Fronting - Aviva issues warning letter

MarkR

Alun wrote: »

OK, the first two I get, but how is windscreen cover being abused?

Buy a car with a cracked windscreen. Insure it, then a few months later report a chipped windscreen?

Henry Ford III

I was told of people who make windscreen claims regularly. Sometimes the screen is actually damaged.

MarkR

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I was told of people who make windscreen claims regularly. Sometimes the screen is actually damaged.

I suppose if a heating element, like in a focus wasn't working, someone might chance their arm and get the screen chipped. Heated windscreens much more expensive I suppose?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I always assumed that insurance companies wrote policies based on the driver of maximum risk. So even if fronting is going on, surely the premiums are priced accordingly.

Henry Ford III

Yep, although the ones I was referring to were people who viewed making the occaisional windscreen claim as some sort of discount on their premium.

Special Circumstances

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

That will never enter the public domain though.

Unless its a court case for a claim that is being contested then it would all happen behind closed doors.

It wouldn't take much to publish figures of how many cases of fronting were suspected in claims and of these, how many ended with the insurer being repaid any significant portion of the third party payout.

Nobody's asking for names, dates and PPS numbers. Just a little transparency, rather than the pervasive "take what we say for granted, know your place peasants" attitude to these insurance announcements.

I suspect this is a bogeyman ("woooo be good or he's coming to get you wooooo"), and that the practice of fronting will continue and Honest Joe Average will continue to pick up the bill for subsidising the claims involving fronters/unaccompanied learners/2.0-on-da-logbook etc.

Stealthfins

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

IMHO a lazy argument. And your evidence is........?

Common sense really, I used to know people in the business and know how it works.

Stealthfins

There was a time most people got an offer at the steps of the courts an average 30K for soft tissue and other back injury.

Now that's gone way way down closer to 15K now.

Since wages aren't on the way up now an actuary hasn't as much work to do.

Graham

Stealthfins wrote: »

Common sense really, I used to know people in the business and know how it works.

That must be it, nothing at all to do with annual losses, cost of claims, increasing reserves or any of that other complicated stuff ....:rolleyes:

forumuser

Aviva warned drivers: "Many people involved in fronting do not even realise that what they are doing is not only against the law, but it also puts lives at risk.

I didn't understand this sentence, how does fronting put lives at risk? By having inexperienced drivers on the road that wouldn't be if they hadn't been able to get the cheaper insurance?

Bluefoam

Why can't we have simple policies like we do here in the middle east... you insure the car, anyone who has an appropriate license can drive it.

Special Circumstances

forumuser wrote: »

Quote:
Aviva warned drivers: "Many people involved in fronting do not even realise that what they are doing is not only against the law, but it also puts lives at risk.

I didn't understand this sentence, how does fronting put lives at risk? By having inexperienced drivers on the road that wouldn't be if they hadn't been able to get the cheaper insurance?

Don't worry, they have stats to prove this.


No, you can't see them.

And yes, there are probably multiple logical fallacies and poor interpretation of these magic stats before it ends up as a "woooooo be good or the boooogyman will come and eat you" scare story.


Speeding and fronting and 15 year old cars kiiiiiilllllll wooooooooo

Bluefoam

BTW. I was involved in a minor accident in my mothers car when i was a teenager. I maintain that the other driver drove into me on purpose, but the claim went against me. The other driver took his claim all the way to the supreme court and claimed over 110,000 punts in compensation for whiplash. One of the passengers in my car saw the other driver working as a bouncer at the Point Depot, pulling people over the barrier at the front of the stage (this was before the claim was settled). I contacted the insurance assessor, but he told me that it didn't matter & that he wouldn't investigate because (and he told me this directly) the insurance companies need a certain number of high claims annually in order to justify the premiums they wanted...

Stealthfins

Graham wrote:

That must be it, nothing at all to do with annual losses, cost of claims, increasing reserves or any of that other complicated stuff ....

Exactly keep it simple,now you're talking.

Graham

Stealthfins wrote: »

Exactly keep it simple,now you're talking.

Certainly makes blame easier when you can skip over those pesky facts.

Stealthfins

Graham wrote:

Certainly makes blame easier when you can skip over those pesky facts.

You can listen to the waffle these insurance companies dish out
But at the end of the day they're baffling ignorant people with aul business buzz talk and too busy telling people to reconcile this that and the other.

Sue Pa Key Pa

MarkR wrote: »

Buy a car with a cracked windscreen. Insure it, then a few months later report a chipped windscreen?

And put a fresh windscreen on a car when trading it in to get a better price, even though there is nothing wrong with it. Insurers are now insisting on their approved repairer in all cases to cut down on this practice. An approved repairer will not want to lose a valuable contract by aiding shady practice. Again, if you've done nothing wrong, it won't affect you

Graham

Stealthfins wrote: »

You can listen to the waffle these insurance companies dish out
But at the end of the day they're baffling ignorant people with aul business buzz talk and too busy telling people to reconcile this that and the other.

This thread is about a warning letter advising policy holders of the consequences of fronting. No business buzzwords that I can see.

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

And put a fresh windscreen on a car when trading it in to get a better price, even though there is nothing wrong with it.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac: I'd say replacing undamaged but a little "used" looking windscreens is right up there with this fierce increase in carjackings that 123.ie are blaming for insurance increases! :pac::pac::pac:

show me the stats on this one! :pac::pac::pac:

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Insurers are now insisting on their approved repairer in all cases to cut down on this practice.

Phew, it can't be that bad really so these days - most be mostly genuine claims right?

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

An approved repairer will not want to lose a valuable contract by aiding shady practice. Again, if you've done nothing wrong, it won't affect you

OK, nothing wrong no effect. Good to know... Genuine claims are wrong.

Stealthfins

Graham wrote:

This thread is about a warning letter advising policy holders of the consequences of fronting. No business buzzwords that I can see.

I know Graham I kinda get carried away sometimes,it irks me the way these guys get away with such hikes.....
I'll stay on topic.

I remember when insurance companies were advising people to front now the policy has changed.

Maybe they've brought in a more ruthless management team to clean up the whole debacle.

But they hit us all hard this year,a gradual approach might not have hurt consumers as much....

That's my say now lol

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Younger people are surely now going to start approaching breaking point for premiums. They get destroyed with costs, then one of the only ways to take down the costs is taken off the table. It will lead to an increase in uninsured young drivers for sure. And you definitely don't want your most risky cohort to be driving uninsured. Not saying it's right, it's just what will happen.

Dardania

Tucker Powerful Redneck wrote: »

Younger people are surely now going to start approaching breaking point for premiums. They get destroyed with costs, then one of the only ways to take down the costs is taken off the table. It will lead to an increase in uninsured young drivers for sure. And you definitely don't want your most risky cohort to be driving uninsured. Not saying it's right, it's just what will happen.

Or simply not driving. There will be a law of diminishing returns where people won't see the benefit of driving, and will migrate closer to urban areas where driving isn't so needed

Special Circumstances

Dardania wrote: »

Or simply not driving. There will be a law of diminishing returns where people won't see the benefit of driving, and will migrate closer to urban areas where driving isn't so needed

With autonomous cars and "cars as a service" on the way (eventually) it does seem like insurance companies are accelerating the the death of the motor insurance business by making running even an average used car as difficult and unattractive as possible.

Dardania

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

Or simply not driving. There will be a law of diminishing returns where people won't see the benefit of driving, and will migrate closer to urban areas where driving isn't so needed

With autonomous cars and "cars as a service" on the way (eventually) it does seem like insurance companies are accelerating the the death of the motor insurance business by making running even an average used car as difficult and unattractive as possible.

Didn't think of the autonomous cars angle but fair point indeed

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Dardania wrote: »

Or simply not driving. There will be a law of diminishing returns where people won't see the benefit of driving, and will migrate closer to urban areas where driving isn't so needed

With the price of rent and pretty ropey public transport I don't see that happening to any large degree. Plus the 17/18 year olds "down the country" may not want to move closer to towns.

Dardania

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

With the price of rent and pretty ropey public transport I don't see that happening to any large degree. Plus the 17/18 year olds "down the country" may not want to move closer to towns.

Of course there'll be people in the shticks that couldn't be without their cars as they literally couldn't survive, but for the others...rental prices aren't going up as fast as car insurance.

I think a lot of the glamour of owning a car is going away-it's less of an aspirational object. Certainly in my eyes that's the case

listermint

Henry Ford III wrote: »

To be fair it's you who made the claim that it's all profit driven. I simply disagreed.

So the ball is very much in your court to back up your initial claim.

To be fair I didn't. Read the post again. I urge you.

I suspect you won't

NUTLEY BOY

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

If you know a sure fire way of getting people to truthfully declare who the main driver is then you need to get a job in an insurance company because every single one of them would be tripping over themselves to employ you.

The truth of the matter is that its exceptionally difficult to get the truth and more importantly prove it.

I regularly issue main driver declaration forms to policy holders that I suspect are fronting.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number that I've gotten back which have the young driver listed as the main driver.

Its not simply a matter of rating the young driver as the main driver because if we do that then we are basically calling the policy holder a liar. Its extremely frustrating to issue terms on a policy that I KNOW is fronted but I cannot allter the policy without reasonable proof.

This tactic by Aviva is actually a very good idea because it makes people aware of what may happen if they are fronting.

I'd suspect that a lot of parents are doing it without knowing the potential ramifications so by drawing attention to it then it will hopefully have the desired effect.

I readily appreciate the underwriters problem with the issue.

What is the actual practice of motor insurance underwriters generally ?

I see that Aviva appear to construct their proposal document by incorporating what I read as an effective warranty that the proposing owner is also the main driver. Fair enough.

Next logical question - what is the definition of a main driver ?

I cannot see the concept defined in the contract wording. There may be common sense definitions of a main driver but the insurers face a really big problem. If they do not define the concept in the policy wording it makes it very hard for them to repudiate liability under the policy where the young named driver is actually the main driver. Remember that if there is ambiguity as to what the concept means that will be resolved against the insurers under the contra proferentem rule of construction because the insurers constructed the contract with that defect of wording.

P.S. God be with the days when a contract uberrima fides actually meant something.

Liam McPoyle

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I readily appreciate the underwriters problem with the issue.

What is the actual practice of motor insurance underwriters generally ?

I see that Aviva appear to construct their proposal document by incorporating what I read as an effective warranty that the proposing owner is also the main driver. Fair enough.

Next logical question - what is the definition of a main driver ?

I cannot see the concept defined in the contract wording. There may be common sense definitions of a main driver but the insurers face a really big problem. If they do not define the concept in the policy wording it makes it very hard for them to repudiate liability under the policy where the young named driver is actually the main driver. Remember that if there is ambiguity as to what the concept means that will be resolved against the insurers under the contra proferentem rule of construction because the insurers constructed the contract with that defect of wording.

P.S. God be with the days when a contract uberrima fides actually meant something.

What I would consider to be the main driver is someone that is possession of the vehicle for more than 60% of the calendar year.

However as you rightly say, its nearly impossible for insurers to prove it.

I've seen theft claims thrown out after the claimant submitted the log book that had the named driver as the registered owner.

There is also an oft cited case in UK case law where a claim was registered for accidental damage to a car that was parked up.

There was a named driver who was away from home as a student and at inception his mother (the policy holder) said he only drove it occasionally.

When going through the claims details on the phone the mother said something to the effect of "we don't know what happened, he has been parking there for months with no issues"

Things like that are very clear cut however they are more the exception than the rule.

Sue Pa Key Pa

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Next logical question - what is the definition of a main driver ?

.

You can take it that if little Jimmy lives at home with the parents, has no finance agreement on the vehicle, the vehicle has always been in the parents name (never in Jimmy's name) and the parents can prove they taxed it, then the insurer will not pursue the issue

If any of the above are the other way around, they could have grounds to investigate fronting. Don't forget, insurers do not have to give a stated reason for enforcing a cancellation on a policyholder. Their only obligation is to notify the insured at the last known address, giving 10 days notice by registered post. An enforced cancellation is the last thing you want on your record