I can't get insured at all :(

Kensington

timmy4u2 wrote: »

You are creating a scenario that does not exist and will not exist.
There is no "finding out" by the insurance company.Nothing subterfuge. You are up front and truthful from the start.
They cater for this; it brings them revenue and business.

If the case goes to court you land yourself in a very sticky situation.

Lie to the insurance company on your policy but come clean in court - insurance company will likely pay you nothing and furthermore pursue you for their costs or third party claims.

Lie to the insurance company and lie to the court - you could be found for perjury which puts your insurance problems at the bottom of the list of priorities.

pippip

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

The op would have to pay the 3K excess if they hit someone else's car. The passat may not be worth that but the other car could be

.Each Insurance company are different with the excess and third party. Some you pay others you don't, need to check policy.

Pipp
These are your last two posts, which one is correct. To me the contradict each other.

Sorry I don't see how they contradict each other. The second post was just saying that under some third party policies you still have to pay the excess. As djimi pointed out there are ones that waive this.

Its irrelevant anyway as looking at XS website they don't do "third party cover" only fully comp with high excess. Unless someone can spot otherwise as it doesn't provide that option when providing a quote.

djimi

pippip wrote: »

Its irrelevant anyway as looking at XS website they don't do "third party cover" only fully comp with high excess. Unless someone can spot otherwise as it doesn't provide that option when providing a quote.

You can still make a third party only claim even with fully comp, and the point being that if you are not claiming for your own car then the excess (even if its €3k) might not come into it.

Im not sure about XS Direct specifically; Id be very surprised if they waive the excess for a claim of any type, seeing as how their business model is built upon reducing the risk to themselves as much as they possibly can.

pippip

djimi wrote: »

You can still make a third party only claim even with fully comp, and the point being that if you are not claiming for your own car then the excess (even if its €3k) might not come into it.

Im not sure about XS Direct specifically; Id be very surprised if they waive the excess for a claim of any type, seeing as how their business model is built upon reducing the risk to themselves as much as they possibly can.

According to their policy doc on third party claims with no damage to your car you have to pay them back the amount up to the 3K.
Suppose they are what they are. No frills but you get insurance at a cost.

djimi

pippip wrote: »

According to their policy doc on third party claims with no damage to your car you have to pay them back the amount up to the 3K.
Suppose they are what they are. No frills but you get insurance at a cost.

Thats fair enough; its what I would have assumed from XS Direct alright. They are what they are, but in reality that is little more than a piece of paper in the window to make you road legal.

r3nu4l

Red Kev wrote: »

The problem is, as somebody said earlier it's the new boy racer mobile and there's a fair few of them ending up in ditches on Saturday nights where I live.

This.

A huge problem for the OP is that one of the worst crashes in recent memory, in Ireland occurred:
in Donegal,
in a Passat,
driven by a 22 year old.

Our OP is
in Donegal,
In a Passat,
and is a 21 year old

So statistically that's seven deaths linked to a Passat from that crash. The Stats won't care if it was one accident and one driver at fault, they just see:

7 deaths+Passat+22 yr old = Cha Ching, €€€€ premium

All this in a county with an atrocious insurance record anyway.

Get a different car, grow older and move county, you'll be grand :pac:

djimi

Some companies offer voluntary excess increases to bring down the policy. It might be worth looking into that, especially if its with a company who does not charge the excess on a third party claim. Pick up a cheap car that you are happy to walk away from and whack up the excess as far as it will go, in the knowledge that you wont be required to pay it.

timmy4u2

Kensington wrote: »

If the case goes to court you land yourself in a very sticky situation.

Lie to the insurance company on your policy but come clean in court - insurance company will likely pay you nothing and furthermore pursue you for their costs or third party claims.

Lie to the insurance company and lie to the court - you could be found for perjury which puts your insurance problems at the bottom of the list of priorities.

I cannot believe this. Do you not read the posts. I have stated, and I have restated and I have reiterated that there is no need to lie; there is no subterfuge so where are you getting this "Lie scenario and perjury in court scenario."

djimi

timmy4u2 wrote: »

I cannot believe this. Do you not read the posts. I have stated, and I have restated and I have reiterated that there is no need to lie; there is no subterfuge so where are you getting this "Lie scenario and perjury in court scenario."

You have said this repeatedly alright, but do you honestly think that any insurance company is going to sell a policy where the person has been open about their intentions to allow the named driver to be the main driver of the vehicle? It simply wouldnt happen.

jimgoose

r3nu4l wrote: »

...A huge problem for the OP is that one of the worst crashes in recent memory, in Ireland...

Jesus CHRIST!! :eek:

timmy4u2

And for those who state that an insurance company will and may impose an excess for damage to anothers property-known as injury to property in the Insurance sector-the mind boggles.
The road traffic act places an onus on drivers to have a minimum of 3rd party cover for injury to the property of another. It does not say you may have 90% insurance and pay the rest yourself, nor does it state that the Insurance companies may only cover 90% of injury to the property of a third party.
The only change that came to that is the European Union Limitation of Insurance in relation to Injury to Property.
This limits the amount paid out in one claim to €1, 200, 000.
Time to get off this bus before it crashes
SI no 702 of 2011 has reference.

oldyouth

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

There's his mistake.
He shouldn't own the car, his parent should own the car and he should be an occasional named driver.

1) He may have a loan out on the car which prevents him transferring ownership
2) Insurer will still rate the policy on the weakest link, i.e. young driver with previous claim

It's the easiest thing in the world to obtain an insurance policy. Not so easy when there's a problem down the line and the compounded driving history that follows on from that

Kensington

timmy4u2 wrote: »

I cannot believe this. Do you not read the posts. I have stated, and I have restated and I have reiterated that there is no need to lie; there is no subterfuge so where are you getting this "Lie scenario and perjury in court scenario."

Well what's your point then?
Because from what I gather you're advising the OP to:
- Buy a 1.0L Polo
- Register the car in their parent's name
- Register the policy in the parents name and go on as a named driver
- Register the policy and primary residence of the car at the parent's address

This is pure and simple falsification or "fronting" because:
- the car will not be owned by the OPs parents
- the car will not be primarily used by the parents
- the car won't primarily reside at the policy holder address (the parents) if the OPs primary residence isn't there also

If you're involved in a future claim and the insurance company found you to have done as you're suggesting, then you can damn well be sure they'll use it as a way to minimize their losses.

_Kaiser_

oldyouth wrote: »

1) He may have a loan out on the car which prevents him transferring ownership
2) Insurer will still rate the policy on the weakest link, i.e. young driver with previous claim

It's the easiest thing in the world to obtain an insurance policy. Not so easy when there's a problem down the line and the compounded driving history that follows on from that

Point 1 doesn't apply. It's an 11 year old Passat worth maybe €2k. No chance that'll be on a finance agreement

Bottom line though is still that he's going to very tough to get insured on that car given his age and location, nevermind his previous claim. If I was the insurer I'd be thinking "boy racer"/high-risk too - I'm sure they're well aware of the status of old model TDI Passat's among that age group (which if I had to guess, I'd bet is why the OP wanted one in the first place).

timmy4u2

djimi wrote: »

You have said this repeatedly alright, but do you honestly think that any insurance company is going to sell a policy where the person has been open about their intentions to allow the named driver to be the main driver of the vehicle? It simply wouldnt happen.

Show me the definition of main driver and its interlink with a named driver.
My wife is a named driver on my policy and she drives perhaps , in Ireland anyway, 2000km more than I do in that particular car.
David Yates once wrote in the Times "an insurance policy isclike old underware, the gaps in its cover are only shown by accident"

timmy4u2

Kensington wrote: »

Well what's your point then?
Because from what I gather you're advising the OP to:
- Buy a 1.0L Polo
- Register the car in their parent's name
- Register the policy in the parents name and go on as a named driver
- Register the policy and primary residence of the car at the parent's address

This is pure and simple falsification or "fronting" because:
- the car will not be owned by the OPs parents
- the car will not be primarily used by the parents
- the car won't primarily reside at the policy holder address (the parents) if the OPs primary residence isn't there also

If you're involved in a future claim and the insurance company found you to have done as you're suggesting, then you can damn well be sure they'll use it as a way to minimize their losses.

My last word to you on this all is declared to Insurance.
There is no big scenario. No subterfuge. Next thing we will hear played is the old record that you are not covered on another car under your own insurance when it permits such cover.
As I said I am getting off this bus before it crashes

Idbatterim

The op's criteria nearly couldnt get worse if he tried! I got insurance for my 2003 2.5L coupe last year TPFT for E290 for the year!!!

GTE

It is a tough situation. I started off on a 1.9TDI Golf at 18 and it cost 3000ish for fully comp. Thankfully now, I am down to 700 at 23 years old.

The dumb thing about how they work insurance here is that the insurance for a 90hp TDI is the same as the 150 TDI so we are either getting screwed or people in the 150hp car is getting a good deal.

Having driven in Donegal, some of the boy racer types are worlds away from anything I see at home. Of course, I don't include the OP in this but it does highlight insurance problems.

We should consider ourselves lucky though. When I lived in the UK, there was a time when I considered a car over there and with my years of no claims bonus, I was quoted over 6000 pounds. Even if I was a local English man, with no claims and a UK licenses, 5 grand.

We are bad, but could be a lot worse.

To the OP, it is just one of the things you will have to put up with. It looks like many cost saving ideas have been posted here but no matter what the situation, you will be charged with respect to what has happened in the past so you can either downsize the engine size, lose a turbo and build a no claims again or get through the tough few years ahead with the current car.

It is just ridiculous that we have the insurance prices determined in part by the fact the engine is large with a turbo when it is only like that to make it into the low power petrol performance area. Then we have the engine size based motor tax, lord save us. . .

timmy4u2

pippip wrote: »

Each Insurance company are different with the excess and third party. Some you pay others you don't, need to check policy.

Sorry for being direct but that is rubbish. You are obliged to have full third party insurance not9 0% third party insurance and the same applies to Insurance companies since 1961.

Odyssey 2005

timmy4u2 wrote: »

Sorry for being direct but that is rubbish. You are obliged to have full third party insurance not9 0% third party insurance and the same applies to Insurance companies since 1961.

That's what I thought.. Either your insured or your not

Supergurrier

Suck it up.

Downsize and get past the first 2 years no claims like the rest of us had to.

timmy4u2

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

That's what I thought.. Either your insured or your not

Section 56 (1) (a) of The Road Traffic Act 1961 as ammended states very clearly that the user is insured against all sums without limit save where otherwise legislated.

dingus12

It's a sad display of the Irish motoring scene when a 1.9 TDI 4 door family saloon car is considered "high powerd" "boy racer material" "a big risk". it's not a civic I'm trying here, It's just a normal car, and it makes only a couple of hundred euro difference between between a 1.0 corsa and the passat.

So it goes against all logic that I should sell the passat, and buy a 1.0 tin bucket car with no air bags or abs etc which would be a death trap in a crash just to get on the road at a cost of over 3k just for a piece of paper to display on the window. Should anything go wrong I'd be screwed anyway

I want to keep everything legal, Which I am glad everything was legal when I had the crash in February. But it seems the system is set up that you only have one chance, If you screw up before your 25 you're done, Or else you have to lie and font the insurance.

Scortho

No it ain't. I'm insured on a much more powerful car, for a third of the price and I'm only 21.

A young male in a tdi from donegal pops up as trouble for them. Look at how many of your friends etc have similar cars. Young people having more accidents in donegal on tdi's will cause premiums to rocket for young people and even more so for young people in tdi's.
Pop in something fast that most young people don't drive and you may be very surprised.

timmy4u2

dingus12 wrote: »

It's a sad display of the Irish motoring scene when a 1.9 TDI 4 door family saloon car is considered "high powerd" "boy racer material" "a big risk". it's not a civic I'm trying here, It's just a normal car, and it makes only a couple of hundred euro difference between between a 1.0 corsa and the passat.

So it goes against all logic that I should sell the passat, and buy a 1.0 tin bucket car with no air bags or abs etc which would be a death trap in a crash just to get on the road at a cost of over 3k just for a piece of paper to display on the window. Should anything go wrong I'd be screwed anyway

I want to keep everything legal, Which I am glad everything was legal when I had the crash in February. But it seems the system is set up that you only have one chance, If you screw up before your 25 you're done, Or else you have to lie and font the insurance.

Look s*▪t happens. You mucked up and as said elsewhere you will have to suck it up and make the best of it. Its a lesson well learned if you accept it for what it is.

In the end of the day a passat is a heavy vehicle and in the wrong hands it can do a lot of damage and the insurance company has decreed that for the next five years you are wearing a wrong pair of hands. You cannot blame the Insurance company for that.
You do not need to lie to the insurance company. They get business and revenue from dealing with named drivers.
If you are refused quotes from three or more insurance companies, and they have to give you their reasons for refusing you in writing, you can contact the Declined Cases Committee of the Irish Insurance Federation molesworth street, Dublin.
I think it might be 39 Molesworth Street.

kippy

Senecio wrote: »

Got to love a country where a 1.9TDi is "high powered" and "unrealistic". It really is a depressing place to run a car.

The guy is 21, has already had an accident and is from Donegal.
So yeah, a ****ing 1.9TDi is "unrealistic" for his circumstances, and his insurance quotes back that up.

I spent my early 20's keeping my nose clean in a 1 litre car till my insurance costs came down.

The lad comes on here looking for advice, that was my advice, either pay the best premium you've been quoted on that car or find out would getting a "more realistic" car result in a lesser premium.

We live in a country, unfortunately, where young male drivers are still the most likely to be involved in a fatal crash or indeed "tip" (according to the latest figures I've seen) so if they want to drive their low powered 1.9 cars then they can pay the fecking price for it, the same as the rest of us did.

If you want to be 21, have an accident and drive a 1.9 litre family car then pay the price for it instead of, like you've just done, had a standard moan about the country being an awful place to run a car.
In fairness to the OP they came on here and were honest and open about their situation. I am not sure what "better" advice you could give him, bearing in mind the facts as they stand.

dingus12

I think you missed the part where I said I don't mind paying 3350 for insurance, However I can't go for it as the excess would be impossible to pay should anything happen.

I was just looking to see if anyone knew of a company who would take me on and not want a 3k excess. even 1k would be ok.

One other suggestion that has been put to me, I would call it bending the rules.

If I was to exchange my licence using my relatives address in NI to a northern licence,

and make sure they put my full name on it including my middle name, as it is on my uk birth certificate (I was born in NI), then I'd have a new "driver profile" because my irish licence only has my first and last name on it,different driver licence number, Different name and address, no points etc, and say nothing about previous named driver experience, I can get insurance from liberty for 1900, which includes driving other cars.

The part where I'm going astray from the law is where they ask "have I had any previous claims etc", however technically with the new licence and driver record, I wouldn't have had any claims on paper.

What do people think of that.

(prepares for a high horse bashing)

oldyouth

You have two options OP. You either take the good advice offered here or you take the route you outlined above. If you think you can't afford the insurance now, you certainly won't be able to if things get found out with the latter. Add misrepresentation and imposed cancellation to your list of adverse underwriting features

dingus12

dingus12 wrote: »

I think you missed the part where I said I don't mind paying 3350 for insurance, However I can't go for it as the excess would be impossible to pay should anything happen.

I was just looking to see if anyone knew of a company who would take me on and not want a 3k excess. even 1k would be ok.

One other suggestion that has been put to me, I would call it bending the rules.

If I was to exchange my licence using my relatives address in NI to a northern licence,

and make sure they put my full name on it including my middle name, as it is on my uk birth certificate (I was born in NI), then I'd have a new "driver profile" because my irish licence only has my first and last name on it,different driver licence number, Different name and address, no points etc, and say nothing about previous named driver experience, I can get insurance from liberty for 1900, which includes driving other cars.

The part where I'm going astray from the law is where they ask "have I had any previous claims etc", however technically with the new licence and driver record, I wouldn't have had any claims on paper.

What do people think of that.

(prepares for a high horse bashing)

If you have another crash they will look in to all your background both in the UK & Ireland via insurance link. They won't pay you a penny if that happens. As I asked how much was the claim for?

_Kaiser_

So you already have a bad record with Insurers and you want to add fraud (or however they term it) as well?

Be honest here OP.. you want this Passat because it's "cool" and it's what all your mates have right? It has nothing to do with safety at all, and the insurers know that which is why you're getting the massively high quotes as well.

The fact that you're talking about changing licenses and fiddling with the details to "get around" the problem just says to me that they're actually right TBH.

Sell the Passat.. buy something more realistic given your circumstances, and build a new track record. Do that for a few years and you'll find a lot nicer cars available to you.

kippy

dingus12 wrote: »

I think you missed the part where I said I don't mind paying 3350 for insurance, However I can't go for it as the excess would be impossible to pay should anything happen.

I was just looking to see if anyone knew of a company who would take me on and not want a 3k excess. even 1k would be ok.

One other suggestion that has been put to me, I would call it bending the rules.

If I was to exchange my licence using my relatives address in NI to a northern licence,

and make sure they put my full name on it including my middle name, as it is on my uk birth certificate (I was born in NI), then I'd have a new "driver profile" because my irish licence only has my first and last name on it,different driver licence number, Different name and address, no points etc, and say nothing about previous named driver experience, I can get insurance from liberty for 1900, which includes driving other cars.

The part where I'm going astray from the law is where they ask "have I had any previous claims etc", however technically with the new licence and driver record, I wouldn't have had any claims on paper.

What do people think of that.

(prepares for a high horse bashing)

Sorry,
I didn't intend to make you "look bad". I didnt miss that part at all, I understand that you are willing to pay the money however I was moreso responding to the poster moaning about this country and cars to be honest.


What you are talking about in relation to "bending" the rules is daft to be honest.
If you every were to make a claim or more critically someone to make a claim against you, the policy would generally be null and void and as such you would be in serious trouble.
If you're not willing to accept the terms being offered under truthful circumstances you need to either adapt your circumstances (legally) or change your mindset.

pippip

timmy4u2 wrote: »

Sorry for being direct but that is rubbish. You are obliged to have full third party insurance not9 0% third party insurance and the same applies to Insurance companies since 1961.

I think you are mis-understanding the conversation. I never said anything about not having third party cover, everyone needs that obviously. What I said was that if you have a third party (fire and theft policy) that some companies you have an excess and some you don't. That comment was purely in relation to payment of an excess.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

pippip wrote: »

I think you are mis-understanding the conversation. I never said anything about not having third party cover, everyone needs that obviously. What I said was that if you have a third party (fire and theft policy) that some companies you have an excess and some you don't. That comment was purely in relation to payment of an excess.

With the possible exception of XS direct, no other company applies an excess to third party claims.
I'm not sure if XS direct are legally entitled to charge an excess on the 3rd party element of any claim.

Mint Sauce

Brittons, or O'Dowd Connolly Carbin. Both in Donegal Town.

djimi

dingus12 wrote: »

One other suggestion that has been put to me, I would call it bending the rules.

If I was to exchange my licence using my relatives address in NI to a northern licence,

and make sure they put my full name on it including my middle name, as it is on my uk birth certificate (I was born in NI), then I'd have a new "driver profile" because my irish licence only has my first and last name on it,different driver licence number, Different name and address, no points etc, and say nothing about previous named driver experience, I can get insurance from liberty for 1900, which includes driving other cars.

The part where I'm going astray from the law is where they ask "have I had any previous claims etc", however technically with the new licence and driver record, I wouldn't have had any claims on paper.

What do people think of that.

(prepares for a high horse bashing)

I think you need to forget about this idea right now to be honest!

Changing your name slightly, putting on a fake mustache etc is not going to fool the insurance companies. To get a quote, you are asked if you have had a claim in the last five years. If you say no, and they quote you based on this, and you end up making a claim, they will almost certainly pursue you for every penny that they pay out. Have you any idea how much injury claims can cost?

Kensington

Kensington wrote: »

Well what's your point then?
Because from what I gather you're advising the OP to:
- Buy a 1.0L Polo
- Register the car in their parent's name
- Register the policy in the parents name and go on as a named driver
- Register the policy and primary residence of the car at the parent's address

This is pure and simple falsification or "fronting" because:
- the car will not be owned by the OPs parents
- the car will not be primarily used by the parents
- the car won't primarily reside at the policy holder address (the parents) if the OPs primary residence isn't there also

If you're involved in a future claim and the insurance company found you to have done as you're suggesting, then you can damn well be sure they'll use it as a way to minimize their losses.

There are 1000's of people doing this up and down the country for years and years and I have never ever once heard of an issue, nor has anyone who gets their knickers in a twist about it on this forum ever given any evidence of insurance companies not paying out for a named driver.

It's basically impossible for the insurance company to prove who is the main driver of a car when it can be shared among a number of people.

djimi

If enought money is at stake then Id have no doubt they would make every effort to prove it! The OP would be talking about having the car away from the family home for the majority of the time; it really wouldnt be that hard to prove if it came to it.

djimi

djimi wrote: »

If enought money is at stake then Id have no doubt they would make every effort to prove it! The OP would be talking about having the car away from the family home for the majority of the time; it really wouldnt be that hard to prove if it came to it.

It would be extremely difficult to prove, I would actually think its next to impossible. The amount of money involved doesnt make it easier to prove. I would wager insurance companies wouldn't even investigate that aspect of it.

If it was easy there would be at least one single case of it reported and there isn't not even one.

Also just because he is living away from home doesn't mean the car spends a large majority of the time away from home. there is only 7 nights in the week, its more than likely the car spends 3 of those nights at home. Proving the car spends 3 at home vs 4 away or 4 at home vs 3 away is impossible.

Some posters here are far too much "by the book", exactly word for word. There is room for a bit of give and take in a lot of things and this is one of them.

djimi

You think if the OP writes off a €50k car and causes another €50k worth of an injury claim in the process then the insurance company might not take even the slightest bit of interest in looking into the case? The amount of money involved might not make it easier to prove, but it certainly would make them more likely to investigate it.

If someone is not living at home and is driving car that is registered and insured by their parents, then I dont see how it would be even remotely difficult to prove that the policy holder is not the primary driver?

jimgoose

Dayana Small Pickaxe wrote: »

It would be extremely difficult to prove, I would actually think its next to impossible. The amount of money involved doesnt make it easier to prove. I would wager insurance companies wouldn't even investigate that aspect of it...

Then you would lose. Insurance companies will do anything, inluding boiling their own grandmothers for glue, to get out of paying a claim, particularly a big one.

timmy4u2

pippip wrote: »

I think you are mis-understanding the conversation. I never said anything about not having third party cover, everyone needs that obviously. What I said was that if you have a third party (fire and theft policy) that some companies you have an excess and some you don't. That comment was purely in relation to payment of an excess.

You are obliged under the road traffic act to have full third party insurance against injury to persons (unlimited) and injury to property (now limited to €1, 200, 000 any one claim) per EU directive as outlined by me earlier.
An insurance company cannot give you 90% third party insurance. It is not allowed by law per The Road Traffic Act of 1961 as ammended.
Likewise the same act does not allow you to take out 90% third party insurance. It cannot happen.
No as you have said Fire and Theft of course they can have an excess on the fire and theft. That is relating to a claim made by yourself for yourself.

dingus12

The claim was for 4500 to fix my parents car. I guess I'll have to save up 3k and sit it in an account for a rainy day should I have one. And go with xs direct.

To the posters giving out about my car choice. No it has nothing to do with having a "cool" car. I went for the passat as it's a nice comfortable large safe easy run reliable diesel car.

A very ordinary car by anyone's standards. And I have to make this clear

To insure a 1.0 corsa with xs is 3050 euro and to insure the passat is 3350 or there abouts. So for the value of 300 euro why should I downgrade to a tin bucket car.

Mycroft H

dingus12 wrote: »

The claim was for 4500 to fix my parents car. I guess I'll have to save up 3k and sit it in an account for a rainy day should I have one. And go with xs direct.

To the posters giving out about my car choice. No it has nothing to do with having a "cool" car. I went for the passat as it's a nice comfortable large safe easy run reliable diesel car.

A very ordinary car by anyone's standards. And I have to make this clear

To insure a 1.0 corsa with xs is 3050 euro and to insure the passat is 3350 or there abouts. So for the value of 300 euro why should I downgrade to a tin bucket car.

Have you tried anything but online insurers?

What about Campions, MIG, AIG and other brokers? What prices were they?

I honestly thing your just trying to justify to yourself now the price of the passat, if that's what you wan't go for it.

Liam McPoyle

Where are you getting the quote from OP?

I just ran a quick quote on the xsdirect site using your details - full licence, 21, outside Dublin and no bonus and the premium is showing about €2550 with the 3k excess.

djimi

Id be very surprised if you cant find a better quote than that on a 1.0 Corsa. Or at the very least a better policy.

Again, try ARB. They might not be too keen on the Passat, but they might be interested in something a bit smaller.

Idbatterim

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/friday-is-the-most-dangerous-day-of-the-week-when-it-comes-to-road-safety-29792318.html

From todays indo...

Friday is the most dangerous day of the week when it comes to road safety

That was the message issued by the Injuries Board today as they revealed they paid more than €157m for motor accidents in 2012.


The Injuries Board delivered compensation of €157.2m for motor liability awards in 2012 which represents a 2.2pc increase on the €153.7m awarded in 2011.

The volume of awards for motor accidents last year increased by 1.3pc to 7,622, compared to 7,521 the previous year.

The figures from the board show that motor liability awards account for 75pc of all personal injury awards.

Last year, the Board received almost 104 claims for fatal road accidents.

While this represents a 10pc decrease on the 115 fatal claims the prior year, the Board has urged caution on Irish roads during the dangerous winter months.

The most prevalent injuries sustained in the vast majority of motor claims include soft tissue injuries (neck and back), and orthopaedic related injuries (fractures etc).

Key statistics from the Injuries Board analysis of motor liability awards in 2012 are as follows:

Over half (51pc) of awards were for accidents involving female claimants, while men accounted for 49pc. Year-on-year, there has been an almost 1% reduction in the number of women claiming for motor accidents.

The average award for a motor accident was €20,631 (2011: €20,438). The average award for women was slightly higher at €21,103, while men received an average award of €20,133.

As has been the case historically, the majority of personal injury awards are motor related with almost 7 in 10 (68.4pc) coming in under €20,000. More serious/complex cases are typically far less prevalent. The highest award made in 2012 in respect of a motor claim was just under €700,000.

Road users over the age of 55 proved the safest on Irish roads with only 4% of awards made for road accidents in respect of over 65’s and 7.5pc of awards in respect of the 55-64 age group. The 25-34 age group accounted for over 1 in 4 (26.8%) awards while 35-44 year-olds represented a further 1 in 5 (20.7%).

Friday was the most dangerous day on Irish roads in terms of award volumes while Sunday was the least dangerous. However, Sunday accidents accounted for the highest average award across the week at €22,657 indicating these are of a more serious nature.

May was the safest month while November saw the highest level of awards for road accidents (see Table 1).

Counties Donegal (11), Cork (10), Dublin (8), Kildare (8) and Limerick (6) recorded the highest number of claims that resulted in fatalities (see Table 2).

Dublin, Cork and Limerick were the counties with the highest number of awards (in line with population), whereas Leitrim, Kilkenny and Roscommon had the lowest.

Commenting on the figures Patricia Byron, CEO of the Injuries Board, said: “Last year saw a 10% reduction in the number of claims we received for fatal road accidents but the 104 fatal claims we did receive is 104 too many. Our award trends indicate that the winter months are the most dangerous on our roads and we are urging all road users to be extra vigilant at this time. We awarded over €157m in compensation for injuries sustained in road traffic accidents last year which reflects the significant human cost of these accidents not to mention the societal impact."

Irish Independent

oldyouth

Dayana Small Pickaxe wrote: »

There are 1000's of people doing this up and down the country for years and years and I have never ever once heard of an issue, nor has anyone who gets their knickers in a twist about it on this forum ever given any evidence of insurance companies not paying out for a named driver.

It's basically impossible for the insurance company to prove who is the main driver of a car when it can be shared among a number of people.

Insurers won't refuse to pay many claims to TPs because of misrepresentation but that does not mean to say they don't take subsequent action against their policyholder, primarily cancellation of the policy. Then you start to feel the pain with regard to difficulty in getting cover. Either that or you roll the dice again by continued misrepresentation until you are eventually put off the road.

Because insurance companies have difficulty repudiating claims to TPs, it is in their interest to catch the liars before claims happen and they employ specific personnel who are good at it and they review policies all the time. Trust me on that one, I did it for long enough

djimi

djimi wrote: »

If someone is not living at home and is driving car that is registered and insured by their parents, then I dont see how it would be even remotely difficult to prove that the policy holder is not the primary driver?

How do they prove he has been driving the car more often than his parents, how do they prove he has it with him where he lives apart from every once in a while?

Unless they have gps on the car they don't know where it is or who is driving it.

oldyouth wrote: »

Because insurance companies have difficulty repudiating claims to TPs, it is in their interest to catch the liars before claims happen and they employ specific personnel who are good at it and they review policies all the time. Trust me on that one, I did it for long enough

Please, do you think I believe insurance companies are randomly sending "secret agents" around the place looking at where cars are parked and who is using them.

Proving who is the main driver of a car when there is a number of people name on the policy is the next best thing to impossible.

timmy4u2

Dayana Small Pickaxe wrote: »

How do they prove he has been driving the car more often than his parents, how do they prove he has it with him where he lives apart from every once in a while?

Unless they have gps on the car they don't know where it is or who is driving it.



Please, do you think I believe insurance companies are randomly sending "secret agents" around the place looking at where cars are parked and who is using them.

Proving who is the main driver of a car when there is a number of people name on the policy is the next best thing to impossible.

They wont do any investigating unless and accident occurs and then its random profiling but you are getting all hung up here on matters that in the main do not exist.

I will accept that there could be an insurance company or two that may have a proviso that the named driver is regarded differently to the main driver as regards periodd of driving.
I do not know of any insurance companies that have this police across the board; of course I have not looked for any, and if I did find any I would avoid them like the plague.
You tell the truth when declaring and you do not have a problem then.

timmy4u2

And...before I get off the bus a main driver is the person in whose name the policy and the car is registered. The policy holder; the insured.
He/she is the only person who is intitled to compensation for the loss or damage to the car, the beneficial recipient.
His/her policy will suffer in the event of a claim.
A named driver is a driver, other than the insured whose driving is covered by the policy