A guide to motor insurance & FAQ's

Liam McPoyle

PrettyBoy wrote: »

My insurance quote is €200 more than I paid last year. I've shopped around a bit but can't find anyone that will do it cheaper. Probably a stupid question but is there any point in calling my current insurer and seeing if there's any chance they could reduce it slightly or is it not worth even trying?

It's always worth asking, don't ask you certainly won't get.

PrettyBoy

Business Cat wrote: »

It's always worth asking, don't ask you certainly won't get.

Called them up and got €20 off, better than nothing

acronym Chilli

PrettyBoy wrote: »

Called them up and got €20 off, better than nothing

More than pays for your phone call at any rate!

I was on to my insurer last week as changing car, renewal coming up too (in post, so she had details but I didn't have letter yet). In a couple of minutes of conversation the operator dropped it from €1500 to €800 (there were exceptional factors that were being disproportionately loaded this year, and which had changed (for better) since I originally gave details to the insurer).

Anyway, from both stories, no harm in talking to them.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Reporting back on the fiesta to golf change. So the fiesta was insured 3rd party fire and theft until April. I swapped the vehicle to the golf, and changed the policy to fully comp. Total cost until April was 120. This includes a 30 euro admin fee (bastards) so actual cost of insurance was 90 quid. I don't really get it. The golf is twice as powerful and three times as valuable. But I'm not gonna complain.

All in all

A friend with a provisional was driving unaccompanied, they were at fault in a crash (crashed into a stationary car), there was an occupant in the car. They went through the insurance and claim was settled and they received bill for the insurance co. as they weren't insured as driving unaccompanied, they have agreed with this.

Now the occupant of the other car is claiming medical expenses, will my friend also be liable for whatever arises out of this?

GM228

All in all wrote: »

A friend with a provisional was driving unaccompanied, they were at fault in a crash (crashed into a stationary car), there was an occupant in the car. They went through the insurance and claim was settled and they received bill for the insurance co. as they weren't insured as driving unaccompanied, they have agreed with this.

Now the occupant of the other car is claiming medical expenses, will my friend also be liable for whatever arises out of this?

Unless specified in the policy then there is no reason normally for the insurance company not to pay out, whilst driving without a second driver is a criminal offence your friend would still be covered (unless there is a specific clause to that effect) as the insurance company is not responsible for enforcing a criminal offence.

I was under the impression that a third party was always covered irrespective of the drivers eligibility to drive?

But if the insurance company arn't playing ball and saying he wasn't insured then how can a claim be made and settled and then further medical claims be made? Surely if the insurance company are saying your friend wasn't insured for driving unaccompanied then they weren't insured end of so there should be no settlement of any claim as the policy is invalid which is the same as no policy.

readytosnap

All in all wrote: »

A friend with a provisional was driving unaccompanied, they were at fault in a crash (crashed into a stationary car), there was an occupant in the car. They went through the insurance and claim was settled and they received bill for the insurance co. as they weren't insured as driving unaccompanied, they have agreed with this.

Now the occupant of the other car is claiming medical expenses, will my friend also be liable for whatever arises out of this?

Maybe the occupant (injured party) claimed on his own insurance and they are chasing the driver for the money.

All in all

GM228 wrote: »

Unless specified in the policy then there is no reason normally for the insurance company not to pay out, whilst driving without a second driver is a criminal offence your friend would still be covered (unless there is a specific clause to that effect) as the insurance company is not responsible for enforcing a criminal offence.

I was under the impression that a third party was always covered irrespective of the drivers eligibility to drive?

But if the insurance company arn't playing ball and saying he wasn't insured then how can a claim be made and settled and then further medical claims be made? Surely if the insurance company are saying your friend wasn't insured for driving unaccompanied then they weren't insured end of so there should be no settlement of any claim as the policy is invalid which is the same as no policy.

There is wording in the policy that says they reserve the right to seek repayment of monies paid out if the driver is breach of the terms of their licence.

They are not saying they weren't insured as such, just in breach of terms of the terms of the licence, so the insurance co. Is seeking repayment of the money they have paid. Obviously a worry if the medical claims/ settlement amount to a significant amount.

Tippjohn

Just think, a person who is not licenced to drive caused damage, they could have killed someone. The victim would get nothing if the driver had nothing. Personally I think the driver should be jailed.

All in all

Tippjohn wrote: »

Just think, a person who is not licenced to drive caused damage, they could have killed someone. The victim would get nothing if the driver had nothing. Personally I think the driver should be jailed.

Incorrect the the third party is always covered.

Thanks for your input.

Tippjohn

Excuse me, how about a pedestrian? Apparently there can be a clause in a policy to write this out. Also minimum 1000e fine for first offense.
There is a disscussion about this a few years back.

GM228

Tippjohn wrote: »

Excuse me, how about a pedestrian?

A pedestrian is covered under third party and a third party is always covered, it is the legal minimum requirement for insurance and there are no except pedestrians clauses.

Indeed you can be fined yes, but that's a matter for the Guards/courts, not the insurance companies.

All in all

Tippjohn wrote: »

Excuse me, how about a pedestrian? Apparently there can be a clause in a policy to write this out. Also minimum 1000e fine for first offense.
There is a disscussion about this a few years back.

No you are wrong, there is no issue with the driver being insured, the driver is fully insured. The issue I am asking about is between the insured and the insurer and has zero impact on the third party, their claim is being be paid as normal.

Make up your mind - do you want them jailed or fined? By the time you have finished jailing people for things that are regarded by our legislators as minor traffic offences do you think that there will be anyone bar you and your high horse left to work in the prisons of our country.

I am not sure why you are posting on this thread and you appear to have nothing constructive to add, bar your ignorance and lack or knowledge of the topic at hand, half remembered anecdotes of years old threads and airing of your opinions on how justice should be delivered in this country.

All in all

readytosnap wrote: »

Maybe the occupant (injured party) claimed on his own insurance and they are chasing the driver for the money.

Thanks - no it is definitely been claimed and paid from the drivers insurance.

Tippjohn

Under legislation they can be jailed and fined. There is nothing minor about any offense IMHO. There is no high horse agenda concerning damaging other peoples property or person it causes harm and is one of the reasons for this thread. High insurance costs for everyone due to the reckless attitude of the few. Ah sure it was only a "they thought" or "I thought" it would be alright agenda.

All in all

Tippjohn wrote: »

Under legislation they can be jailed and fined. There is nothing minor about any offense IMHO. There is no high horse agenda concerning damaging other peoples property or person it causes harm and is one of the reasons for this thread. High insurance costs for everyone due to the reckless attitude of the few. Ah sure it was only a "they thought" or "I thought" it would be alright agenda.

When I asked my questions I was not seeking any moral judgement or opinions, but you don't seem to be capable of not passing yours on.

I asked a factual questions and was hoping for some factual answers on how the claim may progress, not to receive your personal opinion on the rights and wrongs of the matter.

You certainly do appear to have a 'high horse' agenda, if you didn't you wouldn't have posted a reply on this thread.

Tippjohn

The thing about posting on a public forum is that debate can be stimulated. Without replies then thread will not develop. Sometimes the originator or a third party, does not like the opinions of others and that is up to them.
My agenda is that I do not like excusing criminal behaviour that causes damage to others, as simple as that.
There are many things that I would like to discuss, such as contracts with minors, someone who has no right to drive obtaining keys, the fact that insurance contracts seem to deviate from normal contract law, ie that goods or services are exchanged for a consideration ( money) and that the risk / adherence to clauses etc does not appear to void the contract.. I am sure many would be interested but you know what, time is too short and valuable so I leave any other opinions or questions to others.

All in all

Tippjohn wrote: »

The thing about posting on a public forum is that debate can be stimulated. Without replies then thread will not develop. Sometimes the originator or a third party, does not like the opinions of others and that is up to them.
My agenda is that I do not like excusing criminal behaviour that causes damage to others, as simple as that.
There are many things that I would like to discuss, such as contracts with minors, someone who has no right to drive obtaining keys, the fact that insurance contracts seem to deviate from normal contract law, ie that goods or services are exchanged for a consideration ( money) and that the risk / adherence to clauses etc does not appear to void the contract.. I am sure many would be interested but you know what, time is too short and valuable so I leave any other opinions or questions to others.

I have no interest in your personnel opinion or the agenda that you have, and I certainly did not wish to receive it. IMO you do not understand how a forum, when someone asks a question, it is not there for you to use that an opportunity to raise the agenda that you have.

The title of this thread is 'A Guide to Motor Insurance & FAQ's', I am not sure that anythng you have posted on this thread is relevant to the subject. Perhaps you need to start you own thread so you can start an intellectual debate on the agenda that you have.

Siobh73

Any tips on insuring a 17 year old car or is my only option to stay with my current insurer?

readytosnap

Siobh73 wrote: »

Any tips on insuring a 17 year old car or is my only option to stay with my current insurer?

Ring around, click around and if you have no joy you could always chance your arm and tell your current insurer that you been offered a better quote, then ask them if they will match it, it worked for me more than once over the years.

Tippjohn

First of all my post was not directed at you. If you have no interests in my posts then kindly ignore them. Insurance costs are rising due to scum not obeying the law and people like you championing their actions. Personally I would be ashamed if I was the cause of the damage and I would not want you using my actions as a reason to post something which is second hand and possibly inaccurate. You would be well advised to consider your attitude towards anti social behaviour.
Time is valuable and I suggest you pick on someone who has not got a 43 years clean record like I have.
The person who claimed for the idiots actions which caused him damage has probably had his no claims affected and I hope he persues his costs throught he courts.
I suggest you leave it there as you are well out of order and are not almost certainly not popular with the 95% of decent law abiding drivers.

All in all

Tippjohn wrote: »

First of all my post was not directed at you. If you have no interests in my posts then kindly ignore them. Insurance costs are rising due to scum not obeying the law and people like you championing their actions. Personally I would be ashamed if I was the cause of the damage and I would not want you using my actions as a reason to post something which is second hand and possibly inaccurate. You would be well advised to consider your attitude towards anti social behaviour.
Time is valuable and I suggest you pick on someone who has not got a 43 years clean record like I have.
The person who claimed for the idiots actions which caused him damage has probably had his no claims affected and I hope he persues his costs throught he courts.
I suggest you leave it there as you are well out of order and are not almost certainly not popular with the 95% of decent law abiding drivers.

No - your post was directly rated to a question that I asked. It just annoys me when I see judgemental posts like yours. As I stated before I asked a factual question, I didnt give my opinion on the matter as it is as irelevant as yours, so I'm not sure why you think I am championing anyones actions. I am happy to let the law of land deal with anyones actions.

I am not picking on anyone, and I am not sure why you think that I am. You are the person who does not seem to have an understanding of the question at hand, and you post another inaccuracy saying that the claimant has there no claims affected and they should pursue their claim through the court. I have already stated that the driver was fully insured and the claim is being fully paid by their insurance company.

95% of drivers are not law abiding, in our own province (Munster) 23% of drivers have penalty points, of course you would rather have all these people in jail. I am not sure where you got your figure of 95% from, perhaps another incorrect statement.

Asmooh

What is wrong with this country? Not even a air filter?

Foxhole Norman

Asmooh wrote: »

What is wrong with this country? Not even a air filter?

That's standard practice here. You can declare your modifications but it may cause your premium to go up.

jimgoose

Asmooh wrote: »

What is wrong with this country? Not even a air filter?

Nope. You go Halfords or, saints preserve us, K&N, that's a paddlin'.

garrettod

Hi,

A friend recently mentioned to me that they thought they had heard of some insurance companies now offering motor insurance for 2-year terms. I had never heard of this, but can immediately think of a few reasons why I'd consider it.

Has anyone here heard of companies offering 2-year insurance premiums and if so, could they please point me in the right direction ?

Obviously, any negative considerations in respect of taking out a 2-year policy are also welcome.

To Elland Back

Blue Insurance do a 2 year policy. Nothing wrong with it

https://www.blueinsurance.ie/?gclid=Cj0KEQiAqqO0BRDyo8mkv9y259EBEiQApVQD_Yk0GstqT8f6bTVrzTGFdMnfH7o3vNYxvcYM30V1WHYaAry_8P8HAQ

RainyDay

garrettod wrote: »

Obviously, any negative considerations in respect of taking out a 2-year policy are also welcome.

Inability to shop around to get a better price after 1 year?

garrettod

To Elland Back wrote: »

Blue Insurance do a 2 year policy. Nothing wrong with it

https://www.blueinsurance.ie/?gclid=Cj0KEQiAqqO0BRDyo8mkv9y259EBEiQApVQD_Yk0GstqT8f6bTVrzTGFdMnfH7o3vNYxvcYM30V1WHYaAry_8P8HAQ

Thanks.

RainyDay wrote: »

Inability to shop around to get a better price after 1 year?

Possibly, but the flip side of that coin is that you are protected against further increses in Year 2 - be they in the industry in general, or perhaps (depending on the policy terms) as a result of your own circumstances changing.

alisonhealy

Siobh73 wrote: »

Any tips on insuring a 17 year old car or is my only option to stay with my current insurer?

My car is 21 years old this year and axa seem to be the only one that will give me a quote! I was with them last year and got almost €90 back off them during the year for using their drivesave app!