Insurance Companies will not Insurer Cars over 10 yeas old disgusting behaviour

TheDoc

Rod Munch wrote: »

I would be confident (perhaps I'm giving more credit than I should to insurers) that if called upon, companies that will not quote for older cars can provide evidence as to why they will not quote them.

The data they released first in the public domain was absolutely laughable, like properly pie in the sky statistics. There hasn't been enough interest in the topic to force their hand.

As usual, they can just fob off. It's only when proper political pressure arises, summons to committees, that true scrutiny takes place.

You can google and find their initial statements from Allianz and Aviva when they announced the change in policy, and the statistics and data is laughable.

Would have had more respect if they just said they weren't arsed with the administration costs of write offs, as it's all it clearly is. To paint it as some form of tackling road safety was embarrassing on their part.

And yeah I think you are being a bit naive thinking it's all pure calculations and science. These are profit driven business. I've watched products invented out of thin air, with the sole purpose of driving margin for the business where it's dropped elsewhere, and I've watched good products get canned because it wasn't performing as expected.

Like anything, the decisions, costings and offerings will stem from the margins and profit generation. Market share, profitability and margin. Like any other business.

AudreyHepburn

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Insurance Companies will not insurer cars over 10 years old with a validity nct test this to is Disgusting Behavior from the Insurance Industry of Ireland.:mad:

Some do, some don't. You can't expect every company to cover every risk. That's not how businesses work.

I suspect you've only been doing quotes online and many providers will not give prices for older cars this way. You need to make some calls and I guarantee you will get quotes.

AudreyHepburn

Allinall wrote: »

That's just a load of made up bull crap.

Not at all. You cannot legally drive without a valid NCT so Insurers will quite rightly refuse to cover you.

The car has not been deemed roadworthy - why should they take on such a risk?

TheDoc

Rod Munch wrote: »

I would be confident (perhaps I'm giving more credit than I should to insurers) that if called upon, companies that will not quote for older cars can provide evidence as to why they will not quote them.

The data they released first in the public domain was absolutely laughable, like properly pie in the sky statistics. There hasn't been enough interest in the topic to force their hand.

As usual, they can just fob off. It's only when proper political pressure arises, summons to committees, that true scrutiny takes place.

You can google and find their initial statements from Allianz and Aviva when they announced the change in policy, and the statistics and data is laughable.

Would have had more respect if they just said they weren't arsed with the administration costs of write offs, as it's all it clearly is. To paint it as some form of tackling road safety was embarrassing on their part.

And yeah I think you are being a bit naive thinking it's all pure calculations and science. These are profit driven business. I've watched products invented out of thin air, with the sole purpose of driving margin for the business where it's dropped elsewhere, and I've watched good products get canned because it wasn't performing as expected.

Like anything, the decisions, costings and offerings will stem from the margins and profit generation. Market share, profitability and margin. Like any other business.

Liam McPoyle

TheDoc wrote: »

The data they released first in the public domain was absolutely laughable, like properly pie in the sky statistics. There hasn't been enough interest in the topic to force their hand.

As usual, they can just fob off. It's only when proper political pressure arises, summons to committees, that true scrutiny takes place.

You can google and find their initial statements from Allianz and Aviva when they announced the change in policy, and the statistics and data is laughable.

Would have had more respect if they just said they weren't arsed with the administration costs of write offs, as it's all it clearly is. To paint it as some form of tackling road safety was embarrassing on their part.

And yeah I think you are being a bit naive thinking it's all pure calculations and science. These are profit driven business. I've watched products invented out of thin air, with the sole purpose of driving margin for the business where it's dropped elsewhere, and I've watched good products get canned because it wasn't performing as expected.

Like anything, the decisions, costings and offerings will stem from the margins and profit generation. Market share, profitability and margin. Like any other business.

Why should an insurer be held to some higher standard than any other business?

If they are losing money on something they discontinue or change it, same as any other business.

I'm basing my thoughts and opinions on nearly a decade working in the industry, other people here have substantially more experience than I do and we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

So its either we are completely brain washed by our employers or we are basing what we say on what we see and deal with on a daily basis.

I know which side of the coin I'm on and I'd be fairly confident that brain washing is frowned upon in the business!

Surreptitious

Eyes Down Field wrote: »

If you have a current policy with an insurer, they will continue to renew regardless of age of car. It's the switching of companies that causes the problem with age restrictions. Also if you let your policy expire by a few days, your insurance company may say they have to set up a new policy and you could be declined depending on the insurers age limits, usually 13 -15 years old, depending on where you go. I never heard of a 10 year limit.

This is incorrect. My old insurer refused to insure me.

TheDoc

ScumLord wrote: »

I've noticed that cars made within the last 10 years seem to be holding up very well. They were a new breed all up to modern European standards.

I get a bit annoyed when I see one of these cars and it's past it's life because of something simple, like a sensor acting up and it costs more than the car is worth to replace. The car is still in perfectly good condition, no rust, doors working with only the engine causing issues and it's often not fatal issues, just some issue that's not worth fixing.

Otherwise the car is perfectly fine, yet it's considered cheaper to replace the entire car than fix the one or two issues with the car. This is another one of these false economies as far as I'm concerned, more grinding up of resources just to make new stuff that's in fashion. We've ended up with a system that makes no sense for anybody but the people selling the cars. It shouldn't be more economical, it's just the market running away with itself and we're spending the money for the sake of spending money.

I don't subscribe to some conspiracy theories that cars are less durable now, to push people into the cycle of trading up every few years.

I think there is a mindset now, and a culture that was cleverly crafted, to make people believe they can trade up every few years and be getting a new car with a new plate, and how its a brilliant way to operate.

And it is great, extended warranties holding values of cars, that if you can go buy new, you can get yourself into a cycle of getting a new car every few years, offsetting the cost by your high value trade in.

The problem here though is people sucked into this, who actually cannot afford it. People doing it via finance. Like the housing market, being talked into something lovely that they really can't afford, believing that just because they can make the repayments they can afford it.

I'd love to see the numbers on people defaulting on car finance or loans. I know so many people who have got into this cycle, and preach to me, and don't seem to want to accept that they don't even own there cars, continually in this circle of repayments, never finishing them to actually own the car. The outstanding balance just worked into the new car. It's mental.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

TheDoc wrote: »

What exactly does a country look like, out of genuine interest, where insurance is NOT a legal requirement? Can assume maybe the high payout stuff could bankrupt someone, but I have rarely to never experienced an actual benefit from my insurer. Just a tick the box exercise I need to satisfy police at checkpoints, costing me 1k+ a year.

Insurance is fundamentally the contributions of the many to cover the losses of the few.

--

South Africa does not have compulsory insurance (as of 2015). The insurance industry there does not do minor injury payouts (whiplash or soft tissue etc..) and is thus not a complete rip off as it is in Ireland.

The cost of your insurance is based on the value of the car, age of the driver + years driven, NCB and if you've been in an accident in the last 5 years.

This is a tad unfair towards new/young drivers but, if they don't opt for an expensive Audi or BMW as their first car it's usually manageable.

As for driving around without insurance and you land up in an accident? Well, I can speak from personal experience because I did this...

Read ended a Toyota Auris with my Mazda Sting and was not on insurance.

The driver wrote a police report and handed it over to his insurance company who then tracked me down (I was not hiding) and filed a claim against me to pay them back over 3 years. We negotiated a bit and settled on a payment plan.

There have been cases where the insurance company files a claim and the person will make a runner. In a case like this the insurance will try find the person or just write it off.

To be honest, the biggest difference is the refusal to pay for minor injuries. It negates the insanely large €10,000 types of claims.

I am not aware of any insurance companies in South Africa that have gone bankrupt due to high claims.

scamalert

In all of this i dont get it if 10y-15 or whatever car still passes nct test, which is generally applied same be it brand new car or 15yrs old, how come it works out to be more expensive given that older cars cost less if accident happens, and given standards even on brand new yokes micra/clio etc which are basically hollow boxes with couple airbags that government wants everyone to ride in, somehow is deemed as better ?

TheDoc

Rod Munch wrote: »

Why should an insurer be held to some higher standard than any other business?

Well they should have more watchful eyes, as they are the gatekeeper to a number of legally required products. I don't "have" to shop or deal with many business or companies in Ireland. But I "have" to deal with insurance companies for a multitude of things, because its a legal requirement.

So based on the fact the bulk of their market share and customer based is there because it's forced to, by law, I'd assume the lawmakers, ie. Government, would be interested to know what is going on and if there any shenanigans.

If they are losing money on something they discontinue or change it, same as any other business.

No qualms or issues there. I was making those examples, as I'm sure you know yourself from working in the business, that not all products or services or premiums are purely scientific calculations.

As evident by changes in premiums that came in via the female equality stuff. Even taking the insurance companies own excuses "We are bleeding money from payouts and fraud claims" for higher premiums, is admission to the fact that premiums and those calculations are not purely scientific, but are also influenced by business decisions, and maintaining margin.

I just rail against people in the industry who belittle others with "oh you don't understand how premiums are calculated" and then make our that its purely scientific and based only on things like risk, when its not.

I'm basing my thoughts and opinions on nearly a decade working in the industry, other people here have substantially more experience than I do and we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

So its either we are completely brain washed by our employers or we are basing what we say on what we see and deal with on a daily basis.

I know which side of the coin I'm on and I'd be fairly confident that brain washing is frowned upon in the business!

What hymn sheet are you singing from exactly?

In the context of the this thread, it's abundantly clear insurers introduced this shift in policy, likely to remove the administration costs of dealing with write offs (frequent occurrence in claims with older vehicles) and that providing service to vehicles over 10 years old, is not cost effective or not driving enough margin.

The initial PR spin that vehicles over 10 years old, are X times more likely to cause an accident, was an absolutely laughable statistic, based in no realm of accurate data.

Maybe I've missed some posts by you or others in the industry, but I think the crux of the argument is you(those working in the sector) are arguing there is some validity to the data and the initially portrayed statement regarding 10+ year old cars, which most people will know is bull**** and there is some fanciful mathamatical formula whereby a vehicle being 10+yrs old results in a higher risk, which is not true. That "risk" is a human input, dictated by the business.

And that those of use not working directly in insurance, and who are just customers, get a bit annoyed when a company or companies we HAVE to deal with, change policy or make decisions on their own bat on products or services we are legally obliged to subscribe too.

TheDoc

scamalert wrote: »

In all of this i dont get it if 10y-15 or whatever car still passes nct test, which is generally applied same be it brand new car or 15yrs old, how come it works out to be more expensive given that older cars cost less if accident happens, and given standards even on brand new yokes micra/clio etc which are basically hollow boxes with couple airbags that government wants everyone to ride in, somehow is deemed as better ?

NCT is an entirely different kettle of fish.

The NCT only states and affirms your vehicle was safe (or unsafe) at the specific time of testing. Familiar misunderstanding of the NCt I see a lot.

It doesn't state you're car is roadworthy for X period of time, it simply confirms your vehicle passed a number of predetermined safety points, at the time it was tested.

The NCT is basically a complete joke and worthless, although makes some decent ground taking total bangers of the road, and if anything ensuring some fundamentals are looked after. But all in all, it's a bit pointless considering it actually has no bearing or correlation with any other part of the motoring network when it comes to insurance/tax etc.

I'm sure you all have your own stories, or heard of stories, of people just getting through the NCT. I don't know anyone who treats it as anything other then one of the many tick the box exercises required to drive in the country. Then again I'm pretty good with cars, like my Dad, and he would have engrained in me from an early age working on them the importance of checking tyre thread depths, lights, brakes and all that craic regularly and I service the car myself, probably going overkill in terms of the safety stuff, once a year. Obviously there are people utterly clueless, and I know them myself, who will drive with bald tyres, worn brake pads etc.

But the idea of the NCt, is to train the driver or the owner in safety stuff so they can become more aware and efficent. Instead we have likely an Irish attitude, but also an IRish system, were we just look at it like a sham racket and then people just try trick it to get through first time

Gadgetman496

TheDoc wrote: »

NCT is an entirely different kettle of fish.

The NCT only states and affirms your vehicle was safe (or unsafe) at the specific time of testing. Familiar misunderstanding of the NCt I see a lot.

There's a double standard right there!

When a insurance company refuses to quote on the basis of the age of the car and you point out that the car has a current valid NCT they will tell you (as they did me) that the NCT is irrelevant and as far as they are concerned it's not worth the paper it's written on, yet, in the event of a claim they will refuse to pay if the car hasn't a current valid NCT cert.

And, if "The NCT only states and affirms your vehicle was safe (or unsafe) at the specific time of testing" why is it valid for 12 months?

BPKS

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/singer-who-gave-false-and-misleading-evidence-awarded-18k-over-traffic-incident-35716504.html


And you wonder why your car insurance premium is rising so much.......

AudreyHepburn

Sosurface wrote: »

It is the amount that can be squeezed out of the customer by you leeches that the premium is primarily calculated on. Everything else is a secondary concern.

Utter rubbish.

Insurance is a risk based business. Your premium is based primarily on how much or how little of risk you or vehicle or area etc are.

If you are a higher risk you will rightly be charged a higher premium. That's not leeching, it's common sense.

And like any business Insurers need to be able to stay afloat and make profits so yes of course that comes into the premium calculations too. That's how businesses work.

And before you ask, yes I work in the Industry but the dogs on the street know the above to be true.

Sosurface

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Utter rubbish.

Insurance is a risk based business. Your premium is based primarily on how much or how little of risk you or vehicle or area etc are.

If you are a higher risk you will rightly be charged a higher premium. That's not leeching, it's common sense.

And like any business Insurers need to be able to stay afloat and make profits so yes of course that comes into the premium calculations too. That's how businesses work.

And before you ask, yes I work in the Industry but the dogs on the street know the above to be true.

Pure profiteering is all it is. Dont worry love. You and your cohorts keep going the way you are going and the market you love to refer will fix the problem itself.

The dogs on the street are also starting to bark: if the cost of insuring the car is greater than the punishment cost for driving without it, then what bloody use are you?

Remove your legal bubblewrap and see if your "industry" can stand on its own two feet. I seriously doubt it.

Gadgetman496

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Utter rubbish.

Insurance is a risk based business. Your premium is based primarily on how much or how little of risk you or vehicle or area etc are.

So, if an older vehicle in sound condition and in receipt of a state recognized certificate of road worthiness (NCT), Why do the insurance companies either refuse to quote or load the owners if they do quote?

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

So, if an older vehicle in sound condition and in receipt of a state recognized certificate of road worthiness (NCT), Why do the insurance companies either refuse to quote or load the owners if they do quote?

I would like to argue that if a car is older than 10 years it shows that the driver knows what they are doing when driving and genuinely cares for the car.

hullaballoo

I renewed my policy on my 15 year old banger on Friday and it cost me less than last year after a little bit of negotiating over the phone.

I am one of the corrupt elites though so maybe that explains it.

JJJJNR

Rod Munch wrote: »

There are avenues of appeal if people think that insurers are doing things they shouldn't be doing.

If requested, they have to prove that their reason for doing something is based on sound actuarial data, in this case not insuring cars of a certain age for new business.

For example, the company I work for had a discrimination case brought against them by an EU licence holder that was quoted more than an Irish licence holder was. The company were able to prove to the WRC that statistically, based on the company's past and existing customers, EU licence holders were involved in more accident's than Irish licence holders and were therefore charged more. The WRC ruled in favour of my company.

Another example involved a driver over 70 years of age that was denied a quote by RSA based purely on his age. He brought a case against them to the WRC and they were not able to prove that drivers over 70 presented a disproportionately higher risk so the company were ordered to pay the complainant €2000 in compensation and provide him a quote.

I would be confident (perhaps I'm giving more credit than I should to insurers) that if called upon, companies that will not quote for older cars can provide evidence as to why they will not quote them.

I'd love to see people challenge the veracity of this ruling because as an insurance professional, I believe companies absolutely must conduct themselves in an ethical manner. If companies are merely copying what their competitors are doing, with no actuarial data to support the decisions, then that is straying into cartel territory and they should face the sanctions for doing so.

Do you really think companies conduct themselves in an ethical manner, if so look at HSBC. The biggest bank on the planet, and have been fined millions only recently for money laundering. They are so brazing that in South America they had bigger post boxes fitted in the banks to take and launder cartel cash.

RayM

Am I the only person who misread the thread title? I thought it said "Insurance companies will not insure car over 10-year-old's disgusting behaviour".

Lux23

Our car is eleven years old and we have insurance, its more expensive but we got it.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Sosurface wrote: »

The only possible excuse for defending an indefensible and morally repugnant industry would be if you are yourself in that industry. So yes. You are a leech. A bloodsucking leech and an active drain on the society you live in. How you people sleep at night is beyond me.

Insurance is basically the new Big Tobacco(sans lung cancer) or sub-prime mortgage lending without even the faint promise of an asset at the end.

Make sure you breath deeply and calm down before you drive this evening. I wouldn't want you to crash and fall in to my blood sucking domain

KERSPLAT!

Sosurface wrote: »

The only possible excuse for defending an indefensible and morally repugnant industry would be if you are yourself in that industry. So yes. You are a leech. A bloodsucking leech and an active drain on the society you live in. How you people sleep at night is beyond me.

Insurance is basically the new Big Tobacco(sans lung cancer) or sub-prime mortgage lending without even the faint promise of an asset at the end.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Make sure you breath deeply and calm down before you drive this evening. I wouldn't want you to crash and fall in to my blood sucking domain

The poster has been dealt with, please don't engage and further rile yourself or others up. Move on please.

paleoperson

And it's not like there's anything wrong with 15 year old cars these days. Any car made after the year 2000 at least is going to have a very high safety standard and it won't fall apart as time goes on. This is shown by the year on year fall in car crashes (though I think this trend is getting bucked a bit lately, marking how cars are no longer getting that much safer). They have to go through the NCT, there's no bangers going down the road with dodgy brakes like there used to be.

1) Insurance prices are skyrocketing.
2) Insurance companies are getting increasingly picky and rejecting people for less and less reason.
3) Cars are getting safer. Car accidents are going down.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Insurers will tell you that older cars are an unusually high factor in many expensive claims. That does not necessarily mean that the car developed a fault leading to an accident. It means the older car was 'involved'. Add in to that the fact that if insurers cannot prove that a claim was fraudulent it HAS to go down in the column of genuine claims.

Insurers will therefore use a feature such as age of car as the reason for declining risks rather than one of the additional factors (age, sex, ethnic origin, nationality etc) which could open them up to charges of discrimination.

My car is 16 years old and no problem with insurance. The whole family is insured to drive it.

Sonics2k

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Utter rubbish.

Insurance is a risk based business. Your premium is based primarily on how much or how little of risk you or vehicle or area etc are.

If you are a higher risk you will rightly be charged a higher premium. That's not leeching, it's common sense.

And like any business Insurers need to be able to stay afloat and make profits so yes of course that comes into the premium calculations too. That's how businesses work.

And before you ask, yes I work in the Industry but the dogs on the street know the above to be true.

Aren't a lot of the larger Insurance companies making record profits?

My own insurance increased by just under €200 in the last year. I'm now paying about €950 or so. I'm in my 30s, driving since I was 18 and have never ever had an accident. I'm driving a 1.4 Ford Focus, hardly renowned for it's boy racer history, it's too bloody heavy.

Don't be talking any nonsense about trying to stay afloat when it really is profiteering.

edit:
Should add in I'm more than happy to be corrected on whether or not Insurance companies are making higher profits or not.

wordofwarning

Sosurface wrote: »

Pure profiteering is all it is.

Is that so? As I asked you to produce info that shows insurers are making a profit. Yet you have produced nada.

Can you show me proof all the insurers are making money?

You keep talking about this massive profit they are raking in without any proof it...

Sosurface

wordofwarning wrote: »

Is that so? As I asked you to produce info that shows insurers are making a profit. Yet you have produced nada.

Can you show me proof all the insurers are making money?

You keep talking about this massive profit they are raking in without any proof it...

No profit in it so? I guess you're all just legit heroes so. Just in it for the love of the game and a concern for the safety of Irelands citizens. Aww. Warm hugs.

Sosurface

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Make sure you breath deeply and calm down before you drive this evening. I wouldn't want you to crash and fall in to my blood sucking domain

You're like a spoilt little sister. Run off crying to tell mammy and then start throwing insults out peeking out from behind her.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Sosurface wrote: »

No profit in it so? I guess you're all just legit heroes so. Just in it for the love of the game and a concern for the safety of Irelands citizens. Aww. Warm hugs.

Yes, they are all making a killing. Which is why some of them are refusing cover on old cars altogether. They don't need the huge profit such policies are obviously making for them..

Something does not add up.

KERSPLAT!

Mod

Sosurface, don't post in this thread again. You had your chance.

worded

so we are being discouraged from keeping old cars and get new ones for the sake of carbon foot print ...

But there is a huge carbon foot print creating a new car ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car


With this in mind, unless you do very high mileage or have a real gas-guzzler, it generally makes sense to keep your old car for as long as it is reliable – and to look after it carefully to extend its life as long as possible. If you make a car last to 200,000 miles rather than 100,000, then the emissions for each mile the car does in its lifetime may drop by as much as 50%, as a result of getting more distance out of the initial manufacturing emissions.

beauf

Lina Immense Self-denial wrote: »

Yes, they are all making a killing. Which is why some of them are refusing cover on old cars altogether. They don't need the huge profit such policies are obviously making for them..

Something does not add up.

They lost big on investments. So they are making it back via premiums. Also scams which most often are cheap (old) cars are costing them money. So they don't want the business.

That said if the scam gets 10~40k in compensation, then the cost of the car isn't really going to dissuade the scammers.

At stake was compensation of up to €60,000 and if he won, the remaining four plaintiffs could also expect a satisfactory day in court.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/anatomy-of-a-scam-six-men-and-an-attempted-insurance-fraud-1.2647462

beauf

Somehow I don't think buying a 5yr old car is going to be a problem for scammers.

Cheerful Spring

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Utter rubbish.

Insurance is a risk based business. Your premium is based primarily on how much or how little of risk you or vehicle or area etc are.

If you are a higher risk you will rightly be charged a higher premium. That's not leeching, it's common sense.

And like any business Insurers need to be able to stay afloat and make profits so yes of course that comes into the premium calculations too. That's how businesses work.

And before you ask, yes I work in the Industry but the dogs on the street know the above to be true.

We got professionals testing cars at NCT centers. If the car passed it's roadworthy. You are only encouraging people to drive without insurance, if you ask me.

AudreyHepburn

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

So, if an older vehicle in sound condition and in receipt of a state recognized certificate of road worthiness (NCT), Why do the insurance companies either refuse to quote or load the owners if they do quote?

Because it could be hard to source parts for an older vehicle or more costly meaning they'll have to pay out a large sum if you claim.

Equally just because a car was roadworthy on the day of the NCT does not mean it remains that way and things are more likely to go wrong with an older vehicle.

I am not saying it's right or wrong, but this is Insurers look at it.

AudreyHepburn

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We got professionals testing cars at NCT centers. If the car passed it's roadworthy. You are only encouraging people to drive without insurance, if you ask me.

It's roadworthy that day, it might not be a few months down the line.

Again I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just stating this is how the Insurers look at it.

AudreyHepburn

Sonics2k wrote: »

Aren't a lot of the larger Insurance companies making record profits?

Don't be talking any nonsense about trying to stay afloat when it really is profiteering.

edit:
Should add in I'm more than happy to be corrected on whether or not Insurance companies are making higher profits or not.

I think you'll find they are making more losses than profits at the moment between having to pay for companies like Setanta who went bust, being forced to pay out a crazy number of extortionate and often fraudulent personal injury claims and making up for the serious undercharging of premiums that occurred during the boom many providers are faced with no choice but to hike prices to stay in business.

It's not nonsense, it's common sense but I can appreciate that if you don't work in the Industry as I and others do it's hard to see past the figures on your quote.

beauf

If someone is running a 10 or 15yr old car.

Unreliability, or getting parts its obviously not an issue they are having.

Regardless of the limited imagination of some bean counter.

beauf

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think you'll find they are making more losses than profits at the moment between having to pay for companies like Setanta who went bust, being forced to pay out a crazy number of extortionate and often fraudulent personal injury claims and making up for the serious undercharging of premiums that occurred during the boom many providers are faced with no choice but to hike prices to stay in business.

It's not nonsense, it's common sense but I can appreciate that if you don't work in the Industry as I and others do it's hard to see past the figures on your quote.

How much did they lose on their investment income.

Pedro K

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Because it could be hard to source parts for an older vehicle or more costly meaning they'll have to pay out a large sum if you claim.

Equally just because a car was roadworthy on the day of the NCT does not mean it remains that way and things are more likely to go wrong with an older vehicle.

I am not saying it's right or wrong, but this is Insurers look at it.

This comes up a lot, but I don't buy it.

If they're concerned about sourcing parts in the future, then just offer third party insurance. Old car gets damaged, the insured has to sort it.

Also, the majority of cars over 15 years old won't be very valuable and would be written off by a ding.

My own car is probably only worth €300, if even. So even if I had it insured comprehensively (I don't. No point for a car of such low value) and made a claim I'd have to pay the excess, which is around 250-300 on most comprehensive policies, leaving the insurance company with a payout of €0-50.

please helpThank YOU

Pedro K wrote: »

This comes up a lot, but I don't buy it.

If they're concerned about sourcing parts in the future, then just offer third party insurance. Old car gets damaged, the insured has to sort it.

Also, the majority of cars over 15 years old won't be very valuable and would be written off by a ding.

My own car is probably only worth €300, if even. So even if I had it insured comprehensively (I don't. No point for a car of such low value) and made a claim I'd have to pay the excess, which is around 250-300 on most comprehensive policies, leaving the insurance company with a payout of €0-50.

Very Well Said.

Liam McPoyle

beauf wrote: »

How much did they lose on their investment income.

You keep going on about insurers losing their shirts on investments.

Care to provide some evidence of this (other than a propaganda piece from the law society)

Investment income is down due to the global economic downturn over the last few years.

That is different entirely from insurers gambling and losing so please provide some actual proof to back up the accusation.

beauf

Rod Munch wrote: »

You keep going on about insurers losing their shirts on investments.

Care to provide some evidence of this (other than a propaganda piece from the law society)

Investment income is down due to the global economic downturn over the last few years.

That is different entirely from insurers gambling and losing so please provide some actual proof to back up the accusation.

How about quoting where I mention "shirt" or "gambling"

I simply asked about their investment income. You seem to be asking me to answer my own question.

Maybe you're suggesting insurance companies don't make investments, and their sole income is from premiums.

More recently, the Central Bank warned in 2014 that insurers were becoming increasingly reliant on investment income to shore up profits – “a significant risk to the industry in the low interest rate environment.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/cantillon-insurers-have-boosted-profits-by-releasing-reserves-1.2644309

Broad diversification ensures consistently strong investment earnings
Allianz Deutschland’s insurance companies pursued a conservative investment strategy again in 2012. Because of the broad diversification of their investment holdings, they successfully buffered the impact of the uncertainty in the capital markets and of historically low interest rates. Investments under management grew 10.0 percent, to 236.1 billion euros (214.7 billion euros). Net investment income grew to 11.3 billion euros (9.1 billion euros). This figure reflects non-recurring capital gains from investment management, as the health and life insurance lines increased the average terms of their fixed-income investments.

https://www.allianz.com/en/press/news/financials/business_results/news_2013-02-28.html/

Insurance is a multifaceted industry. I just don't think its as simple as its hard to find a left wing of a 10yr old Fiesta. But that's how its being portrayed by some.

Cheerful Spring

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It's roadworthy that day, it might not be a few months down the line.

Again I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just stating this is how the Insurers look at it.

Could say that about any car realistically ( newer cars are not perfect) Instead of looking at the age of cars, you should be looking at the people driving the cars. Again we have the NCT for a reason, it's there to remove the unsafe cars from our roads.

beauf

I don't think it has anything to do with safety. Its more a flawed tool to reduce fraud. Its like fishing with drift nets.

Seth Brundle

beauf wrote: »

I don't think it has anything to do with safety. Its more a flawed tool to reduce fraud. Its like fishing with drift nets.

The NCT?
What fraud could it reduce?

beauf

...crossed wires...The insurance companies filtering on age of car is nothing to do with safety or reliability...

I'm on a backup phone and can't type properly on it. Android needing a supercomputer to run properly these days...

Seth Brundle

What?
Is there fraud or some kind of filtering?
You're not really making sense!

Edit: you've ninja edited your post beauf! Either way, it's still not fraud