Occupation increases car insurance?

DaveyDave

While I was shopping around for insurance the other week I remembered someone on here mentioned that their quote was a tiny bit cheaper using an alternative occupation. I work in administration for example, which also tends to bring up Administrator, administration staff etc.

I put in warehouse worker as I work shifts as admin at a warehouse and it brought the quote up from €2,600 to about €3,200. I thought this was ridiculous. What does your job have to do with your risk and ability to drive?

Most warehouse staff would be trained to drive a forklift, I've done a course myself and shoulder checking is drilled into your head from day one and all the manoeuvring done while training can actually apply to parking and possibly other aspects of driving. Quite handy actually.

I don't see how this is an increased risk. Has anyone else ever experienced this? What if you lied about your position to get a cheaper quote? You're not required to provide any documents.

Mods: could this possibly stay here for discussion? The insurance forums aren't very active for discussing things.

Atlantic Dawn

Some jobs will require you to work shifts which will mean more of a chance of being out on the road at times where more accidents occur.

bazz26

They may see a warehouse worker as someone who works longer hours and/or night shifts which means you're more tired driving home after work which in turns makes having an accident due to nodding off at the wheel higher.

BeardySi

I recently heard an interview with Esther Rantzen and she mentioned this. Trying to get insurance as Esther Rantzen TV presenter, her quote was astronomical because they said she might have celebrities in the car at times. Applying with her married name as a charity worker and declaring that she may have celebrities (including Esther Rantzen) in the car at times it was much cheaper...

Peregrinus

The insurers neither know nor care why certain occupations are associated with a higher claims risk; it's enough that they observe that they are so associated. This isn't based on any calculation that, gosh, warehouse workers might be doing late shifts, they might be driving while tired; it's simply based on looking at claims rates from warehouse workers versus claims rates from administrators, and seeing if one occupation has a statistically significant higher claims rate than the other.

Nate--IRL--

This is interesting because I have number of categories I could fit into, I never know which to pick. Even then there are more that suit but might not be completely accurate, but not false either.

I think the reason that most people regard insurance companies as scumbags, is the lack of transparency in this regard.

Nate

heldel00

When trying to add my husband to my insurance if i mention "sales rep" my quote skyrockets. If i say "sales manager" it varies from company to company.
Laughable part is i drive a 05 hatchback. He has a brand new company car. Chances of him commandeering my little yoke for work is highly unlikely!
Maybe there's some other reason?

Toots

I noticed the same when I finished up working to mind my son full time - figured my quote would go down because now instead of commuting to work 9-5 (was a bank cashier) I'd now only be using my car once or twice a week. I was shocked to find my quote went up by several hundred! I reckon they now assume that because my occupation is "housewife" that I'll be ferrying numerous kids around and be out on the road more.

Peregrinus

heldel00 wrote: »

When trying to add my husband to my insurance if i mention "sales rep" my quote skyrockets. If i say "sales manager" it varies from company to company.
Laughable part is i drive a 05 hatchback. He has a brand new company car. Chances of him comandeering my little yoke for work is highly unlikely!
Maybe there's some other reason?

It has nothing to do with whether he will commandeer your car for work or not. Sales reps have a poor claims records; the insurer sees no reason to look beyond that.

Peregrinus

Toots wrote: »

I noticed the same when I finished up working to mind my son full time - figured my quote would go down because now instead of commuting to work 9-5 (was a bank cashier) I'd now only be using my car once or twice a week. I was shocked to find my quote went up by several hundred! I reckon they now assume that because my occupation is "housewife" that I'll be ferrying numerous kids around and be out on the road more.

Again, they're not assuming anything; they're just observing that "housewives" have a poorer claims record than "bank clerks" (or whatever you were down as before).

ongarite

So based on the above, do insurance companies ever look for proof of occupation type when a claim is made?
Whats the stop someone choosing the occupation type with lowest claims record?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Allinall

ongarite wrote: »

So based on the above, do insurance companies ever look for proof of occupation type when a claim is made?
Whats the stop someone choosing the occupation type with lowest claims record?

You can choose to lie on the proposal form, but you'll end up in a whole heap of trouble in the event of a claim.

Nate--IRL--

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is helpful thanks, I must test it out around renewal time.

Nate

brightspark

I was surprised a few years ago when I discovered that being unemployed had a higher premium than when I renewed a year later in a job that required me to commute 25-30,000km per annum (a slightly higher premium than the under 25K usually covered

I have previously declared as a "factory worker" instead of "electrician" to get a lower quote. (Both true at the time so not a false declaration)

brightspark

Allinall wrote: »

You can choose to lie on the proposal form, but you'll end up in a whole heap of trouble in the event of a claim.

Some people have jobs that can fit more than one of the job descriptions listed.

Peregrinus

brightspark wrote: »

Some people have jobs that can fit more than one of the job descriptions listed.

Yes, that's so. And there's no problem with choosing the occupation with the lowest claims record if, in fact, that is your occupation. It's only a problem if you lie about your occupation. A bank clerk, for example, might legitimately tick "clerical" or "bank official", depending on which produces the best quote for him, but if he ticks "neurologist" then there's a problem.

uck51js9zml2yt

Wife is on An EU full licence. Driving as a name driver 10 years with no claims. It's 200 euro more than if she has an irish licence.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Nate--IRL-- wrote:

I think the reason that most people regard insurance companies as scumbags, is the lack of transparency in this regard.

Do you get equally offended when your local petrol station does not give give a detailed breakdown of their pricing structure for a bottle of Fairy Liquid compared to what Tesco charge for the same item?

Yes, it's a compulsory purchase, but it is not compulsory to use one specific insurer

Dravokivich

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Do you get equally offended when your local petrol station does not give give a detailed breakdown of their pricing structure for a bottle of Fairy Liquid compared to what Tesco charge for the same item?

Yes, it's a compulsory purchase, but it is not compulsory to use one specific insurer

At least you can see the price before you approach the washing up liquid. And it makes no odds which boot it goes into after you've finished your shopping.

Nate--IRL--

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Do you get equally offended ......

I never stated I was offended. I was pointing out that insurance companies are regarded as scumbags by most people.

Nate

Guy:Incognito

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I never stated I was offended. I was pointing out that insurance companies are regarded as scumbags by most people.

Nate

Are they? Not in my experience. Scumbag is a very strong word. Burglars, rapists, murderers etc, those are scumbags.

cplwhisper

Some jobs generate discounts as some employers have schemes with such insurers

Ie .. shop assistant with SuperValu (Musgrave Op for staff schemes)
Factory staff - Medtronic/pFiizer/DPD etc all scheme
teachers have schemes
Nurse/medical with HSE/Brother-Sister of Charity etc have schemes
Bank teller/Staff - nearly all banks have schemes as they also sell insurance

Some occup need business use were house parent needs only S,D&P this why different rates for class of use.

Some people don’t realise that if you choose a cheaper occup to get the rate they may be Under-insuring the class of use. So if you buy S,D&P use and use car for business (you claim fuel expense for example from boss) then in crash = No Cover

galwaytt

cplwhisper wrote: »

Some people don’t realise that if you choose a cheaper occup to get the rate they may be Under-insuring the class of use. So if you buy S,D&P use and use car for business (you claim fuel expense for example from boss) then in crash = No Cover

I dunno about that: whether a shop worker, factory worker, or working in a bank, your SD&P is still only SD&P.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Bottom line is that if you lie to an insurer, you give them the right to to take whatever action they deem appropriate. It is not for you to decide there should be no difference between a shop worker and a factory worker. If an insurer decides that it needs to charge a higher premium for one over the other, that is the end of the matter. Declare your correct occupation and if you like the premium, take it, if you don't, move on to the next.

There is no problem in trying loads of variations for the same job to see if you can get a cheaper premium. An example would be Administration or Office Workers. Obviously, they should generate the same premium, but the insurer might have a totally different claims experience for one of those descriptions from motorists on their books

Avatar MIA

cplwhisper wrote: »

Some jobs generate discounts as some employers have schemes with such insurers

This is true for my profession as well, and ever since I tried to get quoted on it I was told that my car was unsuitable for the scheme, as it wouldn't be fair to the other drivers on the scheme to include this car. :rolleyes: