PDA

View Full Version : Insurance Policies: The Showdown


Tonic Please
15th Oct 2008, 10:02
Farce. := :yuk:

Somehow, during my morning tea session today, my brain activity decided to wander off onto the subject of insurance companies. Upon kettle boiling, I had decided that they were a force of evil. Upon milk addition, I had created my own insurance company mentality and wondered how it would work in the real world. Teaspoon of sugar moment resulted in the realisation of PPRuNe being the root of all assumed knowledge, and thus I find myself here, with said tea, proposing my new insurance policy concept - and slipping in a little rant about why I think they are disgraceful. I suggest you place aside current ideas about these companies for the duration of this thread...

My thinking: The idea of an insurance policy, (let's deal with cars) should be to put money into a fund which is held by the insurance company, the idea being that the chances of you needing to use them be minimal, and when you do, that you have enough funds with them to cover costs of repairs. On a national scale, with the company having lots of money, and most claims being below 1,000, and people claiming (genuinely) maybe once every 3 years, that would mean that if the average annual cost is 400-600 (age dependant, car type, etc) and you claim once every 3 years (at the most), you have paid for the damage costs, and the company give you this money from your fund. They take their percentage for being "insurance fund holders" on your behalf, but you still have enough money if required. In the rare cases that your cost is more than what you have personally paid, this won't matter to the company, since if 1,000,000 people have paid 500, they have enough to cover the odd person needing 5,000+. That's logic as far as I can see. Most fund holders won't be using them for years and when they do, it would probably be less than what they have paid in anyway! The favour is thus in the IC.

My rant: How on Earth can these companies exist? If anyone here owns an insurance company, I'd be delighted to challenge you with this and see your genuine reasons for business.

If I pay 500 a month into a fund (insurance policy), I expect this money to be dealt with as follows:

I claim once every 5 years (at the most, for example). I have paid you 2,500 each 5 year cycle. You take your % for the privelage of me having chosen you to hold my fund ( :rolleyes: - nice, aren't I). My average claim is 700-1000, say. That means that, even if you take a third (33%!) of my money, 2,500, I have 1,666 in my fund for ME. So, how the bloomin' 'ell can you ask for an EXCESS?? This is what gets me. I have paid you 800 for 5 years for holding my money, leaving me with 1650+. I claim my average of 1 in 5 years. That never comes to more than 1,000. Yet, you will only give me my money (you've had your bit, bugger off), from MY FUND, if I pay an excess of perhaps 200.

That is truly beyond me.

How do people see insurance companies? As an "insurer" without really thinking about the details of how they are clearly taking your money and bugger all else, or as a "fund holder of your own money", taking their %, and thus leaving your account for YOU when you need it? That's how I think it should be.

So, on a national scale, with perhaps 1,000,000 people paying 500, they have 500,000,000. Take a third of all that, they have 165,000,000 odd, leaving 335,000,000 in fund accounts for claimants. That should mean that that money is not theirs to hold back from you until you pay an excess, or only give if you pay X amount first.

Unbelievable.

Tea now cold...balls :{

*goes to microwave :D

whiz
15th Oct 2008, 10:15
IMHO
It's simple really, you are assuming that the insurance company is there to provide you with a safety net if you have to make a claim.

WRONG !!

They are there to make it as difficult as possible for you to claim and will use any loophole they can to negate any claim you have made. They will then reward the directors and shareholders handsomely whilst spending what money is left producing condescending TV adverts to drag the unsuspecting back for another years premiums.

Cynical ? Nope, just reality borne out by experience

Parapunter
15th Oct 2008, 10:22
I know a guy who is one of the head actuaries for Zurich Insurance. He was so well paid that he retired at 35, pottered about with his horses for a year, decided he was bored & went back to it. As far as I can work out, he's thinking of making an offer for Andorra, if they chuck Lichtenstein in with the deal.:suspect:

Tonic Please
15th Oct 2008, 10:25
I rest my case.

Howard Hughes
15th Oct 2008, 10:29
As someone who has worked for an insurance company, I can assure you they are only interested in insuring people who either don't need insurance, or won't need to make a claim, for the rest of us, they make it as hard as possible!:hmm:

Tonic Please
15th Oct 2008, 10:49
...and I now present the question:

Why is it legal to be insured, since we'll end up paying ourselves anyway.

To be an uninsured driver makes you sound more dangerous, young and stupid, old and stupid, careless.

From what I can tell, it makes you sensible, richer, and probably a more careful driver.

:hmm:

max_cont
15th Oct 2008, 11:02
You can self insure.

ThreadBaron
15th Oct 2008, 12:06
...and, being pi**ed off by the barriers erected in front, and on every side, of a claim, you can self injure!

frostbite
15th Oct 2008, 12:12
Put it another way...

The insurance company are betting you won't have an accident, you are betting that you will.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
15th Oct 2008, 12:12
Why is it legal to be insured, since we'll end up paying ourselves anyway.

To be an uninsured driver makes you sound more dangerous, young and stupid, old and stupid, careless.

From what I can tell, it makes you sensible, richer, and probably a more careful driver.


Because if you caused 5m of damage to a third party, you couldn't meet the bill. Indeed, many people not insured couldn't meet much of a bill at all - as you'll find out if one ever runs into your car.

Juud
15th Oct 2008, 12:15
Few years after my brother and I had moved out of the parental abode, the 2 top floors of our parents' house burnt down.
Insurance not only offered to pay for our parents' stay in a hotel for the months it took to clear and rebuild, they paid for all the damages, the lost belongings of my parents and even for the considerable amount of goods my brother and I had stored on our parent's attic.
The insurers visited both him and me at our respective appartments to check the kind of things we owned (brands of clothes, quality of furniture) and assessed from there. A great deal of heartache, but not a penny out of pocket for any of us.

When my husband and I sold our previous house 7 years ago, the new owners sued us because they felt had sold them a defective lemon. Our house-selling insurance covered lawyer fees, court case costs and we won the case outright. Again a considerable a number of sleepless nights and many worries, but the insurers saved us a great deal of money, cleared our name and gave us peace of mind.

At the age of 57, my Dad got a condition that rendered him unable to continue practicing in his particular field of medicine. His insurance covered the lost earnings between his then age and his retirement age of 65. It was tough on him, but thanks to the insurers, my Mum & Dad continued to lead a comfortable life, in the manner to which they were accustomed.

When my husband broke his leg about 10 years ago, once he was sort of mobile again the insurers paid for a taxi to take him back and forth to work.
For 6 weeks.

A few months ago, half the contents of my crew suitcase was liberated, most likely by the TSA monkies in Washington.
My company refused to take action because I only discovered the theft 3 weeks after the flight (suitcase thrown into locker at base, fly home with hand luggage only) and the rules say report within 24 hours.
My travel insurance paid up the quite considerable sum without any protest.
All they wrote was 'please file a police report next time and thank you for all the receipts'.

I have nothing bad to say about insurance companies; only good experiences ever.

Capt.KAOS
15th Oct 2008, 12:27
Confusius Say:

Needing insurance is like needing a parachute. If it isn't there the first time, chances are you won't be needing it again.

Standard Noise
15th Oct 2008, 13:16
What gets me is cases like this...........

18yo friend of Noisy Jnr (who is also the son of one of Mrs Noises's underlings), has just written off his second car within a year. Dunno what the first one was, but the second was a Beamer. But his insurance company has just let him insure another car. From what I'm told, his total insurance premiums havn't exceeded the cost of the write offs.
So just to re-cap, he's a young, high risk driver, who's lived up to the risk by having multiple accidents but is still able to get insured and on the roads again very quickly. But he hasn't yet paid into the insurance system what he's cost it. That means it's the rest of us that pay for it, despite careful driving records and whatever they give us as an NCD. Summat not right here.

Should we go to a system where if you're found to be at fault more than once in a three year period, the insurance company can take you to court for the losses thus keeping the premiums for the rest of us down a bit?

SN,
careful driver with 10 yrs NCD who's still bled dry by insurance companies because of reckless teenaged little feckers and the uninsured.

Effluent Man
15th Oct 2008, 14:01
A 17 year old lad insured by NFU Mutual ran into me head on.He turned off a petrol station forecourt and in full view of CCTV hit me on my own side of the road, writing off my year old Mercedes E270.I offered them a deal,buy me a replacement car and I will drop all other heads of claim.They refused,despite their insured being issued with a summonse.insisting I was one third to blame.The case ran for three years.My own company replaced my car.In court I was awarded 14,500 damages against them.My legal bill was around 40k which they picked up as well as their own costs. My passenger was injured and offered to settle for 12,000.
They refused this amount at the start of the case.Two hours later the judge awarded 18,222.He allowed an application by my solicitor for something called "Uplift of costs" This doubled his bills to around 90,000.I estimate that their intransigence cost them in excess of 200,000 more than we were prepared to settle for.

Parapunter
15th Oct 2008, 14:13
I got chatting with a 17 year old lad a few weeks ago who showed me his pride & joy standard issue self pimped Corsa. He let on that he was paying an eye watering 125 per month in insurance premiums, bearing in mind that I cough up 300 per annum for my turbocharged German sports car at age 38, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the lad.

Fact is though, it's his lot that have all the crashes. Still, assuming that he doesn't in fact wrap it round a lamp post, then it seems very stiff for him to be subsidising his peers.

whiz
15th Oct 2008, 15:19
Few years after my brother and I had moved out of the parental abode, the 2 top floors of our parents' house burnt down.
Insurance not only offered to pay for our parents' stay in a hotel for the months it took to clear and rebuild, they paid for all the damages, the lost belongings of my parents and even for the considerable amount of goods my brother and I had stored on our parent's attic.
The insurers visited both him and me at our respective appartments to check the kind of things we owned (brands of clothes, quality of furniture) and assessed from there. A great deal of heartache, but not a penny out of pocket for any of us.

When my husband and I sold our previous house 7 years ago, the new owners sued us because they felt had sold them a defective lemon. Our house-selling insurance covered lawyer fees, court case costs and we won the case outright. Again a considerable a number of sleepless nights and many worries, but the insurers saved us a great deal of money, cleared our name and gave us peace of mind.

At the age of 57, my Dad got a condition that rendered him unable to continue practicing in his particular field of medicine. His insurance covered the lost earnings between his then age and his retirement age of 65. It was tough on him, but thanks to the insurers, my Mum & Dad continued to lead a comfortable life, in the manner to which they were accustomed.

When my husband broke his leg about 10 years ago, once he was sort of mobile again the insurers paid for a taxi to take him back and forth to work.
For 6 weeks.

A few months ago, half the contents of my crew suitcase was liberated, most likely by the TSA monkies in Washington.
My company refused to take action because I only discovered the theft 3 weeks after the flight (suitcase thrown into locker at base, fly home with hand luggage only) and the rules say report within 24 hours.
My travel insurance paid up the quite considerable sum without any protest.
All they wrote was 'please file a police report next time and thank you for all the receipts'.

I have nothing bad to say about insurance companies; only good experiences ever.

Juud ... there's always one ..... and it's ALWAYS bloody you !! :p

Octopussy2
15th Oct 2008, 16:06
Just in response to Parapunter's point: I think what your mate gets paid is a reflection of the fact that actuaries are very clever and do something that the rest of us would find deeply dull, rather than a reflection of the wealth of insurance companies.

I'm heartened by Juud's experiences. I tend to see the "nice" side of insurance because I work for a shipping mutual insurance fund - we actually try to interpret our rules to ensure that a claim is covered, rather than to try and avoid covering it - it's much better that way!

Hmmm, just thinking: I'm a lawyer who works in insurance - I'm not going to make many friends on Pprune, am I?

con-pilot
15th Oct 2008, 16:32
Juud ... there's always one ..... and it's ALWAYS bloody you !!

Sorry, but here is one more. :p

For those that are unaware; my mother's home was completely destroyed by a massive tornado on May 3, 1999. This tornado was the most severe ever recoded in history and destroyed over 10,000 homes and business in Oklahoma City.

Two days after the tornado an agent for the insurance company tracked my mother down to where she was staying, my home, and gave her a check for $10,000.00 for temporary living expenses, no strings attached. In less than 30 days after the tornado the insurance company paid for the remains house to removed, cleaned up the damage, paid for her belongs that were lost, which was 99% of everything she owned, paid for the loss of her car and gave her funds to completely rebuild the house or to purchase a new house of the same size.

When all was said and done she actually made a profit of over $20,000.00, cash in hand. Oh, she had a $ 500.00 deductible payment that the insurance company waived.

So, insurance companies can be a pain in the ass, until they save said ass.

BlueDiamond
15th Oct 2008, 17:47
One more here ... when someone drove his large 4WD into the back of my car a couple of years ago I reported it to my insurance company by phone, they took down the details and told me to get it fixed at my choice of repairer and at a time suitable to me. It was as easy as that. Excellent service. I have my current vehicle insured with the same people too. Other major insurers are just as good, so I hear, but I'll stick with mine.

jumpseater
15th Oct 2008, 21:39
Every year I end up dealing Muppets 'R' Us, it does my head in! See the following, still not received the SAE yet:}

Appetite for Destruction Norven Munky’s Weblog (http://norvenmunky.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/appetite-for-destruction/)

Richo77
15th Oct 2008, 23:07
As i currently work in the Insurance Industry (ducks, "Who threw that?!") its not all about Ins companies ripping people off as a lot of ppl think. Most times you hear of someone complaining about their insurance company not paying, means they did'nt know what they bought. Young Jimmy insures his Ford Fiesta, then attachs wings and machine guns to it and plays James Bond jumping off a carpark roof... whoops (although my motor policy would cover that).

Always read before you buy.

And it does work both ways, Example:

Years ago a company i worked for insured a fast food chain (one of the big one's) a 23yr old bloke walked in at 1am and whilst he ate his meal asked the manager to mind his briefcase and $25 knapsack (think for a moment how big that might be) whilst he ate.

During the course of his meal someone else claimed his belongings (a friend or twin we believe but never proved).

He filed a claim stating that in the briefcase were a pair of rayban's and a pair of gucci sunglasses, a discman (new at the time) several CD's, wallet, books an undisclosed sum of cash somewhere between $300 and $500, expensive watch etc.

The $25 knapsack was even better - 2 $300 suits, 6 business shirts, 2 pairs expensive jeans, tshirts, pairs of nikes, reeboks and asics trainers, socks, underwear etc etc. That little knapsack is bursting at the seams methinks.

He claimed he was unemployed and was moving to a friends place (at 1am mind!).

His only "evidence" was the manager admitting that he agreed to mind the belongings although it was another employee who handed them over.

Total cost $8,500 roughly. Cough cough, mutter mutter go forth and multiply young man.

However at the end of the day, even though this was so obviously a dodgy claim, it would have cost more than $8,500 to defend it so it got settled for $6,500(we had a good claims manager).

Just bear that in mind. Certainly not saints but not always sinners either.

parabellum
15th Oct 2008, 23:36
Remember talking to an underwriter who said he was for ever amazed when it came to settling damaged and lost baggage claims for people who had just come back from a very cheap charter holiday to discover that they all claimed for genuine Gucci luggage!