"

I simply asked about their investment income. You seem to be asking me to answer my own question.

Maybe you're suggesting insurance companies don't make investments, and their sole income is from premiums.

More recently, the Central Bank warned in 2014 that insurers were becoming increasingly reliant on investment income to shore up profits – “a significant risk to the industry in the low interest rate environment.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/cantillon-insurers-have-boosted-profits-by-releasing-reserves-1.2644309

Broad diversification ensures consistently strong investment earnings
Allianz Deutschland’s insurance companies pursued a conservative investment strategy again in 2012. Because of the broad diversification of their investment holdings, they successfully buffered the impact of the uncertainty in the capital markets and of historically low interest rates. Investments under management grew 10.0 percent, to 236.1 billion euros (214.7 billion euros). Net investment income grew to 11.3 billion euros (9.1 billion euros). This figure reflects non-recurring capital gains from investment management, as the health and life insurance lines increased the average terms of their fixed-income investments.

https://www.allianz.com/en/press/news/financials/business_results/news_2013-02-28.html/

Insurance is a multifaceted industry. I just don't think its as simple as its hard to find a left wing of a 10yr old Fiesta. But that's how its being portrayed by some.

Cheerful Spring

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It's roadworthy that day, it might not be a few months down the line.

Again I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just stating this is how the Insurers look at it.

Could say that about any car realistically ( newer cars are not perfect) Instead of looking at the age of cars, you should be looking at the people driving the cars. Again we have the NCT for a reason, it's there to remove the unsafe cars from our roads.

beauf

I don't think it has anything to do with safety. Its more a flawed tool to reduce fraud. Its like fishing with drift nets.

Seth Brundle

beauf wrote: »

I don't think it has anything to do with safety. Its more a flawed tool to reduce fraud. Its like fishing with drift nets.

The NCT?
What fraud could it reduce?

beauf

...crossed wires...The insurance companies filtering on age of car is nothing to do with safety or reliability...

I'm on a backup phone and can't type properly on it. Android needing a supercomputer to run properly these days...

Seth Brundle

What?
Is there fraud or some kind of filtering?
You're not really making sense!

Edit: you've ninja edited your post beauf! Either way, it's still not fraud