At 55 y/o guess what I was just quoted for a 911 turbo?

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the nonsense.

A NCB is a reduction in the premium based on your good record which evidences that you are a lower risk motorist.

In the OP's case they have evidence for 30 years no claims driving. Its total nonsense to say that this evidence can only apply to one car. In fact, because the OP can only drive one car at a time, the premium should be even lower still.

Irish insurers seem to have lots of petty rules, all to their advantage, which insurers in other parts of Europe would regard as unbelievable.

Exactly. If the OP had got into a crash last year, was deemed at fault, had to make a large claim off of their own insurance, had no bonus protection and thus was actually on 0 years NCB but with a large claim to increase the premium further... who here reckons the insurer would turn around and say "nah, we don't need to factor that in - sure that was for a different policy!"

Because this non mirroring of bonuses is exactly that, only in reverse. They'll charge you more in the example given above because you're deemed a greater risk, but how can they justify the OP being a similar risk to someone taking out their first ever insurance policy when he has umpteen years and a completely clean record?

Delighted he got it sorted, because in this type of scenario you can get numerous companies willing to mirror your bonus for you, or absolutely none, seemingly depending on the mood of the person you're getting the quote off of (or if you're lucky to get one of the good people with the authority to do so in any given company). It's a face, really.

Special Circumstances

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Irish insurers seem to have lots of petty rules, all to their advantage, which insurers in other parts of Europe would regard as unbelievable.

Vtec in all of its unholy forms, be it economy or power orientated, is banned by many insurers.

Honda jazz? No way Jose!

Variable valve technology of any other sort is fine though. Even Subaru AVCS- "variable valve technology on 4 camshafts oh Jesus Mary and Joseph, Agnes bring the smelling salts! Quick!"

Part of the problem is that they just don't like or understand cars or driving.

beauf

Special Circumstances wrote: »

..
Part of the problem is that they just don't like or understand cars or driving.

I think that's largely irrelevant.

Insurance only exists to make money, which is fine. The problem is that its largely unregulated, and they price gouge because they can.

Liam McPoyle

beauf wrote: »

I think that's largely irrelevant.

Insurance only exists to make money, which is fine. The problem is that its largely unregulated, and they price gouge because they can.

Insurance is massively regulated.

Do people not realise that the world has recently come through a massive economic mire caused by the unscrupulous activities of financial institutions?

Insurance companies fall under the same remit as banks or other credit institutions.

I do agree however there should be more transparency.

I do think that insurers should be compelled to release their claims data.

Its OK for me as I work in industry, I see the evidence of the current claims environment on a daily basis but me posting here is mainly anecdotal as I obviously cannot post proof as that's proviliged information and at a minimum I could lose my job.

There are a lot of things I have an issue with.

At the moment its the refusal of many insurers of vehicles over 10/12 years of age.

In my mind if you have a good risk ie 30+, full ncd and a low risk occupation then they should not be blacklisted just because the car has reached an arbitrary age.

However I can also understand the reasoning behind it. I may not like it but from an underwriting / business PoV I can accept it.

If people think they are getting the shytty end of the stick then there are avenues of appeal. I have and will continue to advise people to make complaints to the ombudsman or ring insurance ireland to query something, that's why those institutions exist.

I've said it before and I will say it again, if an insurer declines to quote you for new business then they have to be able to prove their reason for refusing you is based on quantifiable data.

If people don't use the facilities that are there to better the industry then it will not change.

Wibbs

Rod Munch wrote: »

Do people not realise that the world has recently come through a massive economic mire caused by the unscrupulous activities of financial institutions?

Including Irish insurance companies. It's a large part of the need to increase premiums and we're all paying for their fcukups now.

I do agree however there should be more transparency.

I do think that insurers should be compelled to release their claims data.

+1000. Consistency would be nice too. When the same driver with the same details and the same car can have quotes wildly different they can't claim it's based on real world figures. Not with a straight face anyway.

There are a lot of things I have an issue with.

At the moment its the refusal of many insurers of vehicles over 10/12 years of age.

In my mind if you have a good risk ie 30+, full ncd and a low risk occupation then they should not be blacklisted just because the car has reached an arbitrary age.

+a gazillion. It's utter BS and provably so.

If people think they are getting the shytty end of the stick then there are avenues of appeal. I have and will continue to advise people to make complaints to the ombudsman or ring insurance ireland to query something, that's why those institutions exist.

I never tried the ombudsman RM, but I did ring insurance Ireland last year and TBH they were about as much use as tits on a bull. Their considered opinion was summed up by "sorry, but it is what it is".

I've said it before and I will say it again, if an insurer declines to quote you for new business then they have to be able to prove their reason for refusing you is based on quantifiable data.

Again any enquires I've made have been met with "nope, just nope, just cos. End" and any that went further than that just came back with a quote that would cover the Starship Enterprise fully comp.

If people don't use the facilities that are there to better the industry then it will not change.

The industry could also get off its collective arses and make real efforts to reduce the claim culture they constantly bleat about. Even when it's not going near a court of law the amount of "padding" of insurance claims is IME well in need of better oversight.

Liam McPoyle

With respect of the claims culture.

Making a dodgy/bogey claim in this country carries absolutely zero risk for the claimant.

They can be proven, unequivocally to have outright lied about their "injuries", both in type and severity but the worst that can happen is that the judge throws the case out. In the cases where people engineer an accident there were two cases in the last 24 months where the judge just threw the cases out. No sanctions, no penalties, just a day out in court.

Until there are real penalties for making fraudulent / exaggerated claims then its better than buying a lottery ticket because all you need to do is hire a no win no fee solicitor, there is no cost to the claimant if they lose, if they win they get a nice fat cheque.

With a system like that then its a wonder that everyone that is involved in a accident doesn't chance their arm.

beauf

Rod Munch wrote: »

Insurance is massively regulated.....

Whats regulated is how the company operates in terms of a company and covering its loans and cover. What it charges the customers is not regulated.

One thing has got nothing do with the other. if premiums are regulated. Please explain how.

Why don't they fix price increases like they do rent. 4% annually, from last years premium.

beauf

Rod Munch wrote: »

With respect of the claims culture.

Making a dodgy/bogey claim in this country carries absolutely zero risk for the claimant.....

Then increase the premiums for people making claims. Not for those not making claims.

Car insurance isn't a legal requirement in all countries. Perhaps we should be looking at a different system.

listermint

beauf wrote: »

Whats regulated is how the company operates in terms of a company and covering its loans and cover. What it charges the customers is not regulated.

One thing has got nothing do with the other. if premiums are regulated. Please explain how.

Why don't they fix price increases like they do rent. 4% annually, from last years premium.

Regulated to the point that the insurance industry can blame all the increases on claims yet have no obligation to provide proof of the same, cant or wont provide proof.

Regulated my arse.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Regulated my arse.

And yet we have regular failures... that everybody has to pay for.

Liam McPoyle

beauf wrote: »

Whats regulated is how the company operates in terms of a company and covering its loans and cover. What it charges the customers is not regulated.

One thing has got nothing do with the other. if premiums are regulated. Please explain how.

Why don't they fix price increases like they do rent. 4% annually, from last years premium.

Can an insurer regulate how many accidents their drivers have?

Of course not, so you cannot put a fixed rate increase on pricing.

Someone asked (maybe in this thread) how come house insurance has been more or less static for the last number of years?

If insurers are free to gouge and price how they see fit then why not jack up the prices for that too?

I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on the matter.

A lot of you are so sure that companies can run rough shod over motorists so why not home owners too?

Liam McPoyle

beauf wrote: »

Then increase the premiums for people making claims. Not for those not making claims.

Car insurance isn't a legal requirement in all countries. Perhaps we should be looking at a different system.

The prices for risks that involve the public have increased massively over the last 24 months.

Pub insurance has had increases similar to motor premiums.

So have retail risks - supermarkets and the like.

What do motor insurance, pubs and retail risks have in common?

What makes them different from say house insurance or general property insurance for the likes of warehouse owners?

listermint

Rod Munch wrote: »

Can an insurer regulate how many accidents their drivers have?

Of course not, so you cannot put a fixed rate increase on pricing.

Someone asked (maybe in this thread) how come house insurance has been more or less static for the last number of years?

If insurers are free to gouge and price how they see fit then why not jack up the prices for that too?

I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on the matter.

A lot of you are so sure that companies can run rough shod over motorists so why not home owners too?

Any stats on premiums paid out or cases settled out of court over lets say the last 4 years?

Well the insurers definitely do but refuse to give any information spurious ****e like that information isnt available. They have the figures out to a 't' its the name of the game.

This whole shenanigans is stock price driven and shareholder driven. They are being scrutinised for growth now on the core business which is insurance, The old pile their reserves into banking is now gone so back to core business and if thats not in growth year on year then its failing. Which is pure capitalist nonsense. You dont need to be in constant growth to be a sustainable business. The world needs to get out of that nonsense but hey wallstreet.

The only way insurance companies can make it look like they are growing is growing the base OR gouging. In ireland gouging is easier due to regulation so option B is simple

listermint

Rod Munch wrote: »

The prices for risks that involve the public have increased massively over the last 24 months.

Pub insurance has had increases similar to motor premiums.

So have retail risks - supermarkets and the like.

What do motor insurance, pubs and retail risks have in common?

What makes them different from say house insurance or general property insurance for the likes of warehouse owners?

Shareholders.

You are trying to sell this waffle, then give us some statistics. REAL statistics.

Liam McPoyle

beauf wrote: »

Then increase the premiums for people making claims. Not for those not making claims.

Car insurance isn't a legal requirement in all countries. Perhaps we should be looking at a different system.

Just to add to this.

Insurance is based on pooling risk ie all claims paid out of the same pot.

Say for example you are involved in a crash where you rear end someone. Completely not your fault but there were no independent witnesses to confirm the other driver wasn't drivinf with due care and attention.

To make up the short fall by penalising only drivers that have made claims then you would get absolutely hammered in your premium for the next 4 to 5 years. Would that be fair?

Not in my opinion anyway.

At the end of the day, we pay insurance to protect us in the event of a claim. If we are going to be massively penalised for something we are legally obliged to buy, it defeats the purpose of buying it in the first place.

Liam McPoyle

listermint wrote: »

Shareholders.

You are trying to sell this waffle, then give us some statistics. REAL statistics.

Ive already said, I don't have statistics and I can only speak anecdotally, I've also said there should be more transparency.

You are so sure of what you are saying, why is that?

What proof or statistics do you have?

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Shareholders.

.

No, Its not that. Many of the insurance companies operating in Ireland like petty pirates have operations in other countries that operate perfectly reasonably.. Axa, for example.

Personally I believe that most of the insurance problems in Ireland devolve from the consequences of our dysfunctional legal system.

CJhaughey

Deleted User wrote: »

No, Its not that. Many of the insurance companies operating in Ireland like petty pirates have operations in other countries that operate perfectly reasonably.. Axa, for example.

Personally I believe that most of the insurance problems in Ireland devolve from the consequences of our dysfunctional legal system.

^^This^^ and it was a very curious arrangement that when the Troika was over here overseeing financial operations one of their big bugbears was the lack of reform of the legal industry robbers.
Lots of things were changed in that time but the legal profession stonewalled and blocked any hope of reform and the end result was pretty much nothing happened of any consequence.

I personally think that the Government likes having large amounts of cash floating around the system, if the system was regulated like most other professions then it wouldn't suit.
Premiums are so variable between different insurers that it just doesn't make sense.

I watched Insurance Ireland come on TV and try and defend the industry while refusing to agree to releasing data on claims and profits.

How can the industry be reformed if a baseline is not available for scrutiny?
Its like trying to build a bridge without knowing how wide the river is underneath.

beauf

Rod Munch wrote: »

Can an insurer regulate how many accidents their drivers have?

yes they can put sky high premiums on those with repeated accidents. Instead its gets balanced across the rest of us.

Rod Munch wrote: »

Of course not, so you cannot put a fixed rate increase on pricing.

They have on housing. So yes they can do it on insurance. A lot of their costs have come from poor investments not an increases in costs from car insurance.

Rod Munch wrote: »

Someone asked (maybe in this thread) how come house insurance has been more or less static for the last number of years?


If insurers are free to gouge and price how they see fit then why not jack up the prices for that too?

it has risen.

Car insurance premiums have soared by an average 16.3% in the year, and home insurance has increased 3%.

Rod Munch wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on the matter.

A lot of you are so sure that companies can run rough shod over motorists so why not home owners too?

You might want to ask people who can't get cover anymore.

Liam McPoyle

beauf wrote: »

yes they can put sky high premiums on those with repeated accidents. Instead its gets balanced across the rest of us.



They have on housing. So yes they can do it on insurance. A lot of their costs have come from poor investments not an increases in costs from car insurance.



it has risen.






You might want to ask people who can't get cover anymore.

3% of an increase is hardly massive, its probably similar to the rate of inflation / cost of living tbh.

So insurers are gouging motorists, publicans and shop owners but not home owners.

You've skirted around the question so again, why is that do you think?

I see a few people banging the drum about insurers investments been the reason for increases.

Would you care to provide your thoughts on exactly what this means?

I've a pretty good handle on it myself but I'd like your opinion if you don't mind seeing as it's something you are citing.

beauf

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/2-insurance-levy-to-remain-until-2037-239591.html

You've gone from static to not much of an increase.

You get wildly different quotes for car insurance AND house insurance by shopping around. So either costs rapidly between phone calls or they aren't based on costs.

They've been at this for decades. I can remember quote going from 1400 to 400 in the space of an hour. They have no credibility with consumers.

Liam McPoyle

beauf wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/2-insurance-levy-to-remain-until-2037-239591.html

You've gone from static to not much of an increase.

You get wildly different quotes for car insurance AND house insurance by shopping around. So either costs rapidly between phone calls or they aren't based on costs.

They've been at this for decades. I can remember quote going from 1400 to 400 in the space of an hour. They have no credibility with consumers.

Does the cost of products, from petrol to bread not move up inline with inflation / cost of living?

Why would insurance not increase too?

You are avoiding the questions I've asked so before you jump on the above, I agree that the cost of motor insurance has spiralled massively and way above the level of inflation.

So one last time.

Why do you think the cost of house insurance has not spiked like motor or public liability insurance?

Whats the thinking behind insurers investment activity being the real cause?

beauf

I could continue to post links all day but as you've ignored them all, continuing is entirely pointless. You'll just repeat the insurance companies dogma. The idea that ludicrous increases can be explained by costs, doesn't standup to any logic.

Wibbs

CJhaughey wrote: »

I watched Insurance Ireland come on TV and try and defend the industry while refusing to agree to releasing data on claims and profits.

How can the industry be reformed if a baseline is not available for scrutiny?
Its like trying to build a bridge without knowing how wide the river is underneath.

IMH insurance companies should be forced by law to reveal the data on motor insurance. Unlike other types of insurance it is a legal requirement, enforceable and punishable by law and as such should be completely transparent. It should not be held in secret by private companies. Companies that are wildly inconsistent when it comes to quotes. They're not nearly so inconsistent when it comes to other forms of insurance that is not legally mandated. IMH it is a farce that this data isn't available to the Irish citizenry.

Liam McPoyle

beauf wrote: »

I could continue to post links all day but as you've ignored them all, continuing is entirely pointless. You'll just repeat the insurance companies dogma. The idea that ludicrous increases can be explained by costs, doesn't standup to any logic.

What links?

A piece from 3 years ago about the Quinn direct mess?

You are showing nothing to back up your statements.

In fact, you are proving my point.

QD went bust partly because it was underpricing and didn't have enough funds to cover the cost of their claims!

So you are using an example of a company that went broke because of underpricing as a reason for why insurers shouldn't charge more today.

Liam McPoyle

Wibbs wrote: »

IMH insurance companies should be forced by law to reveal the data on motor insurance. Unlike other types of insurance it is a legal requirement, enforceable and punishable by law and as such should be completely transparent. It should not be held in secret by private companies. Companies that are wildly inconsistent when it comes to quotes. They're not nearly so inconsistent when it comes to other forms of insurance that is not legally mandated. IMH it is a farce that this data isn't available to the Irish citizenry.

Can't disagree with you there Wibbs.

There should be more transparency.

I can understand why some data is retained as it is directly related to the market and competitors but even something like a 100% independent body that can review the costs vs the incoming premiums ans release an overview of the state of play would be a step in the right direction.

beauf

Rod Munch wrote: »

What links?

A piece from 3 years ago about the Quinn direct mess?

You are showing nothing to back up your statements.

In fact, you are proving my point.

QD went bust partly because it was underpricing and didn't have enough funds to cover the cost of their claims!

So you are using an example of a company that went broke because of underpricing as a reason for why insurers shouldn't charge more today.

I'd reply only I'm too busy reading your own links that you didn't give. :rolleyes:

the industry was attributing the increases to the rising claims but the rate of increase in premiums did not match the rate of increase in payouts

We could look at historical under pricing, except you don't want to look at historical information where it doesn't suit you.

Crazy premiums bearing no relation to the real world has been going on for many decades. Not simply the last 10yrs. We had this before in the 80's. There was no transparency then either.