Car insurance over 15 years old?

Jesus.

To Elland Back wrote: »

Provide a link confirming that comment if you don't mind

Why then is an 01 Yaris uninsurable in this instance?

Just wondering also why you defend the crazy insurance situation we have in this Country Elland? It is quite odd to be honest mate

To Elland Back

Jesus. wrote: »

Why then is an 01 Yaris uninsurable in this instance?

Just wondering also why you defend the crazy insurance situation we have in this Country Elland? It is quite odd to be honest mate

A poster said Insurers were calling older vehicles "death traps". I've never heard them say that and I asked for a link. I've said MANY times here that older cars are USED more frequently than normal in expensive claims and that is why insurers are taking a decision to avoid then

I very rarely defend decisions taken by insurers but I often take time to EXPLAIN why they make those decisions. Ordinary decent people are paying ridiculous insurance premiums but it is my genuine, honest opinion that the problem lies not SOLELY with the insurance companies, but MAINLY with our fellow citizens who cannot resist the easy pickings available backed by the medical profession, the legal profession and the judiciary.

But hey, just blame the lads that have to cover the cost of all this and balance what comes in against what goes out. These 'thieving' insurers are only covering what motorists are obliged to pay others for their actions on the roads. People are complaining about paying €500 in a premium when they could be faced with having to pay a bunch of chancers hundreds of thousands for NOTHING. I pay insurance and, even if it was optional, I wouldn't be without it for the world

Skatedude

The official response from insurers is that 15 + year old cars are involved in more accidents and involve more injury claims, ie they are more dangerous.

The figures they quote are misleading but they use them anyway to justify it.

Liam McPoyle

Skatedude wrote: »

The official response from insurers is that 15 + year old cars are involved in more accidents and involve more injury claims, ie they are more dangerous.

The figures they quote are misleading but they use them anyway to justify it.

Insurers have to be able to prove their pricing or declinature reasons.

All it takes is one person to challenge a decline and the company has to prove their reasoning for declining.

Alot of people in here expect insurers to release their pricing and actuarial information which is a ridiculous notion. It's business sensitive and privileged information.

I'd challenge the likes of Jesus. to make a complaint and see if its upheld rather than making stupid statements about cars being death traps.

People can bitch and moan but unless they do something about it then its just noise.

At least myself or TEB have an understanding of how the industry works and actually spend time trying to explain that.

Explaining something is not justifying it.

FunkeeFresh

My 94 corolla is up for renewal at the start of March. The car is in my mother's name and I'm a named driver. Been insured since 2012 with Liberty insurance. They offered a decent renewal quote of ~€500 with 3 years NCB taken in to account.

I wanted to get the car and the policy in my own name this year, but since it will mean a new policy is created, they won't insure me because the car is too old.

Also An Post insurance refused to give me a quote for the same reason.

Bruthal

To Elland Back wrote: »

A poster said Insurers were calling older vehicles "death traps". I've never heard them say that and I asked for a link. I've said MANY times here that older cars are USED more frequently than normal in expensive claims and that is why insurers are taking a decision to avoid then

I very rarely defend decisions taken by insurers but I often take time to EXPLAIN why they make those decisions. Ordinary decent people are paying ridiculous insurance premiums but it is my genuine, honest opinion that the problem lies not SOLELY with the insurance companies, but MAINLY with our fellow citizens who cannot resist the easy pickings available backed by the medical profession, the legal profession and the judiciary.

But hey, just blame the lads that have to cover the cost of all this and balance what comes in against what goes out. These 'thieving' insurers are only covering what motorists are obliged to pay others for their actions on the roads. People are complaining about paying €500 in a premium when they could be faced with having to pay a bunch of chancers hundreds of thousands for NOTHING. I pay insurance and, even if it was optional, I wouldn't be without it for the world

You seem to have taken the "death traps" phrase as completely literal.

But after your explanation, you still didnt answer his actual question. Why is the 01 yaris not insurable from the insurer point of view? Its hardly because they think its as safe as a 2016 car. So hence the sarcasm "death trap" description.

Skatedude

Business Cat wrote: »

Insurers have to be able to prove their pricing or declinature reasons.

All it takes is one person to challenge a decline and the company has to prove their reasoning for declining.

Alot of people in here expect insurers to release their pricing and actuarial information which is a ridiculous notion. It's business sensitive and privileged information.

I'd challenge the likes of Jesus. to make a complaint and see if its upheld rather than making stupid statements about cars being death traps.

People can bitch and moan but unless they do something about it then its just noise.

At least myself or TEB have an understanding of how the industry works and actually spend time trying to explain that.

Explaining something is not justifying it.

Unfortunately reason does not equal reality, I honestly wish it did.

beauf

To Elland Back wrote: »

A poster said Insurers were calling older vehicles "death traps". I've never heard them say that and I asked for a link. I've said MANY times here that older cars are USED more frequently than normal in expensive claims and that is why insurers are taking a decision to avoid then

I very rarely defend decisions taken by insurers but I often take time to EXPLAIN why they make those decisions. Ordinary decent people are paying ridiculous insurance premiums but it is my genuine, honest opinion that the problem lies not SOLELY with the insurance companies, but MAINLY with our fellow citizens who cannot resist the easy pickings available backed by the medical profession, the legal profession and the judiciary.

But hey, just blame the lads that have to cover the cost of all this and balance what comes in against what goes out. These 'thieving' insurers are only covering what motorists are obliged to pay others for their actions on the roads. People are complaining about paying €500 in a premium when they could be faced with having to pay a bunch of chancers hundreds of thousands for NOTHING. I pay insurance and, even if it was optional, I wouldn't be without it for the world

Part of the reason is the insurance companies took the financial short cut of not fighting claims with the result there's been an explosion of claims and fraud. The low level of enforcement of bad driving doesn't help either.

So they are taking the short cut of cutting out a big chunk of the market. Be interesting to see how many it puts off the road.

Liam McPoyle

Skatedude wrote: »

Unfortunately reason does not equal reality, I honestly wish it did.

Oh, so you are an actuary working for the companies in question, yes?

Because that's the only way you can definitively say the insurer's are being underhanded.

Otherwise it's the musings of someone that doesn't understand risk and risk management.

I have said it in a number of threads in this forum, if people think they are being treated unfairly then there are avenues for complaint.

If an insurer is declining someone based on age of vehicle they have to be able to prove, based on the information they have, that cars over 15 years of age are in a risk category that is costing them a disproportionate amount of money in claims in comparison to younger cars.

I work in the industry, I know and understand how it works, I also know how heavily regulated the industry is. I can also guarantee that someone somewhere has challenged the decline.

I 100% believe the companies have valid reasons for their stance and until such time as someone can prove otherwise then that stance will not change.

beauf

It's going to be true not because of the car itself, but the affordability of the car. They could stop insuring cars that are under 3k in value and would have a similar impact.

Or only insure drivers with prior claims in new cars.

Chris_Heilong

Business Cat wrote: »

Oh, so you are an actuary working for the companies in question, yes?

Because that's the only way you can definitively say the insurer's are being underhanded.

Otherwise it's the musings of someone that doesn't understand risk and risk management.

I have said it in a number of threads in this forum, if people think they are being treated unfairly then there are avenues for complaint.

If an insurer is declining someone based on age of vehicle they have to be able to prove, based on the information they have, that cars over 15 years of age are in a risk category that is costing them a disproportionate amount of money in claims in comparison to younger cars.

I work in the industry, I know and understand how it works, I also know how heavily regulated the industry is. I can also guarantee that someone somewhere has challenged the decline.

I 100% believe the companies have valid reasons for their stance and until such time as someone can prove otherwise then that stance will not change.

The fact that the insurance companies dont have to release their data leave huge potential for them to abuse their position, I dont see the harm in having a open business strategy, release data each year about how many accidents were recorded, what cars, what colour, what part of the country also a list of where each model car sits on an insurance ranking like in the UK. It would cut out all the second guessing and mistrust from the public. The only down side for the company would be some people would know if "I buy a blue 2015 Focus and live in Dublin 4 then I willl get the cheapest quote." I dont see any issue with this.

macnab

boxymo.ie are offering fully comp with no NCB (they don't accept none eu) for €950.

Skatedude

beauf wrote: »

It's going to be true not because of the car itself, but the affordability of the car. They could stop insuring cars that are under 3k in value and would have a similar impact.

Or only insure drivers with prior claims in new cars.

Won't work, my car was destroyed when i was rear ended, they offered me 500 even though my model costs app 5000 to buy secondhand, their valuation and the actual car market dont always match.

Lellostag

Well, on a more positive note I managed today to get our '95 1.33 Starlet insured for less that €500 with AXA, so our 75 bhp beast is back in action even though I had resigned to SORN it when the tax runs out. This due to some insane renewal quotes, so this turn of events was a happy development.

It even started after having been unused since before Christmas, brilliant little car!

PCeeeee

To Elland Back wrote: »

A poster said Insurers were calling older vehicles "death traps". I've never heard them say that and I asked for a link. I've said MANY times here that older cars are USED more frequently than normal in expensive claims and that is why insurers are taking a decision to avoid then

I very rarely defend decisions taken by insurers but I often take time to EXPLAIN why they make those decisions. Ordinary decent people are paying ridiculous insurance premiums but it is my genuine, honest opinion that the problem lies not SOLELY with the insurance companies, but MAINLY with our fellow citizens who cannot resist the easy pickings available backed by the medical profession, the legal profession and the judiciary.

But hey, just blame the lads that have to cover the cost of all this and balance what comes in against what goes out. These 'thieving' insurers are only covering what motorists are obliged to pay others for their actions on the roads. People are complaining about paying €500 in a premium when they could be faced with having to pay a bunch of chancers hundreds of thousands for NOTHING. I pay insurance and, even if it was optional, I wouldn't be without it for the world

Business Cat wrote: »

If an insurer is declining someone based on age of vehicle they have to be able to prove, based on the information they have, that cars over 15 years of age are in a risk category that is costing them a disproportionate amount of money in claims in comparison to younger cars.

If I am reading you both correctly, you are saying that older cars are dis-proportionally involved in expensive claims?

ShadowHearth

PCeeeee wrote: »

If I am reading you both correctly, you are saying that older cars are dis-proportionally involved in expensive claims?

Just what I am thinking, but I could be wrong now:

Insurance companies say fraud is a big issue right now. So if I would be doing fraud, I would buy cheap old car to crash in to someone, not the newish one. So lots of fraud is in older cars.
Insurance companies being most sensible and intelligent corporations just **** everyone's insurance who is driving older car then. Completely missing the actual fraud issue and ****ing all of us who can't or really don't want to buy newish cars.

Skatedude

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Just what I am thinking, but I could be wrong now:

Insurance companies say fraud is a big issue right now. So if I would be doing fraud, I would buy cheap old car to crash in to someone, not the newish one. So lots of fraud is in older cars.
Insurance companies being most sensible and intelligent corporations just **** everyone's insurance who is driving older car then. Completely missing the actual fraud issue and ****ing all of us who can't or really don't want to buy newish cars.

They are saying that cars older then 15 years are involved in up to 25% of traffic accidents and claims, according to the irish independent and irish papers, they dont actually say if cars older then 15 actually make up 25% of the motoring community or not,( actually i dont know, haven't looked it up?) but that's the excuse they are publishing.

Bongalongherb

Thankfully my car insurance is not due till August..

To Business Cat

Where do we stand now in regards to having a certificate of roadworthyness from the NCT and the rejection of a reasonable quote from many insurers of which say that the 15 year old car is old and dangerous and as such we need to charge you more because of this effect ?. The government need to stand a foot-in here to rectify this unjust problem, otherwise what is the point in having your car NCT'd.

The logic is simple, 15 year old cars once given a certificate of roadworthyness are road-worthy in law, so why can insurance companies get away with ripping us all off because of this unjust excuse ?

Valetta

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Thankfully my car insurance is not due till August..

To Business Cat

Where do we stand now in regards to having a certificate of roadworthyness from the NCT and the rejection of a reasonable quote from many insurers of which say that the 15 year old car is old and dangerous and as such we need to charge you more because of this effect ?. The government need to stand a foot-in here to rectify this unjust problem, otherwise what is the point in having your car NCT'd.

The logic is simple, 15 year old cars once given a certificate of roadworthyness are road-worthy in law, so why can insurance companies get away with ripping us all off because of this unjust excuse ?

Where did insurance companies ever say that 15 year old cars are dangerous?

They say they are involved in more claims, which is a completely different thing .

Titzon Toast

Skatedude wrote: »

Won't work, my car was destroyed when i was rear ended, they offered me 500 even though my model costs app 5000 to buy secondhand, their valuation and the actual car market dont always match.

I wondered what happened in the end about that car.
Did you fight them for it?

Bongalongherb

Valetta wrote: »

Where did insurance companies ever say that 15 year old cars are dangerous?

They say they are involved in more claims, which is a completely different thing.

They say ? where is the proof of this ? that 15 year old cars are involved in more claims ? that seems hogwash.

To Elland Back

Bongalongherb wrote: »

They say ? where is the proof of this ? that 15 year old cars are involved in more claims ? that seems hogwash.

Why do 'they' have to prove anything? They are private businesses deciding what they do and don't want to offer quotations on. By popular opinion here, all insurers are thieving basterds who want to take as much money off us that they can. If you follow that logic through, the fact that they don't want your money at all for 15 year old cars, would surely indicate that they hurt them for claims

PCeeeee

To Elland Back wrote: »

Why do 'they' have to prove anything? They are private businesses deciding what they do and don't want to offer quotations on. By popular opinion here, all insurers are thieving basterds who want to take as much money off us that they can. If you follow that logic through, the fact that they don't want your money at all for 15 year old cars, would surely indicate that they hurt them for claims

They are private business certainly but the product they sell is compulsory. I think that is what is galling to people.

You said earlier that older cars are 'used' more frequently than normal in expensive claims. Used seems a strange word to choose unless you mean something else? Or am I being obtuse?

sunnyire

It has become very expensive to insure cars which are 15 year or older in Ireland. Many big motor insurance companies are refusing are per the media reports and some other are willing to provide only third party cover at high costs. Link:

independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/insurers-refuse-to-cover-older-vehicles-31397715.html

tc20

OP - will it be your only car (as a daily)?
First Ireland (01 882 0818) are worth giving a shout, if you have another daily, you could run it under a classic policy. They view certain marques (Mercs, BMWs and possibly others) as classic even at 15+ y/o

If its to be your one and only motor, they're still worth trying, possibly on a restricted mileage policy.

out of curiosity what is the car in question?

projectgtr

sunnyire wrote: »

It has become very expensive to insure cars which are 15 year or older in Ireland. Many big motor insurance companies are refusing are per the media reports and some other are willing to provide only third party cover at high costs. Link:

independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/insurers-refuse-to-cover-older-vehicles-31397715.html

Have you any personal experience though? Seems to be fine out there when i ask people, personally mines a 95 (21 years old) and its a JDM import and ive no issue renewing a policy, in fact mine went down this year. I think there is only 3 companies not offering new policies on 15+ year old cars.

sunnyire

I have recently bought Toyota Corolla 00 model. I have provisional licence and have no history of driving in Ireland. I have international Driving Licence but I think that is not relevant any more as it is more than 6 months I am in Ireland. I have tried First Ireland on-line and they quoted me 4300 euro.

I have tried boxymo.ie and they are not quoting for 00 model but they are quoting 01 and upward for 1200 to 1500 euro.

Chris_Heilong

projectgtr wrote: »

Have you any personal experience though? Seems to be fine out there when i ask people, personally mines a 95 (21 years old) and its a JDM import and ive no issue renewing a policy, in fact mine went down this year. I think there is only 3 companies not offering new policies on 15+ year old cars.

They have to renew your policy if you are already with them regardless of the age of the car.

BohsCeltic

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

They have to renew your policy if you are already with them regardless of the age of the car.

Allianz sent my renewal for my 16 year old car and its up 35% from last year even though last years had increased buy about 20% :mad:

Skatedude

my 97 bmw 840 is insured with aig classic car insurance for 400 euro a year, limited to 6000k millage a year and it's my only & daily driver.