Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why isn't there more competition between insurers in Ireland?

  • 27-09-2016 08:01PM
    #1
    Commotion Ocean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 552 ✭✭✭


    I started driving in late 2009 when I was 18 in a 1.1 Litre Peugeot 206 Petrol, and was quoted €2,000 on my learner permit back then. This steadily decreased year on year, eventually falling for 700-ish in 2011 when I passed my test.

    I stayed with the same insurer until 2015 because I was genuinely happy with what they were quoting me and the service they provided after shopping around.

    In 2012, I started driving a Peugeot 207 1.4 HDI Diesel manual. they charged me 500 and 450 the following year.

    In 2015, I was quoted 750! It went up with no caims at all, so I shopped around with another insurer and was quoted 450. Happy days, I took the quote. This year, with the new insurer it went up to 767 Euro. No amount of shopping around would bring it down. It was genuinely the cheapest I could get for the cover I wanted.


    If insurance companies are like businesses, then why aren't they competing against each other?

    Why can't we have a system here where the CAR is insured and not the DRIVER. Like they do in Germany and Holland.


Comments

  • #2
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    dfeo wrote: »

    Why can't we have a system here where the CAR is insured and not the DRIVER. Like they do in Germany and Holland.

    It doesn't matter what format your insurance system is, be it tax on fuel, universal charge, driver based, car based or direct taxation.

    Whatever you do, it has to be contributions in to the pot at least EQUAL to claims out of the pot + cost of administering the system. The rest is just optics


  • #3
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »
    It doesn't matter what format your insurance system is, be it tax on fuel, universal charge, driver based, car based or direct taxation.

    Whatever you do, it has to be contributions in to the pot at least EQUAL to claims out of the pot + cost of administering the system. The rest is just optics

    It might just be optics to those who like the strange quirks and contradictions and opaque vague stuff of the irish insurance system, but to sensible people the situation where a married couple can be harassed for picking the wrong person to name as the "uses the car 51% of the time" person or god forbid that would change over the course of a policy.... well it doesn't seem like a sensible system does it?


  • #4
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    Special Circumstances wrote: »
    It might just be optics to those who like the strange quirks and contradictions and opaque vague stuff of the irish insurance system, but to sensible people the situation where a married couple can be harassed for picking the wrong person to name as the "uses the car 51% of the time" person or god forbid that would change over the course of a policy.... well it doesn't seem like a sensible system does it?

    I gave examples of alternative systems, my point is that the books have to balance whichever method you use to compensate motorists and the general public for accidents on our roads

    Perhaps you're right though, maybe it is time to hand the administration of insurance over to the State's civil servants to run more efficiently and to clarify the opaqueness of a very simple system


  • #5
    Dfmnoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 183 ✭✭Dfmnoc


    price fixing cartel going on


  • #6
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »
    Perhaps you're right though, maybe it is time to hand the administration of insurance over to the State's civil servants to run more efficiently and to clarify the opaqueness of a very simple system

    Haha nice one, I see what you did there.

    We really are stuck being between a rock and a hard place in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    Special Circumstances wrote: »
    Haha nice one, I see what you did there.

    We really are stuck being between a rock and a hard place in Ireland.

    You are teaching me well :)

    Yeah, I genuinely think we are well and truly flucked. Claims culture is at too advanced a stage to row it back and insurers are too embedded in their ways and so financially weak to do anything about reform at their end.

    It's like the HSE, taxation & homelessness. Quick fixes will not sort the problem and a root & branch approach is far too big a task and nobody is prepared to grasp the shlty end of the stick


  • #8
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,897 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Special Circumstances wrote: »
    Haha nice one, I see what you did there.

    We really are stuck being between a rock and a hard place in Ireland.

    I'm not sure why you always take this "insurers are evil" stance and also consistently demand transparency. They are businesses and you already get as much disclosure as is reasonable.

    If motor underwriting was hugely profitable there'd be new players entering the market, which in turn will force prices down.

    In reality though it isn't, so they don't.

    The market has hardened but that doesn't make the whole thing a conspiracy.


  • #9
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you always take this "insurers are evil" stance and also consistently demand transparency. They are businesses and you already get as much disclosure as is reasonable.

    If motor underwriting was hugely profitable there'd be new players entering the market, which in turn will force prices down.

    In reality though it isn't, so they don't.

    The market has hardened but that doesn't make the whole thing a conspiracy.

    All I ask for is sensible things like "named drivers are bad mmmkay" being accompanied by some guidelines on how often a named driver can use a car without it being called fronting.
    It's just scaremongering otherwise.

    The bogeyman is coming to get you unless you play by our unilateral, secret and subject to change rules wooooooo! That's not evil, it's just nonsensical.


    Would that bring their business to its knees, saying there should be a 60/40, 55/45, 51/49, 50.0000001/49..999999 split??????? Rather than making it up on a case by case basis, is this frightening and consistent transparency going to crush them?









    Or even some consistency... If the 10/14/15 year old car ban is a perfectly fine way to deal with one form of fraud, why not apply it here too? If it isn't applied here, why not?

    Otherwise it just contributes to the ongoing general perception that they are making it up as they go along. Do any of them care what colour your car is now, what happened the "we have stats to back this up" stats behind that question?


  • #10
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,897 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Special Circumstances wrote: »
    All I ask for is sensible things like "named drivers are bad mmmkay" being accompanied by some guidelines on how often a named driver can use a car without it being called fronting.
    It's just scaremongering otherwise.

    The bogeyman is coming to get you unless you play by our unilateral, secret and subject to change rules wooooooo! That's not evil, it's just nonsensical.

    Would that bring their business to its knees, saying there should be a 60/40, 55/45, 51/49, 50.0000001/49..999999 split??????? Rather than making it up on a case by case basis, is this frightening and consistent transparency going to crush them?

    Or even some consistency... If the 10/14/15 year old car ban is a perfectly fine way to deal with one form of fraud, why not apply it here too? If it isn't applied here, why not?

    Otherwise it just contributes to the ongoing general perception that they are making it up as they go along. Do any of them care what colour your car is now, what happened the "we have stats to back this up" stats behind that question?

    Insurance, like any contract, requires offer, acceptance, and consideration. All are fundamental.

    An insurer can apply whatever underwriting requirements they wish. If you don't like them simply go elsewhere.


  • #11
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    They are businesses and you already get as much disclosure as is reasonable.

    No we don't. Not even close.

    Any business providing a compulsory product should be held to far more stringent rules then standard business.

    But unfortunately we have a completely ineffective and incompetent government who just let them at it..


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,897 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Swanner wrote: »
    No we don't. Not even close.

    Any business providing a compulsory product should be held to far more stringent rules then standard business.

    But unfortunately we have a completely ineffective and incompetent government who just let them at it..

    What then exactly would you like to know?


  • #13
    galwaytt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,754 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    What then exactly would you like to know?

    why the premium they take in and invest in markets, that if they 'lose' they claim 'we lost money' and where they gain, they still 'lost' money, as the gain isn't from 'premiums' but from investment income.

    It's just monetary chicanery and money-moving - they aren't actually calculating risk or reward on actual driving.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • #14
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    What then exactly would you like to know?

    Let's take the example of fronting. We know it's white lies kinda fraud. We know it hurts non fronters in the pocket. We all know what a clear cut case of fronting looks like.

    What we don't know is Company X's ACTUAL rules on it. What if you are unwittingly somewhere on the border of these rules?

    Shouldn't the rules be made abundantly BEFORE they take your money?

    Does utmost good faith only run one way? You need to ask specific questions in the right way to get all the info?

    Would it hurt to have (as much as you dislike these words) a transparent consistent definition of fronting across the market?

    Out of my own noseyness I'd like to see some statistics to see whether the Aviva letter was pure scaremongering or not... how many cases of fronting are seen when a claim is made, and of these how many ended with the aggrieved insurer receiving any significant payout?
    That'd be more of a one off question relating to Avivas credibility in fairness.

    Insurance groups? A step too far in transparency maybe?


  • #15
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    Special Circumstances wrote: »
    Let's take the example of fronting. We know it's white lies kinda fraud. We know it hurts non fronters in the pocket. We all know what a clear cut case of fronting looks like.

    It is fraud, not 'kinda' or a 'white lie'. You admit it hits honest policyholders, so where's the debate?

    What we don't know is Company X's ACTUAL rules on it. What if you are unwittingly somewhere on the border of these rules?

    If in doubt, disclose it to your insurers. If it affects their acceptance or rating, it is material to them

    Shouldn't the rules be made abundantly BEFORE they take your money?

    There are plenty of warnings online and in policy documentation as to the consequences of breaking policy conditions

    Does utmost good faith only run one way? You need to ask specific questions in the right way to get all the info?

    Insurers have a duty of utmost good faith and are obliged to answer any query you have and to provide you with a specimen of any policy or conditions that apply upon request. It is not practical for them to go through every line of the policy with you, but they cannot enforce something that is not contained in the contract

    Would it hurt to have (as much as you dislike these words) a transparent consistent definition of fronting across the market?

    Fronting is the obtaining of cover or favourable terms by the misrepresentation of facts relating to the true ownership or the usage of a vehicle to an insurer (or variations on the same sentiment)

    Out of my own noseyness I'd like to see some statistics to see whether the Aviva letter was pure scaremongering or not... how many cases of fronting are seen when a claim is made, and of these how many ended with the aggrieved insurer receiving any significant payout?

    If an insurer cannot 'prove' fronting during their investigations, then it has to be classed as a legitimate case. Although insurers will know the truth, not to classify it as legitimate would present legal difficulties.

    That'd be more of a one off question relating to Avivas credibility in fairness.

    Insurance groups? A step too far in transparency maybe?

    I'm no good at formatting, so I've tried to answer you above


  • #16
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »
    I'm no good at formatting, so I've tried to answer you above

    Sigh.

    Debate... nobody is debating that fronting shouldn't be removed from the equation. Well maybe somebody else is, but not me.

    One can say that something is bad. Wrong. Fraud. Unfair on honest people.
    But one cannot ask for a CLEAR definition of the act?
    Where a legitimate named driver situation becomes a fronting situation? "It's quite simple sir, it's fronting when we can prove it is"
    Are the entrails of a freshly sacrificed bull calf needed or what..?


    If somebody is to be pursued through the courts to compensate an insurer I believe both parties should have a very clear idea of where the line is on legit named driver v fronting.


    I didn't ask about suspected fronting btw. I said, for the purposes of dismissing the Aviva letter as scaremongering,
    ACTUAL confirmed cases of fronting.
    How many?
    How many pursued through the courts to any sort of compensation?

    Are we talking about perhaps a handful? Where the fronter actually had any means to compensate the insurer to any reasonable extent?


    I know I know, that info is not for the eyes of the peasants and all the stats are kept in a secret cave guarded by dragons. But I'm gonna call the Aviva letter scare mongering. You may disagree and that's fine. You may even suggest that I am somehow defending fronting by criticising methods which are laughable in the credibility of their hollow threats and dubious claims of "putting lives at risk", but you'd be wrong.


  • #17
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,897 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    galwaytt wrote: »
    why the premium they take in and invest in markets, that if they 'lose' they claim 'we lost money' and where they gain, they still 'lost' money, as the gain isn't from 'premiums' but from investment income.

    It's just monetary chicanery and money-moving - they aren't actually calculating risk or reward on actual driving.

    Return on investments is a relatively minor issue in overall premium calculations, which contrary to your suggestion are based on rates and complex actuarial calculations.


  • #18
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,768 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Dfmnoc wrote: »
    price fixing cartel going on

    A wonderfully efficient cartel Irish style which produces a €273m underwriting loss (basically premiums less claims and other expenses) on €880m of gross premiums. The only significant company which made an underwriting profit was Aviva which made €5.7m on €174m of premium income.

    Face it or not, the issue with Irish motor insurance is not excessive profitability.


Advertisement