Car insurance for >15 year old cars

26000 Elephants · 07-01-2017 4:21pm

Just to really make your day Wibbs:

According to the RSA, between 2008 - 2012

Age of cars in accidents:

1 to 4 years: 28.1 %

15-19 years 7.2%

The average age of cars in Ireland is about 8.3 years. Oddly enough, this group (5-9 years old) comprises of the majority of crashes:

5-9 years 36.1

The figures graph to a bell curve that pretty much reflects the age profile of the national fleet.
The RSA crash "factbook" has about 60 different statistical breakdowns of accident - and vehicle age is not one of them.

Special Circumstances · 07-01-2017 4:39pm

Ah now insurance companies have a mine of statistics to counter this.

But the mine is guarded by dragons and only the grand high wizards can pass to gaze upon the sacred golden tablets of knowledge.

Wibbs · 07-01-2017 5:41pm

As B said earlier and it sums it up for me TBH.

beauf wrote: »

Well it is. It's a Captive market with no oversight.

If they can give wildly different quotes when the customer haggles or price matches, then the prices aren't credible.

If someone has a long history of no claims, then it makes no sense they are a high risk if they change insurer. They are basically ignoring a clients history.

The only reason that explains this is and it's that it's not based on risk, but on price gouging.

Emphasis mine. I'd add that the Irish motorist is now paying because of the Irish insurance industries year on year monumental financial fcukups in the past. Oh and that includes not doing nearly enough to get legislation changed to reduce the ambulance chasers among the public and judiciary. They whinge about such types enough, yet did sweet FA about them in practical terms.

ED E · 07-01-2017 5:48pm

Wibbs wrote: »

They whinge about such types enough, yet did sweet FA about them in practical terms.

If my memory serves me from RTEs analysis a month or so ago spurious claims only make up about €36 per driver per annum if the stats are accurate. Small part of a €1500 premium.

ShadowHearth · 08-01-2017 5:37pm

ED E wrote: »

If my memory serves me from RTEs analysis a month or so ago spurious claims only make up about €36 per driver per annum if the stats are accurate. Small part of a €1500 premium.

Right now everything with insurance companies just grind my gears. I am pissed off and worse thing is there is nothing I can do!

Their excuse on high premiums - fraud. Premiums went up in 300-600eu, but it's only 50eu they say themselves!!!
As one poster above said: oh car is too old, that's why increase, you get newer car, then it's: oh, car is too new!!!!
Head full of ****! They contradict themselves each time amd get away with it. They just spitting at us and demand their money as we have no other choice.

I don't know what to do anymore. I feel like I am 18 again. On my day off I am taking a list of cars to my broker and asking them how much it will cost to change! I am almost 31 with 8NCB, I shouldn't do this bull**** and expect the worse to be 1k eu max for insurance. Now it looks like of I get 1k insurance I am lucky.

dr.fuzzenstein · 08-01-2017 7:23pm

It is absolute bull and the insurance companies are absolutely riding the public.
Just for haw-haws I looked up insurance for a 1998 Integra in Deutschland.
It came in starting at €253.

This is 3rd party only, but I think it's very telling that Irish insurers are taking advantage of a confined market and are gouging the public.
My guess, the cheap prices were to eliminate the competition and then they could really turn the thumbscrews.
The problem is, politicians (who like to portray a bit of a thick gombeen act to the public) are very well clued in on the whole situation and probably have said "just throw us some envelopes every now and then and for that you can ride the Irish public silly"
And that would probably not be the only situation where this is happening in Ireland.

Liam McPoyle · 08-01-2017 7:46pm

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/aig-urges-ban-on-whiplash-claims-to-cut-premiums-1.2548667%3Fmode%3Damp

The insurance market is heavily driven by claims costs.

If we are paying up to 500% higher for compensation claims than our EU counterparts then is it not logical that the insurance will cost more?

You simply cannot compare the two markets.

Even the UK which is similarly priced to over here pay substantially less for claims settlements.

ShadowHearth · 08-01-2017 7:52pm

Rod Munch wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/aig-urges-ban-on-whiplash-claims-to-cut-premiums-1.2548667%3Fmode%3Damp

The insurance market is heavily driven by claims costs.

If we are paying up to 500% higher for compensation claims than our EU counterparts then is it not logical that the insurance will cost more?

You simply cannot compare the two markets.

Even the UK which is similarly priced to over here pay substantially less for claims settlements.

That's the thing. They need to start camping payouts amd have system. Judges are a lot to blame for this bull.
A tip in carpark. There are not even a scratch on car. 3 people whiplash and all take away 15k each without needing to prove anything.

Cap payouts.
Make insurance fraud very heavy criminal offence.

Done.

Wibbs · 08-01-2017 8:01pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

This is 3rd party only.

The daft prices I've been quoted are for third party fire and theft. I'm not even getting fully comp at nearly three grand per annum. Last year when I was taken roughly from behind by Irish Insurance I looked up what it would cost me throughout the EU and not one country I checked - and I went through 5 or 6 - was going to cost me more than 900 euro and that was France IIRC and the highest even there.

Wibbs · 08-01-2017 8:06pm

Rod Munch wrote: »

The insurance market is heavily driven by claims costs.

If we are paying up to 500% higher for compensation claims than our EU counterparts then is it not logical that the insurance will cost more?

You simply cannot compare the two markets.

Even the UK which is similarly priced to over here pay substantially less for claims settlements.

Which is all fine and dandy and I can understand that, but how can quotes for the exact same driver with the exact same car and the exact same cover differ so wildly? Double sometimes triple isn't that unusual. And how can a guy with full licence, NCB in his mid thirties driving a Saab be the same "risk" as a Porsche driver in his fifties(I double the risk apparently). Never mind the difference an extra 12 months on a reg plate can make. Insurable on the 31st of Dec, uninsurable on the 1st of Jan. How do compensation claims plug into that then?

Special Circumstances · 08-01-2017 8:26pm

Oooh you'll be on the naughty step with me if you keep asking reasonable questions Wibbs.

Bananaleaf · 08-01-2017 10:11pm

Rod Munch wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/aig-urges-ban-on-whiplash-claims-to-cut-premiums-1.2548667%3Fmode%3Damp

The insurance market is heavily driven by claims costs.

If we are paying up to 500% higher for compensation claims than our EU counterparts then is it not logical that the insurance will cost more?

You simply cannot compare the two markets.

Even the UK which is similarly priced to over here pay substantially less for claims settlements.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

That's the thing. They need to start camping payouts amd have system. Judges are a lot to blame for this bull.
A tip in carpark. There are not even a scratch on car. 3 people whiplash and all take away 15k each without needing to prove anything.

Cap payouts.
Make insurance fraud very heavy criminal offence.

Done.

I'm not really sure of what I'm saying really, but I want to throw it out there anyway in case there is someone here better able to explain this.

Is it the car companies who pay out when there is a medical claim? Or are they simply paying out for the cost of the car?

I'm pretty sure I heard a debate on this where it was outlined that the car insurance companies don't pay the costs of medical claims. I don't know who does if that is true - maybe someone here can confirm/correct?

Liam McPoyle · 08-01-2017 11:14pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Which is all fine and dandy and I can understand that, but how can quotes for the exact same driver with the exact same car and the exact same cover differ so wildly? Double sometimes triple isn't that unusual. And how can a guy with full licence, NCB in his mid thirties driving a Saab be the same "risk" as a Porsche driver in his fifties(I double the risk apparently). Never mind the difference an extra 12 months on a reg plate can make. Insurable on the 31st of Dec, uninsurable on the 1st of Jan. How do compensation claims plug into that then?

In simplistic terms, every insurer will have different risk appetites at a given time.

They may have had bad experience with a particular car type and as a result price it to not get the business.

In relation to the age of vehicle, I agree, it doesn't make much sense to me either however the logic behind it (as far as I can see) is that older vehicles have been involved in more accidents than newer vehicles and therefore a blanket view is taken with all vehicles over a certain age.

Its very much a case of using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut but the fact of the matter is that its simply not possible to underwrite every single vehicle individually.

I review and underwrite between 70 and 100 policies a week between home and motor as part of my job. So annually it probably averages at around 4000 individual policies. Im on the higher end of weekly capacity too. The company I work for has iirc something in the region of 350,000 individual policies and would do well over 2,000,000 quotes a year.

It's not an ideal system but its what we have at the moment. I am confident that we have reached the top of the market in terms of pricing and that we will see a reduction over the next 12 to 24 months.

Liam McPoyle · 08-01-2017 11:23pm

Bananaleaf wrote: »

I'm not really sure of what I'm saying really, but I want to throw it out there anyway in case there is someone here better able to explain this.

Is it the car companies who pay out when there is a medical claim? Or are they simply paying out for the cost of the car?

I'm pretty sure I heard a debate on this where it was outlined that the car insurance companies don't pay the costs of medical claims. I don't know who does if that is true - maybe someone here can confirm/correct?

If I crash into you and you have injuries then my insurer will be liable to pay all your medical expenses.

If I crash my car and nobody else is involved my insurer will not pay my medical bills. Some insurers do give a limited amount of expenses coverage to the driver / policy holder that's generally capped at around €1000.

A recent ruling also has made insurers liable for any social welfare payments made to claimants ie if you claim a sickness benefit from the social welfare department they will in turn claim it back from the insurer.

Its another cost that insurers have been saddled with yet it has gotten no coverage whatsoever.

They are all conmen though.

26000 Elephants · 08-01-2017 11:47pm

Rod Munch wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/aig-urges-ban-on-whiplash-claims-to-cut-premiums-1.2548667%3Fmode%3Damp

The insurance market is heavily driven by claims costs.

If we are paying up to 500% higher for compensation claims than our EU counterparts then is it not logical that the insurance will cost more?

You simply cannot compare the two markets.

Even the UK which is similarly priced to over here pay substantially less for claims settlements.

What else would an insurance market be driven by, other than claims cost? Claims cost dictates what premiums should be. The point being made is that a modest increase in number of claims is driving an unacceptable increase of 30% to 50% in premiums.

And where are you getting your figure for 500% from?

Between 2014 and 2015 the number of claims actually fell, from 12420 to 11734. The total value of these claims fell from €281.21m in 2014 to €268.45m in 2015. source PIAB 2015

Yet premiums rocketed in that time frame. Why was that?

Liam McPoyle · 08-01-2017 11:53pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

What else would an insurance market be driven by, other than claims cost? Claims cost dictates what premiums should be. The point being made is that a modest increase in number of claims is driving an unacceptable increase of 30% to 50% in premiums.

And where are you getting your figure for 500% from?

Between 2014 and 2015 the number of claims actually fell, from 12420 to 11734. The total value of these claims fell from €281.21m in 2014 to €268.45m in 2015. source PIAB 2015

Yet premiums rocketed in that time frame. Why was that?

Average cost of whiplash in Ireland €15000.

Average cost of whiplash in Germany €2000.

500%+ difference.

The figures quoted above are from PIAB only.

Do you think they deal with every insurance claim there is?

26000 Elephants · 08-01-2017 11:57pm

Rod Munch wrote: »

Average cost of whiplash in Ireland €15000.

Average cost of whiplash in Germany €2000.

500%+ difference.

The figures quoted above are from PIAB only.

Do you think they deal with every insurance claim there is?

Where did you get the figures was what i was asking. A source. I've been looking for definitive ones but can only find figures from insurance companies themselves ( heavily nuanced)

Anyway, cherry picking individual injuries is pointless. whats of value is the total cost/average cost of claims in the market.

As regards PIAB, are you suggesting a sufficiently small percentage of cases go through the PIAB to render their figures irrelevant?

edit: According to this Report to the government Nov 2016 Page 41:

. IBEC highlighted the disparity in
whiplash awards offered in Ireland vis a vis mainland Europe. In this injury
category alone, the disparity is in the region of 300%.

So if the german figure is to be believed, then the payout in Ireland is €6000, not far off whats typical in the UK, but far removed from your suggestion.

26000 Elephants · 09-01-2017 12:08am

Rod Munch wrote: »

Do you think they deal with every insurance claim there is?

20% are dealt with by PIAB. 10% by the courts.

70% by the insurance companies themselves.

Now, are you suggesting that insurance companies pay more in claims they settle themselves and this is somehow the consumers fault?

Special Circumstances · 09-01-2017 1:21am

Rod Munch wrote: »

Average cost of whiplash in Ireland €15000.

Average cost of whiplash in Germany €2000.

500%+ difference.

The figures quoted above are from PIAB only.

Do you think they deal with every insurance claim there is?

Every single time.

Every single time somebody mentions whiplash they mention Germany. Some people say they get €500. Some say they get €2000. Some say they get a kick in the hole and told to walk it off.

And every single time it's apples and oranges.

What is the total cost of the injury in Germany- do the companies pay for the treatment or is that picked up by the taxpayer via a functioning public health system?

I'd love to see the total cost of a full treatment program in Ireland.

Time off work to attend appointments. (Leisure time or work time, I didn't ask to be run into, my time is precious)
Mileage. ( i did not fvcking ask to be run into, I will not be out of pocket because somebody else was too ignorant not to run into other people)
The actual cost of the treatment... ever price a repair job at an "insurer approved" crash repair place? Picture the same markup on the doctor/physio/etc costs.

So you get compensation for not being able to play your golf or whatever for a few weeks, or get a decent nights sleep.
Add on the insurer approved treatment costs and your own expenses for attending (it's not like you asked for some ignoramus to ram you from behind)...
What does that all add up to it wonder?

Don't even fvcking suggest that the public health system here could absorb these extra out patients.

And THEN, after getting your €500, a kick in the hole, 2 paracetamol and a backrub.... then you'll find that some insurers won't quote you because you have been involved in an accident/loss even though you weren't at fault. Others may quote you but will load you for having claimed off somebody else's insurance. How much...hmmmm ...would €500 sound about right?

Wibbs · 09-01-2017 11:06am

Rod Munch wrote: »

Its very much a case of using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut but the fact of the matter is that its simply not possible to underwrite every single vehicle individually.

Why not? Or at least have some bloody cop on with each client. That a teacher in his mid 30's driving a Saab can be seen as the same risk as a Porsche 911 turbo driver in his 50's is way beyond a difficultly with underwriting every single vehicle individually. Oddly the 911 is over ten years old. Hmmm…. Its seems only some cars are penalised. And companies are all too quick to underwrite individually when and where it suits.

It's not an ideal system but its what we have at the moment. I am confident that we have reached the top of the market in terms of pricing and that we will see a reduction over the next 12 to 24 months.

Well that's alright then. I'll put my car up on blocks this year and try again next year. Oh wait… can't do that either as the pricks will knock my no claims back for being off their books for a year. Rock

Me

Hard place.

And the first person to suggest I change cars will be sent off with a flea in their ear. If they're lucky. When a car four times the power, twice the speed and ten times the price and the same age is half the cost to insure? Get off the stage.

Liam McPoyle · 09-01-2017 12:11pm

There are literally not enough hours in the day to rate each proposer/policy individually.

The guys that are at the coal face ie in call centres etc are not underwriters and do not have the required skills or experience to rate a policy outside of the predetermined acceptance criteria.

As I said above, having a blanket approach is not ideal but unless an insurer is going to pay to employ 100 underwriters for new business and even 50 for existing business then there is nothing that can be done.

gustafo · 09-01-2017 4:59pm

JtByrne wrote: »

Kennco insurance covered my Golf and its 16 years old.

Did you get a good price from them?

I just got my renewal from broker i used for the last few years and it's nearly doubled from last year.
I paid 520 last year, this year they are looking for 960 for 3rd party fire and theft on a 00 mazda 323.

Absolutely ridiculous

JtByrne · 09-01-2017 6:23pm

gustafo wrote: »

Did you get a good price from them?

I just got my renewal from broker i used for the last few years and it's nearly doubled from last year.
I paid 520 last year, this year they are looking for 960 for 3rd party fire and theft on a 00 mazda 323.

Absolutely ridiculous

It was 770. It's gone up about 50 from last year.

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-01-2017 7:04pm

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Every single time.

Every single time somebody mentions whiplash they mention Germany...(and so son)

Well, the figures are hard to dispute. Add to that the undoubtedly quite high number who don't actually need medical treatment but simply have a convenient sore neck to cash in to the tune of €15-20k, the "hidden" cost of which you speak in Germany must be to the tune of €13-15k per accident victim, being very conservative with my estimates.
Also, since the cash payout is much lower, but with a better treatment program available, I would say it discourages spurious claims. If a German gets hit by a car he will claim if he has to, get his settlement and medical treatment if needed. It makes it not very attractive to start your own "crash4cash" business.
Many people in Ireland will simply have €€ signs in their eyes if someone tips off them at 5 km/h. Pack 5 lads in a clapped out car, 5 in another, stage 5 km/h "crash", hey presto, windfall of at least €150k combined.
That is money you can't even get from a bank robbery. And unlike a bank robbery, it is utterly consequence free. Get caught, the worst that will happen is "better luck next time, lads", or the judge will award damages anyway, because it's not his money, he's drunk again, insane, demented, well you know, typical circus court judge stuff.
I keep saying it, if there was snow in Ireland, there would be no skiing. It simply would be unsustainable, if 10 people fell on the piste every day, it would cost millions in compensation every year to keep the place running. The daily pass would have to cost €25032.50.
I know it drives you bonkers, I don't know why, I just don't get it.
The figures are the figures are the figures.
But I do agree with the bad investment thing and insurances being loaded for all sorts of stuff.
Plus the fact that the Irish legal system is run by leeches, criminals, conmen, thieves and lunatics.

Special Circumstances · 09-01-2017 7:25pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, the figures are hard to dispute. Add to that the undoubtedly quite high number who don't actually need medical treatment but simply have a convenient sore neck to cash in to the tune of €15-20k, the "hidden" cost of which you speak in Germany must be to the tune of €13-15k per accident victim, being very conservative with my estimates.
Also, since the cash payout is much lower, but with a better treatment program available, I would say it discourages spurious claims. If a German gets hit by a car he will claim if he has to, get his settlement and medical treatment if needed. It makes it not very attractive to start your own "crash4cash" business.
Many people in Ireland will simply have €€ signs in their eyes if someone tips off them at 5 km/h. Pack 5 lads in a clapped out car, 5 in another, stage 5 km/h "crash", hey presto, windfall of at least €150k combined.
That is money you can't even get from a bank robbery. And unlike a bank robbery, it is utterly consequence free. Get caught, the worst that will happen is "better luck next time, lads", or the judge will award damages anyway, because it's not his money, he's drunk again, insane, demented, well you know, typical circus court judge stuff.
I keep saying it, if there was snow in Ireland, there would be no skiing. It simply would be unsustainable, if 10 people fell on the piste every day, it would cost millions in compensation every year to keep the place running. The daily pass would have to cost €25032.50.
I know it drives you bonkers, I don't know why, I just don't get it.
The figures are the figures are the figures.
But I do agree with the bad investment thing and insurances being loaded for all sorts of stuff.
Plus the fact that the Irish legal system is run by leeches, criminals, conmen, thieves and lunatics.

The apples with oranges figures are very easy to dispute.

I'm saying the "€500 ja" is an apples with oranges comparison and we do not have the sytems in Ireland to provide the same care for the same cost to the injured party as Germany.

I'm not saying "give everybody 15-20k".

BTW - I'd love to hear an insurance exec say "yeah, couldn't play the ol golf/squash at all for 6 months but I got €500... sweet deal or what"

Liam McPoyle · 09-01-2017 7:36pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, the figures are hard to dispute. Add to that the undoubtedly quite high number who don't actually need medical treatment but simply have a convenient sore neck to cash in to the tune of €15-20k, the "hidden" cost of which you speak in Germany must be to the tune of €13-15k per accident victim, being very conservative with my estimates.
Also, since the cash payout is much lower, but with a better treatment program available, I would say it discourages spurious claims. If a German gets hit by a car he will claim if he has to, get his settlement and medical treatment if needed. It makes it not very attractive to start your own "crash4cash" business.
Many people in Ireland will simply have €€ signs in their eyes if someone tips off them at 5 km/h. Pack 5 lads in a clapped out car, 5 in another, stage 5 km/h "crash", hey presto, windfall of at least €150k combined.
That is money you can't even get from a bank robbery. And unlike a bank robbery, it is utterly consequence free. Get caught, the worst that will happen is "better luck next time, lads", or the judge will award damages anyway, because it's not his money, he's drunk again, insane, demented, well you know, typical circus court judge stuff.
I keep saying it, if there was snow in Ireland, there would be no skiing. It simply would be unsustainable, if 10 people fell on the piste every day, it would cost millions in compensation every year to keep the place running. The daily pass would have to cost €25032.50.
I know it drives you bonkers, I don't know why, I just don't get it.
The figures are the figures are the figures.
But I do agree with the bad investment thing and insurances being loaded for all sorts of stuff.
Plus the fact that the Irish legal system is run by leeches, criminals, conmen, thieves and lunatics.

Good to see some objectivity in here Doc.

26000 Elephants · 09-01-2017 8:02pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, the figures are hard to dispute. [cut rant about fraud]

{Its already been established that fraud adds about 35 - 50 euros to an average policy.}

-- What figures are those? Your "15-20K" whiplash figure?
IBEC have already refuted the €15k claim, never mind your new figure of €20k.

Maybe you are referring to the figures the insurance companies wont release, despite being critical to support the "premium rise because... Fraud. Compo, etc."? (see report i linked to earlier)

All I.m asking is that people stop pulling figures out of the air. Present something that can be verified.

Also, you cant just throw these figures around as proof of fraud. Are you suggesting that nobody is genuinely injured in this country?

cruizer101 · 09-01-2017 8:14pm

I hate the insurance companies as much as everyone else in this thread (I've a 99 2.0 Honda Accord insurance up in March, not looking forward to it), however all the blame can't go to them.

Firstly they were allowed get into the position they are in (not enough reserve funds) by previous government letting them.

The thing you have to remember is most companies aren't ethical, especially when they get bigger, they are machines to make money simple as that. The people who make the high level decisions that affect all our premiums are so far removed from us they don't give a ****. Try remember this when talking to them on the phone, the person you are talking to may well be in the same position as many of us.

Ultimately what should happen is the government take over car insurance but that won't happen. They should at least ensure details of every claim should be published, there is absolutely no reason that should not be public knowledge to be analysed by whoever wants.
Also realistically insurance should be based simply on driving experience, car power and weight (not some crazy complicated calculation but a simple system i.e. 20 insurance classes), previous claims and convictions/penalty points. Possibly age but even that I wouldn't be so sure (22 year old driving 5 years is probably better than a newly qualified 40 year old).

There are two different things at play here
1 insurance is gone up: This is across the board because of lack of reserves, increased claims etc. Its **** but it is what it is.
2 Insurance companies are loading and refusing older cars, this is where the real injustice is, there is no logic, people may delude themselves that the insurance companies are misreading the figures, they are not, the actuaries at the top are smarter than the majority of people out there. They know the figures but they also know how to present the figures to say damn near whatever they want.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories and this is possibly borderline one but they have made a conscious decision to load older cars, because for whatever reason it is in their interest for people to have newer cars, maybe the shareholders in insurance are also the shareholders in car companies, maybe they are being encouraged by the government in order to prop up new car sales making the economy seem better, who knows but they are not doing this because of statistics they are using statistics to justify it.

Are they to blame, kind of, but as I say an insurance company like most other companies is not an ethical being it is a machine to make money, the government are meant to be ethical hand that guides companies but sadly ours is a driveling fat slob that panders to them.

I've gone off on a bit of a rant here but just to say do keep posting the insurance you get on older cars it is helpful information to those of us who see no need to jump on the new car bandwagon and get the latest pcp ****e deal and what not.

Bananaleaf · 09-01-2017 8:16pm

Wibbs wrote: »

And the first person to suggest I change cars will be sent off with a flea in their ear. If they're lucky. When a car four times the power, twice the speed and ten times the price and the same age is half the cost to insure? Get off the stage.

This is the bit that drives me up the wall. Anybody who suggests that clearly can't comprehend the issue.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

who don't actually need medical treatment but simply have a convenient sore neck to cash in to the tune of €15-20k

It is an outrage that cash is given for medical treatment in these cases. Why can't it be awarded as 'medical credit' for want of a better explanation.

Not a motor related anecdote here but same principle. I know of someone who had a bad fall a few years back and was awarded a cash figure. He was actually hurt so it wasn't a bogus claim. Nature of the injury meant that he would need surgery immediately and then more surgery a few years down the line. Had the initial surgery. Drank the rest. Social Welfare most of his life. So, when the time comes for the second surgery, his claim money is gone but sure he's no job. So ...... the likes of us will be paying for his second surgery twice.

I'm not using the thread as an opportunity to have a go at "social welfare scroungers" I'm more pointing out how it makes no sense in my eyes to hand people over this amount of cash.

As mentioned previously would make whiplash a less inviting option and clearly I have no business experience but I'm wondering - wouldn't this mean that the insurers would get to hold onto the money for longer if it was only being drawn out as needed for medial bills? Say, in a frozen account just full of claims money. Gaining interest. Restocking the pot so to speak. This suggestion is probably an off-the-wall one.

Discodog · 09-01-2017 8:20pm

Brian J Pierce Limited
(01) 667 4985

Mark O'Grady at BJ Pierce saved me €200 on my 1995. Really helpful

Wibbs · 09-01-2017 8:30pm

gustafo wrote: »

I paid 520 last year, this year they are looking for 960 for 3rd party fire and theft on a 00 mazda 323.

Absolutely ridiculous

Aye, Though TBH Gustafo I would cry tears of fcuking joy to get a quote even close to the wrong side of a thousand quid. That's how ridiculous it's become. EG I was paying 800, then it doubled last year and now it's 300 quid shy of three bloody grand. For the same driver who is getting older and safer by the year and the same car that is getting older and less valuable* and I'm doing way less milage than I was(I've only done 7000 Kms since 2013). Never mind I've had the thing since '05 so it's more like a well loved family pet at this stage. A scarily economical old thing it has been too. In maintenance it has cost me less in original parts and labour in all that time than the cost of my insurance premium last year. Oh that includes consumables too. Yep. Proof if proof were needed I drive like a nun.

*the insurance has added to the Irish devaluation. The premiums have meant these articular cars are dead in the water value wise. Half the price of the UK and the rest of the EU. If you can sell one. It's not the only model so affected. I personally know of a few British lads that have come over here to buy older cars at a major saving compared to the UK market.

Surreptitious · 09-01-2017 9:28pm

Mine went up 500 euros this year. Nearly killed me to pay it.

26000 Elephants · 10-01-2017 12:25am

cruizer101 wrote: »

This is across the board because of lack of reserves, increased claims etc. Its **** but it is what it is.

Its ***** because that is clearly *not* what it is.

Increased Claims? The evidence suggests that they have not increased to any significant degree. Unless you can provide otherwise?

Lack of reserves? Insurance companies have left themselves exposed by blowing profits that should have bolstered reserves. Insurance companies increase reserves by declaring them as such and posting a loss to their books. This loss is then balanced by an inward investment - like a convertible bond. Or you can just screw your customers and tell them its due to 'fraud'

Neither of these reasons is sufficient to explain the 30% - 40% hikes we have witnessed.

Its profiteering on a captive market.

Liam McPoyle · 10-01-2017 9:02am

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Its ***** because that is clearly *not* what it is.

Increased Claims? The evidence suggests that they have not increased to any significant degree. Unless you can provide otherwise?

Lack of reserves? Insurance companies have left themselves exposed by blowing profits that should have bolstered reserves. Insurance companies increase reserves by declaring them as such and posting a loss to their books. This loss is then balanced by an inward investment - like a convertible bond. Or you can just screw your customers and tell them its due to 'fraud'

Neither of these reasons is sufficient to explain the 30% - 40% hikes we have witnessed.

Its profiteering on a captive market.

Can I ask, how did they blow their profits?

There are a few people that have brought it up but nobody has been able to give any further information / free thinking about insurers investments.

Investment income has dropped, that much is true. But for some strange reason the drop in investment income coincided with the collapse of the worldwide investment markets. Is that insurers fault?

Traditionally insurers could pad their reserves with investment income but as the rate of return on the money markets is significantly lower today than it was in previous years that is not possible.

So please, do share how they have blown their profits.

All I've seen in the media about it is an opinion piece from the hack that is Charlie Weston and a propaganda piece by a member of the law society. Of course the law society would be completely impartial and unbiased, they don't have a vested interest in claims settlement figures.....

Special Circumstances · 10-01-2017 10:00am

^^^ Pure gold - "pay up b1tches, we deserve it! why should we have to tighten our belts when investment return drops!"

Special Circumstances · 10-01-2017 10:04am

I notice none of the proponents of the "€500 and 2 paracetemol, that'll learn um" solution have explained how genuine injuries will be treated (public? private?) and how much it will cost to do that in Ireland.

Of course some people don't believe in physics and physiology, so for them whiplash is unpossible.

26000 Elephants · 10-01-2017 10:56am

Rod Munch wrote: »

Can I ask, how did they blow their profits?

Have a read of the previously linked report to the Oireachtas, Nov 2016.

"..engaged in cut throat competition... using investment profits ... to cover underwriting losses"

Rod Munch wrote: »

Investment income has dropped, that much is true. But for some strange reason the drop in investment income coincided with the collapse of the worldwide investment markets. Is that insurers fault?

Are you being serious? AIG anybody? :cool:

And your use of the word "coincided" is subjective. "Precipitated|" would be a far more accurate word. What had been a localised imprudence among american banks became a global meltdown as a result of the insane insurance schemes underwriting these investment vehicles.

Traditionally insurers could pad their reserves with investment income but as the rate of return on the money markets is significantly lower today than it was in previous years that is not possible.

No. Reserves should be built upon profits from their book. Long-term use investment profits ( which should go to pay pensions, returns, etc) was and is unsustainable.

So please, do share how they have blown their profits.

All I've seen in the media about it is an opinion piece from the hack that is Charlie Weston and a propaganda piece by a member of the law society. Of course the law society would be completely impartial and unbiased, they don't have a vested interest in claims settlement figures.....

Propaganda? Seriously?

I take it you earn you keep from commissions on policies written? So its fair to say that a 30% increase in premiums is in effect a 30% pay rise for yourself?

Vested interest indeed, Rod.

Liam McPoyle · 10-01-2017 12:19pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Have a read of the previously linked report to the Oireachtas, Nov 2016.

"..engaged in cut throat competition... using investment profits ... to cover underwriting losses"

Are you being serious? AIG anybody? :cool:

And your use of the word "coincided" is subjective. "Precipitated|" would be a far more accurate word. What had been a localised imprudence among american banks became a global meltdown as a result of the insane insurance schemes underwriting these investment vehicles.

No. Reserves should be built upon profits from their book. Long-term use investment profits ( which should go to pay pensions, returns, etc) was and is unsustainable.

Propaganda? Seriously?

I take it you earn you keep from commissions on policies written? So its fair to say that a 30% increase in premiums is in effect a 30% pay rise for yourself?

Vested interest indeed, Rod.

In the 2.5 years I've worked in underwriting I've gotten a 1% salary increment and exactly 0% bonus.

The increment did not even cover the increase in the cost of living.

I was earning more 5 years ago when I worked in a call centre.

But ya, I'm just creaming it in.

You seriously do not have any idea how the industry works.

However you have your opinions and you are entitled to them, there is no point in going around in circles so I'll leave it there.

26000 Elephants · 10-01-2017 2:53pm

Rod Munch wrote: »

In the 2.5 years I've worked in underwriting I've gotten a 1% salary increment and exactly 0% bonus.

The increment did not even cover the increase in the cost of living.

I was earning more 5 years ago when I worked in a call centre.

But ya, I'm just creaming it in.

You seriously do not have any idea how the industry works.

However you have your opinions and you are entitled to them, there is no point in going around in circles so I'll leave it there.

Ok, I misinterpreted your comment earlier about the number of policies you dealt with - I incorrectly assumed you were a broker or agent. For that I apologise. I have friends in the brokerage business and increased premiums means more money for them. It also means fewer policies in areas other than obligatory motor insurance, but thats part of the issue here.

However, the other points remain.

1. Give us some figures to back up your 15,000 whiplash claims and generally spiraling claims costs.
2. Insurance companies have only themselves to blame for their current mess. Using motor premiums to prop up investment losses sounds like a fraud to me.
3. Legal professionals have a right to their opinion as any of us. To charachterise their position as "propaganda" is churlish.
4. To try and paint every unfortunate person who gets injured in an accident as a fraudster is simply wrong. Insurance companies are supposed to pay out money, thats the idea. To characterise all claims as theft is wrong. Actual fraud, while a problem that does need further work, is a small portion of this issue.

Now, again, please explain to me why Liberty have tried to extort an extra 500 euro from me and many others this years - other than to make whole their losses from other interests.

Special Circumstances · 10-01-2017 3:15pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

...
...
Also, you cant just throw these figures around as proof of fraud. Are you suggesting that nobody is genuinely injured in this country?

26000 Elephants wrote: »

...
...
4. To try and paint every unfortunate person who gets injured in an accident as a fraudster is simply wrong. Insurance companies are supposed to pay out money, thats the idea. To characterise all claims as theft is wrong. Actual fraud, while a problem that does need further work, is a small portion of this issue.

There is a concerted effort to deny physics and physiology and declare whiplash to be imaginary.

Anyone can sprain an ankle or a wrist doing the simplest of things, you could put your back out tying your shoelaces... but suddenly and unexpectedly accelerating an inverted pendulum which has evolved for brain size not robustness of the neck... be grand like, they're all spoofers. :rolleyes:

If whiplash can't be successfully tainted as being a spoof injury, the next step is to pay out next to nothing for it.
"oh but in country X with a completely different public health system the insurers only pay out Y"... but never mentioning the actual total cost and who picks up the balance of the cost.
Disingenuous. Deceitful. Why???

Liam McPoyle · 10-01-2017 4:22pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Ok, I misinterpreted your comment earlier about the number of policies you dealt with - I incorrectly assumed you were a broker or agent. For that I apologise. I have friends in the brokerage business and increased premiums means more money for them. It also means fewer policies in areas other than obligatory motor insurance, but thats part of the issue here.

However, the other points remain.

1. Give us some figures to back up your 15,000 whiplash claims and generally spiraling claims costs.
2. Insurance companies have only themselves to blame for their current mess. Using motor premiums to prop up investment losses sounds like a fraud to me.
3. Legal professionals have a right to their opinion as any of us. To charachterise their position as "propaganda" is churlish.
4. To try and paint every unfortunate person who gets injured in an accident as a fraudster is simply wrong. Insurance companies are supposed to pay out money, thats the idea. To characterise all claims as theft is wrong. Actual fraud, while a problem that does need further work, is a small portion of this issue.

Now, again, please explain to me why Liberty have tried to extort an extra 500 euro from me and many others this years - other than to make whole their losses from other interests.

No problem, I havnt worked in a direct sales environment in over 4 years and because I work for an insurer, as an underwriter, underwriting motor insurance, I see the problems in the industry on a daily basis. Its easy for me to talk about the issues as I'm acutely aware of them. Im on mobile ATM but will respond to your questions when I get home later on.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-01-2017 6:38pm

Special Circumstances wrote: »

There is a concerted effort to deny physics and physiology and declare whiplash to be imaginary.

Anyone can sprain an ankle or a wrist doing the simplest of things, you could put your back out tying your shoelaces... but suddenly and unexpectedly accelerating an inverted pendulum which has evolved for brain size not robustness of the neck... be grand like, they're all spoofers. :rolleyes:

If whiplash can't be successfully tainted as being a spoof injury, the next step is to pay out next to nothing for it.
"oh but in country X with a completely different public health system the insurers only pay out Y"... but never mentioning the actual total cost and who picks up the balance of the cost.
Disingenuous. Deceitful. Why???

Well, the Irish have necks made from Marzipan, dunno, must be a genetic defect, personally I have been in several shunts and never had a problem. Frontal crash because car decided to switch into my lane, going close enough to 80 (total write off), no problem. Rear-ended at lights, bootlid and floor stoved in, no problem, car pulled out 2 meters ahead of me going 50 km/h, front left heavy damage, no problem, plus a few more in my wilder youth, never a single issue.
Yet in this country people manage to have years of debilitating pain and need decades of treatment for 5 km/h car park shunts, the mind boggles.

And this is not just something I'm saying for fun, it's statistically proven:
http://radio.rte.ie/radio1highlights/80-whiplash-element-france-3-obviously-delicate-irish-necks-come-play/

“80% of cases here have a whiplash element. In France, it’s 3%. Obviously, very delicate Irish necks have come into play here. There is no doubt some of this is accounted for by exaggerated claims.”

So, only someone with cottage cheese for a brain (or maybe too much whiplash) would argue that the compo culture in Ireland is a figment of our imagination, everything is zippedy-dandy, nothing to see here, payouts are AOK (btw, they look after you in Deutschland when you have an injury), €2k vs €15k a difference of exactly €0 (I think your calculator is out of battery, dude) and so on.
Seriously, dude, WTF.

26000 Elephants · 10-01-2017 7:38pm

Whiplash - 80% in Ireland - Only 3% in France...

Sure the only explanation for that is that us Irish are just lying, lazy malingerers.

Probably nothing to do with the fact that France has both the Juges de Proximité and Tribunaux d’instance to handle these types of injuries so they dont get litigated.

But I'm sure such a minor fact shouldn't be allowed get in the way of a bit of bally-gombeen-ery.

As you were.

Special Circumstances · 10-01-2017 8:06pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, the Irish have necks made from Marzipan, dunno, must be a genetic defect, personally I have been in several shunts and never had a problem. Frontal crash because car decided to switch into my lane, going close enough to 80 (total write off), no problem. Rear-ended at lights, bootlid and floor stoved in, no problem, car pulled out 2 meters ahead of me going 50 km/h, front left heavy damage, no problem, plus a few more in my wilder youth, never a single issue.
Yet in this country people manage to have years of debilitating pain and need decades of treatment for 5 km/h car park shunts, the mind boggles.

And this is not just something I'm saying for fun, it's statistically proven:
http://radio.rte.ie/radio1highlights/80-whiplash-element-france-3-obviously-delicate-irish-necks-come-play/

So, only someone with cottage cheese for a brain (or maybe too much whiplash) would argue that the compo culture in Ireland is a figment of our imagination, everything is zippedy-dandy, nothing to see here, payouts are AOK (btw, they look after you in Deutschland when you have an injury), €2k vs €15k a difference of exactly €0 (I think your calculator is out of battery, dude) and so on.
Seriously, dude, WTF.

Lolz at the inference of genetic and intellectual inferiority.

Do you stand on a little box and do the smashing fist into palm and aggressive gesticulations when get into a roll of mocking the untermensch Irish?

ShadowHearth · 11-01-2017 2:21am

What I learned so far:

Getting someone to tip, or even just touch your car, while you in it is pretty much same as winning a lotto.

I honestly don't know how far this whole thing will go.
I **** you not now, I did a list of cars I am interested in and would like to buy. I wrote down details of each car and their reg numbers. Thursday I am planing to go to my broker and get quotes on those cars and see if even one of them will be around 1k eu.
I **** you now, I feel like I am 18 again and looking to get insured. 30 year old man with full NCB and 12 years driving license should not be doing this bull**** and at least expect to get 1k eu insurance in any decent car. Do I really need to go back driving something like yaris and micra, but only if it's 1-5 years old, like I had to at 18? **** off!

Wibbs · 11-01-2017 11:24am

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Lolz at the inference of genetic and intellectual inferiority.

Do you stand on a little box and do the smashing fist into palm and aggressive gesticulations when get into a roll of mocking the untermensch Irish?

Eh no. While I would be among the first to call shenanigans with regard to the Irish insurance industry and some of the plain nonsense they come out with and am living with as we speak, the plain fact is we're an incredibly litigious society, all too eager to "get the claim in" and this is long a thing in this country. I've seen it up close with friends and folks in the motor trade on both sides. There is an awful lot of padding going on. There are no "good guys" in this. The public taking the piss with claims, the judiciary enabling, even egging them on and the insurance companies not hindering the culture enough and again even egging it on. I have personally seen insurance assessors padding a bill so the garage and car owner "gets a twist". That's at the pointy end, further up the chain the industry in this country has seemingly been run by chancers and yahoos in the past. All this means we're all paying for it now.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I honestly don't know how far this whole thing will go.
I **** you not now, I did a list of cars I am interested in and would like to buy. I wrote down details of each car and their reg numbers. Thursday I am planing to go to my broker and get quotes on those cars and see if even one of them will be around 1k eu.
I **** you now, I feel like I am 18 again and looking to get insured. 30 year old man with full NCB and 12 years driving license should not be doing this bull**** and at least expect to get 1k eu insurance in any decent car. Do I really need to go back driving something like yaris and micra, but only if it's 1-5 years old, like I had to at 18? **** off!

I hear your pain SH and triple it. It's beyond a farce TBH and wholly illogical and inconsistent. Again we need far more transparency across the board for a "service" that is legally mandated. It should not be this hidden and IMH is a bloody crime that it is. Then again the Irish [insert any party here]government has proven itself over the decades since the foundation of this state to be a pack of gombeen morons incapable of regulating a damn thing.

Carbon125 · 11-01-2017 11:30am

Key points from an article in the Irish Times:

The Government is to establish a new commission headed by a former High Court judge to carry out international comparisons of Ireland’s personal injury awards in a bid to force down premiums.

Under the plan, a national claims information database operated by the Central Bank will be set up within 18 months to hold motor tax, insurance and driving records of every motorist, and NCT details of every vehicle.

The Government believes the database will help to identify repeat claims and would make it easier to catch uninsured drivers. Gardaí will also be given resources to allow for automatic number plate recognition.

Whiplash accounts for up to 80 per cent of all motor insurance claims, with payments ranging up to €19,400. In the United Kingdom, the maximum payment is €7,600.

Full article here.

Wibbs · 11-01-2017 1:10pm

Carbon125 wrote: »

The Government is to establish a new commission

Oh oh. Christ I hope it's not just another pocket lining exercise for members of a quango. It's not as if we don't have lots of previous on this score.

*crosses fingers*

Under the plan, a national claims information database operated by the Central Bank will be set up within 18 months to hold motor tax, insurance and driving records of every motorist, and NCT details of every vehicle.

Great idea and one long overdue and one wonders why it's not on the go already. Yours truly also wonder why it'll take 18 months to implement. Don't the Gardai already have a database of tax and insurance attached to number plates? Whatever about the driving records the NCT database seems pretty up to speed within that system. How difficult would it be to add that into the existing Gardai one?

Gardaí will also be given resources to allow for automatic number plate recognition.

Not before time.

Whiplash accounts for up to 80 per cent of all motor insurance claims,

What the actual f… 80%?? That's pure scandal. :mad::mad: There should be a solid cap on such injury claims.

Hopefully this all gets implemented and quickly as insurance costs across the board are really hurting people and small and large business too. Never mind individually, it's bad for the economy.

Carbon125 · 11-01-2017 1:49pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Yours truly also wonder why it'll take 18 months to implement.

That's sort of the typical glacial speed of the government doing it's thing.
What do you expect? It's not a bank bailout, you know.
That can of course be done overnight. :cool:

26000 Elephants · 11-01-2017 2:11pm

Wibbs wrote: »

What the actual f… 80%?? That's pure scandal. :mad::mad: There should be a solid cap on such injury claims.

Ask yourself "what does 'Up to 80%' mean? Its either "80% of claims" or its some other figure. This is what the commission has been trying to get to. This is Kevin Thompsons game all along - fudge the figures so nobody has any idea of what is actually going on and all the while ripping off consumers. The linking the garda databases (which doesnt work byw) with an NCT database is a red herring - it would take years to sort out.

Fun fact if 80% of the 200,000* claims made last year were paid 15,000 as suggested by Insurance Ireland, it would have cost €2.4Bn. Yet they only paid out 700m

Fraud is an accepted issue and needs to be dealt with - we know this but it is not the root cause of spiraling premiums.

Has anybody asked the question of how it is insurance companies collect €1100m in premiums and pay out €700m, but this still leads to a loss on the books?

Ask how is it allowable to claim a "hold back"** to reserves as a loss on the books. For example, FBD balanced their premiums to claims+costs last year. But had to make a provision to reserves of €80m. Their "Claims paid" return was increased by that €80m, making it look as if thy lost heavily on their policy writing. Its not just FBD, this is a common wheeze by insurers to paint a drastically worse picture than is the case.

Why are insurance companies allowed to continue with a cost ratio of almost 50%? Thats an enormous margin for an industry that essentially produces nothing tangible. Its roughly split between 11% commsiion/bonus on sales (sorry rod, you missedout on that one!) and 23% operating costs. I see RSA and FBD have mademoves to tackle this, but pocketing €350m in expenses while criminalising the rest for having the temerity to claim of them seems bad form.

* "claims notified" on private motor policies only
** Its allowable, but its a great way to hide a profit.

Car insurance for >15 year old cars

Comments