Does anybody understand insurance companies?

[mealexme]

I just had a quote through from my insurer for next year, with a reasonable quote, but it was missing some modifications on the paperwork. According to their own website, there is a long list of modifications I don't need to tell them about, but my handlebars (which I told them about last year) and brake/clutch levers are not on that list. 

When I told them about my handlebars last year, it did not alter the price.

 

So, to cover my own back I informed them of these modifications over their chat function, but the poor girl on the other end didn't really seem to know what she was doing and said it would be best to ring back the next working day.

I just got off the phone with them today and I'm a bit bamboozled. They can't find brake levers on their computer systems (which is exactly what the girl on chat said the other day), which I thought was strange because I'd say is a fairly popular modification to have. Then they put the price up from £208 to £360 (which again, is exactly what they said on chat)

Then when I said that's too much of a jump, especially when they have a list of over 30 modifications I don't even need to inform them of, he said (direct quote) "what if it went down to 280? or 260 or something like that"

Do they literally just keep saying random numbers until you say yes? 

 

They were so easy to work with last year. This year, it looks like I'm putting the stock levers back on to save myself being ripped off for £150, or £70, or £50, or whatever number they make up next.

[RideWithStyles]

Yep any chat or changes indeed incurring a administrative fee from the off with pretty much all insurances but some local brokers wavier these.

Template for these websites are mostly car biased so other modding options is rarer to be required with some insurances.
also a good operator that knows the system is great for working with the sliders and options to give a better result (quote).

also reasking or having to recheck knocks the system adding increased premium.

[Bender]

Insurance companies are a necessary evil.

I got a quote for new car, old insurance wouldn't insure it so they waved cancellation fee which was great, got a small refund.

 

New insurance gave me a quote online but it wouldn't let me pay, after multiple attempts it said call us, nope can't and won't insure imports, really your website says you do.

 

Nope stopped 2yr ago, but I know someone who has insured one with you said i, you can't we don't insure them, it went on like that till I almost lost the will to live, when suddenly he decided that they did insure them but it would be more than the online quote, sod that I can get another company to do it for only £10 more than the online price, ohh ok we will match the online price and give you free legal aid wtf, they are all mental.

[Capt Sisko]

When I passed my IAM test a few years ago I told my insurance company about it when it came to renewal time, not unreasonably expecting a reduction. No, they tried to put they tried to put it up by £48.00  The girl on the other end of the phone said that was bonkers, but because the computer said no she'd have to get her manager to deduct it. He refused!  - Suffice to say I went elsewhere and have never so much as thought about asking them for a quote since.

Edited January 2 by Capt Sisko

[husoi]

Insurance companies aka legal ripoff companies will try anything to increase the premium of an existing policy.

This because to get you onboard they will offer a discount which hopefully they will recover the second year when people renew it without shopping around and get a better deal.

Personally I always use 3 comparison sites before any renewal and give the existing broker the chance to beat the price.

If not. I owe nothing to them and will go elsewhere.

Edited January 3 by husoi

[geofferz]

I'm just posting this to maybe help people understand and not just get so irate, because stress is a big killer. 

 

Insurers lost a TON of cash during covid (as in are still in the red), weirdly, I'd have thought everyone had the same premium but crashes were massively reduced, but it's true:

 

https://www.ey.com/en_uk/news/2023/06/ey-uk-motor-insurance-results-analysis#:~:text=Following a profitable 2021 – when,inflation and low premium costs

 

Also, if insurance costs more than your bike is worth then remember they have to cover third parties so if you crash into a ferrari they have to pay out the £1m. Suddenly your £2k a year doesn't seem so bad. 

 

Insurers are a necessary evil to protect you as well as everyone else. They pay out if someone knocks your off your bike etc. 

 

"yeah but they're still a bunch of c***s!!!" 

[Steve_M]

1 hour ago, geofferz said:

I'm just posting this to maybe help people understand and not just get so irate, because stress is a big killer. 

 

Insurers lost a TON of cash during covid (as in are still in the red), weirdly, I'd have thought everyone had the same premium but crashes were massively reduced, but it's true:

 

https://www.ey.com/en_uk/news/2023/06/ey-uk-motor-insurance-results-analysis#:~:text=Following a profitable 2021 – when,inflation and low premium costs

 

Also, if insurance costs more than your bike is worth then remember they have to cover third parties so if you crash into a ferrari they have to pay out the £1m. Suddenly your £2k a year doesn't seem so bad. 

 

Insurers are a necessary evil to protect you as well as everyone else. They pay out if someone knocks your off your bike etc. 

 

"yeah but they're still a bunch of c***s!!!" 

Never mind running into a Ferrari, injury claims, which are more likely,  can run into huge figures. 
 

Fraud and uninsured drivers / riders adds considerably, too.

 

Insurers can only guess at the fraud figures - whatever the figure is, you pay through your premiums. 
 

 

Oh, and if you’ve been declined insurance you can apply to see your information on the M.I.D (Motor Insurance Database - Link) which I would anticipate holding a flag showing the reason. You can have the data corrected if found to be inaccurate. 
 

[S-Westerly]

What I don't understand is an insurer willing to insure a Ducati Multistrada but not a Moto Guzzi V100. Broker came back with another quote for over a thousand. Went somewhere else completely and although still high at £400 is bearable. I've no idea what algorithms they use but I'd say they need reprogramming!

Edited January 3 by S-Westerly

[Bender]

Direct line as a group profit dropped from over 500 million to just over 32m from 21 to 22 but that includes all insurance, they will get profits back up and we will pay for it, that's a certainty.

[Mississippi Bullfrog]

18 minutes ago, Bender said:

Direct line as a group profit dropped from over 500 million to just over 32m from 21 to 22 but that includes all insurance, they will get profits back up and we will pay for it, that's a certainty.

The reason their profits declined is because I cancelled all my policies with them after they suddenly decided they weren't willing to quote for renewing the insurance on my Vauxhall Astra.

 

Now I realise that as a high performance supercar the Astra represents a massive risk for them but they'd insured it quite happily for the past 13 years so I don't see why they suddenly got frightened of it. 

[Bender]

44 minutes ago, Mississippi Bullfrog said:

The reason their profits declined is because I cancelled all my policies with them after they suddenly decided they weren't willing to quote for renewing the insurance on my Vauxhall Astra.

 

Now I realise that as a high performance supercar the Astra represents a massive risk for them but they'd insured it quite happily for the past 13 years so I don't see why they suddenly got frightened of it. 

Astra vans are the fastest on the planet by association your a high risk

[RideWithStyles]

A indirect problem insurances / legal side with being and using the IAM card is that it can lower the percentage for a strong claim as silly ass it sounds.

when it goes solistitors and court for any augment, as a rule youll be of higher being of knowledge and uprightness but it can been seen as a leverage tool to undermine everything "well how come your client had this accident, shouldn't they have premeditated this and tried to avoid it seeing as they are a IAM? Isnt that what they teach?" So to give them a mark for trying to shift blame because you must of fallen below the high standard of your higher ability..."where as my client isn't expected to know that with there std driving licence" as they dont have much of a step to fall from even if they are expected to take blame.

Yep they use that alot.... so the percentage of risk of better outcomes is lower than ud expect.

crazy but true.

[Capt Sisko]

3 hours ago, RideWithStyles said:

A indirect problem insurances / legal side with being and using the IAM card is that it can lower the percentage for a strong claim as silly ass it sounds etc etc

Never heard that argument before and it just wouldn't stand up in court, legal or civil*. By the same argument, the fact you've held a driving licence for 25yrs could be held against you as you have more experience, or maybe they'd claim the because you've driven the same vehicle for the last ten years, you ought to have known the brakes weren't as good as 'modern' bikes and therefore you should have anticipated that the idiot was going to pull out in front of you and slowed down even more. No, it just doesn't work that way. It's a level playing field based around for example Driving Without Due & Attention is defined as "allowing the standard of driving to fall below that of a competent and careful driver" or Dangerous Driving  as "when driving falls far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and includes behaviour that could potentially endanger yourself or other drivers."

 

Learner also face the level playing field form the other direction. No grace is given just because you're a learner or inexperienced.

*Unless that is you've got case law to show otherwise.

Edited January 4 by Capt Sisko

[RideWithStyles]

Now i agree that it is abit odd it should go up that much if any at all but computer has the odds typed into the data base.

 

I know what your saying, The minimum is the minimum but if your higher than that you can be tested to that....

well yes im a doctor and surgeon, i fooked up so can i be trialled on the basis of a gp doctor cos its the minimum and possibly less harsh...nope.

 

Ive heard of a few cases with IAM used but as most people aint IAM taught nor current among the masses so not widely used nor most solicitors bother.

 

the IAM is viewed as a higher level over the "minimum std" like higher education so the other party can still bring in to question your ability of IAM "if" the solicitor is savvy enough and even point to "did you fall below the IAM std? Isnt that what was taught? Does it not say...

Didn't you put that down in your policy for advanced driving? "
which can be viewed as higher std outside of public sector training higher rank as police motorbike class, highway pursuit for example. If they cock up by crashing into a car at a crossing you know there actions gonna be in question due to there knowledge and class as a prime example.

now we know its far fretched for a sole case but any information and use can have impacts on outcomes.

Flips and say well "ive a racing licence aswell thats current and clean so that means im better than that minimum licence noob so it couldnt be my fault cos i was try avoid and drift past this stupid mofo", this wouldnt give you a instant "wow this person must be good and so rightfully correct that no matter what he did and still couldn't avoid an accident so the scummy noob must be in the wrong".
This isn't strictly god roll reasonable either to win a case nor to lose but as a judges rule is percentages of likly hood, well yes mr racer but you will be in for a 20% reduction for part blame cos i see you could of avoided it or seen it sooner...

 

Things like these are used and based on a case by case basis.
Now what im saying isnt always used as a solid one step clearing or whole hearted god roll but COULD be used against you to undermine, sway to reduce fault and payment as possible.

 

Now good underwriters go by numbers of percentage odds of the field which we wouldnt get to care for or know about in our profession or free time (cos really how would?).

living with them must be terrible, sorry dear not fish tonight as their moght be a 10percent  chance i might not like it, cos you got it from tescos which came from this fisshing port and it had taken them abit longer to get that fish at this time of year cos they had to travel abot further due to the weather and the fishmonger has this and this against him..... holymoly.

might be that recently a few cases have brought this up....

or of course another reason the IAM option costed more was likely some computer noob just put in the wrong figures into the data base....

Edited January 4 by RideWithStyles

[Steve_M]

3 hours ago, RideWithStyles said:

A indirect problem insurances / legal side with being and using the IAM card is that it can lower the percentage for a strong claim as silly ass it sounds.

when it goes solistitors and court for any augment, as a rule youll be of higher being of knowledge and uprightness but it can been seen as a leverage tool to undermine everything "well how come your client had this accident, shouldn't they have premeditated this and tried to avoid it seeing as they are a IAM? Isnt that what they teach?" So to give them a mark for trying to shift blame because you must of fallen below the high standard of your higher ability..."where as my client isn't expected to know that with there std driving licence" as they dont have much of a step to fall from even if they are expected to take blame.

Yep they use that alot.... so the percentage of risk of better outcomes is lower than ud expect.

crazy but true.

I find that highly unlikely. Even insurance companies don’t expect you to be clairvoyant. I speak as a former IAM member who did have an own fault minor spill at one point while an IAM member. My insurer, Aviva, sorted it all out with no hassle. 
 

Incidentally, Aviva, formerly Norwich Union, no longer underwrite motorbike insurance - it just isn’t worth the trouble for such a niche product. 

[Steve_M]

4 minutes ago, RideWithStyles said:

Now i agree that it is abit odd it should go up that much if any at all but computer has the odds typed into the data base.

 

I know what your saying, The minimum is the minimum but if your higher than that you can be tested to that....

well yes im a doctor and surgeon, i fooked up so can i be trialled on the basis of a gp doctor cos its the minimum and possibly less harsh...nope.

 

Ive heard of a few cases with IAM used but as most people aint IAM taught nor current among the masses so not widely used nor most solicitors bother.

 

the IAM is viewed as a higher level over the "minimum std" like higher education so the other party can still bring in to question your ability of IAM "if" the solicitor is savvy enough and even point to "did you fall below the IAM std? Isnt that what was taught? Does it not say...

Didn't you put that down in your policy for advanced driving? "
which can be viewed as higher std outside of public sector training higher rank as police motorbike class, highway pursuit for example. If they cock up by crashing into a car at a crossing you know there actions gonna be in question due to there knowledge and class as a prime example.

now we know its far fretched for a sole case but any information and use can have impacts on outcomes.

Flips and say well "ive a racing licence aswell thats current and clean so that means im better than that minimum licence noob so it couldnt be my fault cos i was try avoid and drift past this stupid mofo", this wouldnt give you a instant "wow this person must be good and so rightfully correct that no matter what he did and still couldn't avoid an accident so the scummy noob must be in the wrong".
This isn't strictly god roll reasonable either to win a case nor to lose but as a judges rule is percentages of likly hood, well yes mr racer but you will be in for a 20% reduction for part blame cos i see you could of avoided it or seen it sooner...

 

Things like these are used and based on a case by case basis.
Now what im saying isnt always used as a solid one step clearing or whole hearted god roll but COULD be used against you to undermine, sway to reduce fault and payment as possible.

 

Now good underwriters go by numbers of percentage odds of the field which we wouldnt get to care for or know about in our profession or free time (cos really how would?).

living with them must be terrible, sorry dear not fish tonight as their moght be a 10percent  chance i might not like it, cos you got it from tescos which came from this fisshing port and it had taken them abit longer to get that fish at this time of year cos they had to travel abot further due to the weather and the fishmonger has this and this against him..... holymoly.

might be that recently a few cases have brought this up....

or of course another reason the IAM option costed more was likely some computer noob just put in the wrong figures into the data base....

I think you’re overthinking it…

 

 

However, it could be that the IAM qualification infers that you’re an enthusiast who rides more miles (assuming not a limited mileage policy) than average therefore putting yourself at risk for longer periods. Yes, I’ve had that conversation with an underwriter.

[Gerontious]

I base my insurance decisions entirely on cost. viewing it solely as an inescapable tax on motorcycle ownership. I couldn't care less about anything else. It's gambling.

The insurer is betting that I'm not going to claim. and im happy enough to go along with that - I will not claim for anything aside from a total loss. And so its down to me to prevent that total loss - which is most likely going to be theft. back in the day TPFT was an affordable way to insure - you had the essential third party plus theft. But the one time I had to claim for a total loss I realised very quickly just how much of a con it was. 1995 a black year.

Nowadays TPFT is almost on a par with FC. so its just not worth it if the saving over the year is just a few quid. And for me the extras that are often included are the decider. paying an extra £5 for an extra that would cost me circa £50 as a stand alone. is a no-brainer.

 

Ive never bothered with informing the insurance companies about extras. added. modifications - I've never added stuff that improved or changed the bikes handling - never anything that would increase risks. The cost of these effectively disappears once bought and added. Ive kept all the original parts so the bike can be returned to original if its sold. but there's not much chance of that now as there is not a single bike on sale that I find even remotely interesting. none.

 

The only thing I concern myself with is theft. and Ive been very successful at preventing that from happening since that dark day 28 years ago. once bitten.. as they say.

I have no security added or used on the bike as in my opinion its utterly pointless. if a professional were to target my bike then there is nothing I can do to prevent its loss. they want it, they will have it. I worry more about the incidental damage a theft attempt might cause rather than the theft itself.

 

But.. they can't steal something if they don't know where it is. that is the full extent of my security.

 

 

[Bianco2564]

Got my renewal through from Bennetts for my 5 bikes, last year £336, this year with no change of circumstances, £492 a 47% increase. I'm selling the Kawasaki as ive stopped commuting on the bikes, so asked how much for R1,380,RGV & SS without commuting, came back at £332. Asked how much without the R1 as i dont intend to ride it this year and this was a reasonable £168.

[Bender]

Our holiday insurance renewal went upto £580.00, I did some comparing and we are not renewing with them

[S-Westerly]

I think travel insurers got hammered with all the cancelled flights etc of the last year. Someone has to pay which means the poor old punter as usual. 

[Bender]

1 hour ago, S-Westerly said:

I think travel insurers got hammered with all the cancelled flights etc of the last year. Someone has to pay which means the poor old punter as usual. 

Playing with the amount of cover for the cancellation would concur with that.

 

Dropping down to £1k for a claim for cancellation got the price to just over £200 this is for an annual policy, 6k which could easily be reached in a claim had it at &1200 and that was the cheapest , drop it to 5k and it appears to be to sweet spot, for us any way.