49 thoughts on “Comprehensively Boned

  1. Optimus Grime

    Ah man I have a claim against me now and I am terrified about what my renewal is going to be…

    1. scottser

      most comprehensive policies insure your no-claims bonus for a few extra quid. what does your policy say?

      1. Optimus Grime

        I have step back cover on my no claims protection, not quite full no claims protection but it may take some to the sting out of it

        1. scottser

          that’s something at least i hope it doesn’t cripple you.
          I’ve been thinking of saying that I’m a doctor or solicitor, keep my car garaged, light use only etc to get the best quote. you can be guaranteed that the ‘gold’ trades still get perks in that regard.

  2. Harry Molloy

    Again I’ll urge everyone to try a broker, mine came in with a quote that was hundreds cheaper than what I was getting from phoning around myself

  3. medieval knievel

    what age is your car? i have heard this happening to people when their car hits an age of 15 or 20 years old.

    1. dav

      bullpoo excuse, this is price gouging of the irish insurance monopoly of the irish people and the government will do nothing

      1. 3stella

        The Government do nothing because they get a percentage cut on the premium increases with their various multiple imposed levies. It’s in their interest until there is a electoral murmuring that they will pay for their inaction.

  4. Sheik Yahbouti

    Joe can eff off. What’s needed now is the political will to end this profit clawback. End of.

    1. Rob_G

      The insurance companies aren’t making profits; they are losing hundreds of millions every year.

      The govt could help by changing the laws around payouts in court for whiplash and what have you; this is where all the money is going.

      1. anne

        no they’re not..stop spouting sh*te Rob G. No one knows exactly how much profit they’re making because they won’t release the information.

          1. anne

            “Why I couldn’t support the Finance Committee report on car insurance:

            Despite participating fully in the hearings on the car insurance industry in the Finance Committee over the last months, I dissented from the the report which is published today. The Anti-Austerity Alliance welcomes a number of key recommendations from the report, centrally the call, which we raised for: ‘ ‘the State assume the responsibility to provide motor insurance as an essential public utility and ‘provide motor insurance on a progressive non-profit basis that takes account of people’s ability to pay’. However, given the primary thrust of the report is to fixing the private insurance market, I didn’t not sign the report.

            The evidence presented to the committee of the car insurance rip-off of drivers was compelling. In the last three years, premiums have increased by an incredible 70%. Young drivers and other people on low incomes, including low paid workers and pensioniers, as well as people living in the many parts of the country without proper public transport, are among the worst affected. The Finance Committee did important work in hearing from many of those affected. However, its conclusions fail to prioritise the measures that in our opinion are really needed to bring down motor insurance costs – namely an end to the private insurance rip-off and the provision of state insurance.

            That cause of the rip-off is profiteering by the insurance industry. The report cites Central Bank data showing that ‘Irish Insurance companies amassed profits totalling €2.86bn from 2002 to the present’. From this it correctly concludes that ‘the premise that recent losses are the reason for insurance premium rises does not hold.’ Moreover, it finds that ‘claims and awards are not the driving force behind steep increases’ either, as ‘the level of premium increases far outstrips the actual increase in the amount of claims paid out by the industry’. Yet in spite of these insights, the report fails to tackle the root of the problem: profiteering by private insurance companies.

            Instead, the main thrust of the report is towards increasing transparency in relation to private insurance companies in order to make the insurance market work better. While shedding any light on such a secretive industry is welcome, we disagree with the assertion in the report that ‘The single most important issue identified during the hearings was the lack of transparency and shortfall in data-sharing in the insurance sector’.

            In our view, the single most important issue identified during the hearings was that private insurance companies have been making huge profits while utterly failing to provide affordable motor insurance.

            Even more concerning is the underlying assumption behind many of the recommendations in the report: that increasing transparency will lead will to increased competition and that this in turn this will inevitably lower costs. This flies in the face of past experience which shows that the real result of increased competition is an intensified cycle of booms and busts. Recent history in both the insurance market and the banking crash should be all the evidence we need of this. Even the Deputy Governor of the Central Bank acknowledged during the hearings that the ‘presumption’ encouraging more competition will automatically lower costs is “an act of faith” that relies on the prior existence of “a very high profit” so “new entrants will come in and drive down premium rates.”

            Rather than endlessly waiting for the “invisible hand” of the market to work its magic, the solution is to for the state to nationalise the insurance industry and provide motor insurance as an essential public utility. We welcome the fact that our proposal that ‘the State assume the responsibility to provide motor insurance as an essential public utility and ‘provide motor insurance on a progressive non-profit basis that takes account of people’s ability to pay’ is included among the recommendations. This should form the starting point of a discussion about providing insurance on a progressive non-profit basis that takes account of people’s ability to pay and ends the systematic discrimination against young people and others on low incomes.” Paul Murphy TD

      2. 3stella

        While there is a element of truth in false whiplash claims ( hard to positively substantiate & prove against in court, generally uncontested by insurers and worth a average ‘easy money’ 15k to the claimant.) The rest is a price gouging smokescreen from the insurance industry who are let away with it by the government.

        1. Pixxyman

          The UK is moving toward treatment costs instead of a payout. So if you have whiplash you get your physio paid for for a year. Even if you had a session every week for the year it wouldn’t come anyway near the payouts we currently give.

      3. Donal

        Are they losing millions because they invest the premiums and their investment side is losing the money?
        I heard or read something to that effectbefore.
        if it’s the case, if they simply put premiums in a bank account and used them as a current account for their costs would they still be losing money?

        1. Kieran NYC

          They’re not allowed do that anymore. And they have to keep extra capital in reserve to avoid another Quinn situation.

      4. scottser

        rob, insurance companies are like bookies – they take bets in hoping that it’s more than they have to pay out on. if they make a loss it’s their tough. Anyway, I fail to see how a product like car insurance which is compulsory can cause a company to lose money. 2.5 million cars on the road last year, average minimum policy price of 500 bucks each is 1.25 billion. are insurers honestly saying that the total pay outs for all insurers exceed 1.25 billion each year?

        1. Neilo

          Insurance companies are held in particularly low esteem in my household just now. If any of you have an income protection policy in the event of illness, make sure you check every atom of the small print. On a related note, never trust any teenager who wants to train as an actuary: saddle-sniffing sh1tbirds the lot of them.

          1. Neilo

            @Anne – not willing to accept comprehensive reports from two consultants and two GPs as evidence of debilitating illness.

          2. anne

            who were they willing to accept reports from then? would you not consider going to a solicitor?

            a girl i worked with once said to me she used to work in insurance..and their business model was to avoid paying out wherever possible..they’ll take your money no problem but if there’s any reason to invalidate your claim, they’ll do it.

          3. Neilo

            @Anne: we have a fantastic solicitor pursuing this at the moment. God willing, we’ll get a result before Christmas: it’ll be needed lest we dine on Spam fritters on the 25th.

          4. anne

            Good for you Neilo. Fingers crossed yer sorted before Christmas. People pay into these schemes not for the good of the insurer’s profit margin..but to be covered in the event of illness. These gougers need closer monitoring. It’s not their money.

        2. Rob_G

          I have no horse in this race – but the contention that the cost is purely profiteering doesn’t seem to be supported by the figures.

          if they make a loss it’s their tough

          well, not really; its everyone’s tough – the insurance companies will just continue to increase the prices of premiums.

  5. Murtles

    Neighbour of mine tipped into the back of a car that stopped suddenly. Him being a mechanic checked the other car for damage which turned out to be a small dent to number plate and some cosmetic damage to bumper. He made sure there was no damage to frame or car pillars and costed the damage to be €300 max which he offered to repair for free . Three weeks later he gets a letter from his insurance company stating over €14,000 had been paid for structural repairs to car. He never received any notifications in between and his expert opinion was overruled by company when he rang to complain.

    1. jackson

      It’s a scam, insurance companies will send you to only use their approved mechanics which gives freedom to quote basically whatever they want, I mean how much of that payout goes back into the insurance companies?. Complete farce

    2. martco

      yup can attest to that type of scenario alright, something much same happened in my household…
      bizarrely we were hit whilst stationary at lights and the incident was settled @50/50?!? and without our knowledge! was only when I phoned up out of curiosity as we’d had zero communications it came out in the wash. it didn’t affect our premium at the time nor NCB but there was really some sort of underhanded insurance accounting trick going on there or solicitor arseholeology at play. we didn’t look for anything except for our car to be repaired but the fault was 100% the other side so felt very wrong

      1. coco

        A friend of mine had something similar and was told “you’re a young male, she’s a middle aged woman, we’re not even going to investigate it.”

  6. wearnicehats

    All these figures flying around are all just bottom. My insurance was also €450 2 years ago. It’s €750 now. Steep enough increase but really not that expensive. So did this guy buy a new fancier car, have an accident, have a claim etc?

    1. John

      have actually sold my car in the meantime so this is an automated renewal quote I definitely won’t be taking on. Car was a 2005 1.9l diesel saab so absolutely nothing fancy.
      Also, no accident/claim/change of address etc etc and have 10years no claims bonus (touch wood)

      people are saying that the price hike is because the car was over 10years old, but then you have to ask what the NCT is for?

      1. wearnicehats

        Stupidly if it was a 1995 Skoda model you could get classic car insurance for buttons. Makes no sense

  7. Junkface

    Good God! That is a shocking quote. The Gov’t needs to stop the legal teams from charging HUGE court fees also, but I think that blaming it all on whiplash claims is not right. There is price fixing and gouging going on and somebody needs to incestigate where all of this money is going. Is there any other business that can put up their prices by 200 or 300% in a few years? No, absolutely not. Something is VERY badly broken with this system.

  8. Junkface

    Listen, Insurance companies in Ireland are super rich. They have advertising budgets that would make ANY other companies eyes water. They bombard every TV station, every ad break, every Radio station, every ad break, siometimes 2 or 3 ads within the space of a 5 minute ad break. Ads are not free, this costs A LOT of money. So no, they are not losing money.

    1. Pixxyman

      We need number plate recognition camera’s on the M50 instead of tax and insurance disks. Catch all the uninsured drivers, because their accidents drive up premiums too.

      I don’t know how part of the chunky VRT we pay doesn’t manage to get a registration plate into a database linked up with car tax, nct, and insurance companies. If you car doesn’t have all three up to date the Garda should be knocking on doors to make sure the car is off the road.

  9. Peter Dempsey

    It is refreshing to see that Broadsheet readers approve of driving. Makes a change from listening to Shane O’Curry’s po-faced non-driver mates.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link