Henry Ford III wrote: » Insurers can accept or decline any risk. They are commercial entities however and can quite rightly take on only business that suits them.
Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: » If insurers come across an aspect of the market where misrepresentation is common place, they will price the product to deter anyone taking the cover.. This leaves restricted availability and higher prices. Not nonsense
grogi wrote: » Don't you think that is part of the problem? They are offering a mandatory service, but might freely decide who will and who will not get it.
Henry Ford III wrote: » I appreciate the point but why should they be obliged to write what they'd see as "bad business" at a low premium?
grogi wrote: » If the car is safe and road legal, and the driver up to date with the medical exams etc - yes, they should be obliged to offer the cover at reasonable price. What that price is - different story... But that requires the state to take bad drivers off the road - seriously bad drivers, serial offenders etc. Keeping scrap of the roads too. If a driver is allowed on the road, that driver should be able to get reasonable cover.
Henry Ford III wrote: » Motor underwriting is similar in the UK. Just thought I'd fire that in. It's not wholly relevant but so what?
Cost and frequency of claims are indeed very high here - it's well documented and universally accepted. Why do you believe any different?
Insurers can accept or decline any risk. They are commercial entities however and can quite rightly take on only business that suits them.
Henry Ford III wrote: » No insurer will be told what underwriting criteria to use or what premium to charge.
Henry Ford III wrote: » An insurer would withdraw from the market completely if the govt tried to impose overly onerous restrictions. That certainly wouldn't solve any of the issues.
amf78 wrote: » so what? they're too greedy all to stand up and leave (where to, btw?). 2-3 would still stay behind and pick up the pieces. I'd rather have 2 german-like insurers rather than 30 banana republic style insurers.
Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: » If you think that having only a couple of insurers remain in Ireland to provide a mandatory cover is a good thing, then you are deluded
amf78 wrote: » Last but not least, ask yourself this question: when is the last time you saw verifiable statistics showing that indeed the number of claims per capita in Ireland is one of the highest in EU?
Henry Ford III wrote: » If we've plenty of competition why do they (apparently) all decline to cover mapped cars?
amf78 wrote: » If every insurer knows they can turn down people without giving proper justification and without assessing the situation, why would they jump in, considering they have no financial incentive either? If the perception is that modified cars are too high a risk, doesn't matter what the facts are. Perception is reality. For the situation to change without change in legislation, there has to be enough data showing modified cars are safe and reliable, but you also need one bold insurance company willing to look at the said data. And even then, you'd probably be charged through the roof until a 2nd and 3rd insurers join in. This is what happens when decision making is primarily influenced primarily by financial gain (or at least minimizing financial loss). And that's fine in general, but not in a situation where everybody needs being looked after.
amf78 wrote: » .....Someone's right to own a car and drive it shouldn't be dictated by the financial worries of a private business.
Henry Ford III wrote: » If they can't drive it legally (and having proper motor insurance cover is a legal requirement) then they shouldn't drive it at all.
Henry Ford III wrote: » Insurers can accept or reject any risk at their discretion. If it doesn't fit their criteria it won't be accepted. They don't have to justify their underwriting decisions either.
Henry Ford III wrote: » It's clear that there are plenty of mapped and otherwise modified cars out there, and it seems that there's a reluctance for the owners of these to disclose modifications, not withstanding that to do so is a fundamental of the insurance contract, and to chose to withhold material facts will potentially see the policy voided with nasty consequences for future insurability. If a bold insurer took on this problem and offered cover based on the modifications at a increased level I have my doubts would any/many come clean and pay the extra. The poll is quite revealing on this attitude.
amf78 wrote: » you forgot to mention that the legality in this case is not determined by a court or judge, or any other government body or official for that matter. It is determined by a 3rd party who primarily looks at their financial interests.
Henry Ford III wrote: » It's a legislative requirement under the RTA 1961. Availabilty is subject to underwriting and is not guaranteed. Suggesting that a business should provide insurance cover on a non commercial basis is crazy. It'll never happen.
amf78 wrote: » Henry, I think we can all agree on the current situation in Ireland. But to suggest that's the only way things can be, is to pretty much ignore most jurisdiction where it's done slightly differently and it works better. You seem to suggest that things can operate only at extremes: either total freedom for the insurers, or all insurers withdrawing from the market at the slightest sign of regulations. And you would be wrong. If you introduce tough penalties for parking offences but don't provide any parking options guess what happens? People still park their cars wherever they can. If you don't believe me, look at Eastern European cities. The current attitude came about because people have no option, not because they have options they don't like.
honda boi wrote: » So has anyone been done or has an insurance company actually go after someone for non disclosure before?
CiniO wrote: » But having insurance as legal requirement without a guarantee to be able to obtain it, is not right way of doing things. Again - this is not fault of the insurers, but lack of appropriate legislation.
CiniO wrote: » But having insurance as legal requirement without a guarantee to be able to obtain it, is not right way of doing things. Again - this is not fault of the insurers, but lack of appropriate legislation...... No one is suggesting that they should provide cover on non-commercial basis. But way they provide it, should be adequately legislated, like million other things are. Selling alcohol is also heavily legislated, with all licences, rules terms and conditions attached to it, and there's still plenty of bars and shops interesting in selling alcohol. The same obligatory third party insurance market should be adequately legislated to provide simple and easy way of obtaining cover for anyone.
