|
An article in the web version of Auto Express states that Norwich Union are looking at logging journeys by means of a "black box" and offering lower premiums to drivers who cover a low mileage. I thought the conventional wisdom was that the majority of accidents happen close to a driver's home, so what's changed?
|
That raised my eyebrows too, Archie. The item said that the greater insurance costs would be borne by 'those who braved the motorways everyday'.
Aren't the m/ways our safest roads by a long chalk?
I reckon something is afoot - see my post below.
Andy.
|
|
|
Big Brother!!
Is this not invading your right to privacy. I know that we have a choice to us another insurer but if one brings in a "good" idea the rest usually follow.
The other point is that those who drive most will pay most but does this get reflected with lower premiums for those lighter users of the road. Knowing insurance companies there will be a token reduction and they will make increased profits.
Talking about increased profits, is there any correlation between increased premiums over the past few years and the profits that these firms are posting. Presumably they are making healthy profits (figures please).
|
|
Just thought. If this black box has the ability to record speed etc, and you have an accident at 35MPH in a 30MPH area. The insurance company would probably void your insurance in order not to pay out because you were technically breaking the law. I think there is more to this than meets the eye. When have insurance companies worried about the consumer in the past? Any excuse to push up the amount we pay and minimise the amount they pay. I don't trust them. The black box won't just be used to plot your movements, but your speed and driving habits too.
|
|
What happens if this little black box doesn't work? Who is liable for fixing it, will you be insured if it does break?
|
|
|
|
>>The insurance company would probably void your insurance in order not to pay out because you were technically breaking the law
The fact that you were breaking the law is insufficient reason/justification for an Insurance Company to refuse to pay out. In addition, they are at no time able to void your insurance, wihtout a specific process which is not retroactive..
They can recover their losses from you in the Civil Courts, and in the Criminal Courts if they can prove intent.
|
|
|
I thought that they didn't make much money out of car insurance?
How about an insurance company product specialising in sub-£1000.00 cars driven by the older driver?
rg
|
|
They always say they don't make money from car insurance, so it's always puzzled me that there are so many advertisements for it!
|
I seem to remember correspondence about this years ago, in which an insurance person claimed they only broke even. It turned out that this was equating money paid in against money paid out, and it was pointed out that whereas we all have to pay for the year in advance, our accidents are distributed over the subsequent year. So the insurers, naturally, invest the cash in the meantime. That is where the profit is.
Mind you, there is September 11th last. Somebody is going to have to pay for that......
|
|
|
|
There is two measures...
Underwriting profit - simply claims & expenses against premiums. They don't make money, and if fact typically lose a lot of money.
However, if they include investment income and the like, then they start to make a lot of money.
Underwriting profit is used to judge individual lines of business - life, personal, motor, fire, marine, PA, etc.
|
|
|
|
Mark, I know from your posts that you are very knowledgable but is it not the case that an insurance company can refuse to pay out if, for instance, you had a pair of smooth tyres on your car and the accident was in some way related to an effect that those tyres might have had on braking/stopping/steering etc? I am sure I recall a case when insurance was deemed not to be valid on a car where the owner had fitted alloy wheels without advising his insurer. It was regarded as a modification, in the same way as a 'chipped' engine is.
|
|
|
Pete -
There are very few conditions, to all intents and purposes none, where an Insurer can deny third party liability, since there are appointed duties and responsibilities within the law.
However, there are somethings that they can do..........
Tell you to sod off for any damage to your own car (AD). This is not a right (or liability for them) enforced in law, and is only your right as part of a contract. If you have already breached this contract you are stuffed. Technically they should pay and then sue you, but it doesn't happen that way.
They can refuse to pay totally, offer to pay partially, offer to pay with other conditions, offer to pay but cancel policy, or pay. Of course, tehre are many variants, but you get the idea.
Typically, if you are substantially in breach of your policy they will nto pay any of your benefits. It is quite common for someone to be "a little bit in breach" of their conditions. A common example is that the child was themain user. Normally under these circumstances they will simply pay the claim less the somewhat larger premium you should have paid, back dated to when they think you should have paid it.
However, they have little choice if it is a Third Party liability. This can only be avoided if the insurance was cancelled before the event and the policyholder notified in one of the required ways. It cannot be done in retrospect.
In this case they can range from claiming it all back from you up to giving you the chance to pay the claim yourself and avoid nastiness and including, on occasion, letting it go.
However, they *will* claim it back from you if they decide to. British Insurance companies will take you to court for debt at a drop of a hat.
The ultimate punishement is to cancel your insurance and decline to reinsure. This is a virtual guarantee, if you disclose it in future as you should, that you will not be offered insurance by anyone else, and eventually will be back with the same insurance company, who would be compelled as last insurer to offer you insurance again. However, the rates/premiums would be of their choosing !
Insofar as your specific example, a pointer is that your car is identified on your certificate of insurance, the only part that matters to the RTA, but not the cpacity, state of the tyres, or anything else. It isn't relevant to the Third Party of the law, but it will be relevant to you in the event of a TP claim.
|
|
Or as someone said, "in the event of a claim being made, this policy becomes invalid"!
|
|
|
|
