Storm Damage Anyone?

I apologise to anyone affected by the above heading, it’s not meant to be flippant at all.

But when working in this industry, you think you will ultimately get a handle on events and problems. 

Yet I read in last saturdays’ Times newspaper that some Insurers are now to trying avoid paying out on policies they have issued, by suggesting that where your home has suffered flood damage it may not have been caused as a result of a storm as they know it, citing that storms need to be over 50 mph to register a claim.

That’s not just questionable behaviour if true, but downright sickening. Do these guys never learn?

I read in an industry journal that the recent flooding will mean claims of more than £3billion will be paid out, (but when they will pay out is omitted) making the recent flood damage the worst for 5 years.

Insurers, to give them credit, have hustled this and the previous government to develop greater flood defence systems, but seem to be on a losing wicket up against rhetoric, vacillation and delay. 

The result of this inactivity is that some areas will become uninsurable, which is horrendous. 

As a broker we sit in the middle of this and are literally powerless, but we can make a little difference by highlighting to you what is going on and to mark your card and ask the right questions. 

Insurers may argue that continuous rain does not constitute a storm therefore they will not pay out fully. But we find abhorrent and not acceptable and certainly not in the spirit of why you took out cover from them. 

It has to be said that not all Insurance companies are the same, so don’t please tarnish them all with the same brush.  At Trident we believe we place your cover with what we feel are the best on price and cover. But remember, like all insurance if price is your key focus, don’t please expect the best cover. Much as we would all like that to be the case the two really don’t go together.   

A Fresh Tax on Home Insurance!

The Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, is proposing a 10% flood tax on your home insurance premiums to help cover damage in the aftermath of the recent floods.

Our view is that this is another stealth tax and should only be considered if something, say like the fuel tax is reduced, so in the end the consumer is not handicapped. 

The problem with stealth taxes is that they get installed but never get removed and always seen to increase.   

I think it would first be fair to ask first what difference the money already gone to the flood defences actually made and if it was found to be insufficient address that matter before Ms Spelman looks to take yet more money. 

These notes are not meant to be political, but sometimes you have to ask where do governments get their ideas from?  

Well you heard it here first, just sorry it wasn’t good news, and let’s just hope the sun comes out and stays out!!

Telematics, Apps, Speed.

I’ve mentioned before the new idea of Telematics, in short it’s a spy in the car and it works on GPS. It’s being sold as a way to reduce the cost of motor insurance. Maybe it will, but the box installed will be unique to the insurance company and costs to install (that cost is non refundable) and it’s not interchangeable if you decide to move to another insurer. So who will it benefit? They say that with the cost of car insurance for 17 -22 year olds hovering between £2k - £3.5k clearly there is scope for serious benefits there IF the young driver is prepared to do exactly as he/she is meant to behind the wheel.

We’ve all been there, got the T shirt and taken chances, but if you do a U turn when the signals say no, the GPS will spot that and the Insurer may up you premium. The system will not miss a trick!  Don’t get me wrong in principle it’s a great idea but personally I feel pretty awful with a back seat driver in my car let alone having a GPS spy!

My recent tedious reading has been observations about Insurance being sold via the net and now by apps. I think it’s clear this is a generational thing, with most now being prepared to look at the net in year one and paying all the way through but finding in year two they get stung with an increase in premium they could see no reason for.

Apps rely on familiarity and navigating some clearly requires the pre-requisite of a degree in rocket science. Irrespective of my cynicism, technology is not going backwards and more will become familiar. But somehow, and call me old fashioned, it’s a shed load easier talking to someone  and getting all their information first time than going through endless correspondence or explaining what a  question means.

I don’t think anyone has run a contest between applying for insurance on the net or calling a broker and seeing who delivers the best price and cover. But for all the speed of the net, the only way you are going to know what you are paying for is if you read, pages of terms and conditions and can spot where the exclusions are. Given, I would suggest 99% don’t read any more than their name, address and licence plate number and think all is ok, to me it’s a no brainer.  Yes it’s easy to buy on the net, but if you want to know what you’re paying for and what you aren’t covered for; I still reckon a broker will come out faster and on many occasions, positively cheaper, and Trident Insurance in particular of course !!

Help There's A Snake Coming Through My Window!

We get a lot of accident reports but some are sometimes that much harder to take as credible than others.  

Recently we had a report from a female driver who claimed, when she stopped at traffic lights  a man came up to her open window, pulled his trousers and shorts down and put  ‘a body part that looked like a snake-like object,  through her window’. This caused her to panic and take her foot of the brake and hit the car in front’

It’s hard to know how to respond, let alone keep a straight face on hearing that, but we put it down as a non-fault accident!! 

The Madness of Insurance.

An announcement from the High Court reversed an earlier decision against RSA Insurance, which paves the way for insurers to inflate repair charges by at least 25%.

In short it was initially deemed that the cost of repairs should be determined by what an individual would pay for their own repairs.

The madness is that because many Insurers use their own preferred repair shops who charge them discounted rates, these may stay the same but the cost of the claim will now rise because the repairs will be based as if someone had asked for them personally. 

In other words claims will not go down but up and though RSA has possibly secured its victory for the charges it levied for repairs, it may find itself with extra costs by parties claiming against RSA.

I hope you kept up with that, in short it means the idea of motor rates coming down after the large increases over the last two year looks less likely now than ever. 

For the life of me I can’t see what benefit RSA thinks they have secured, all I can feel is that it's somewhat hollow because it may well come back and kick them in the teeth.

What is important regardless is that if you are involved in an accident, and are obliged to use the Insurers repair shops, independently check what the repairs would cost and make a formal complaint if you’re not happy. I’m not saying it will work but it can’t hurt. Unfortunately there seems to be no directory of who is renowned for higher repair charges, because that is a factor that we would use when comparing prices before the policy is taken out. 

Yes, complaining to a big company is a nightmare but it’s your money paying the premium, so the lower the cost of an accident the less harsh the Insurer may be at the point of renewal.

The RSA result of the High Court case looks like (apologies for the pun) an accident waiting to happen, insofar as being picked up by MP’s and yet another occasion where Insurers may have unwittingly shot themselves in the foot.

Is it a Tiger? Is is a Cow?

I recently read ‘Churchill in Quotes’ and many of the things he said then are just as applicable today. For example “Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot, others look at it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse pulling a sturdy wagon”

I picked on this one because over the weekend and today there have been two cabinet ministers who have chosen to have a go at business and suggest we all have to work harder. 

It’s becoming clearer by the day that none of them are aware of what business folk and most still in work do, and it’s abundantly clear that they need to get out more.

I say this because it isn’t easy out there and where we all thought things were steadying now we see it's now quite pear shaped but looking like it will get worse before it levels out.

Everyone is still looking to cut back and an obvious area is insurance which has done no one any favours with the heavy increases over the last few years. But much as it may be right if you’ve not had a claim to think you will go without I would suggest don’t get shot altogether, scale down the cover and perhaps increase the excess. 

I’ve said it before that insurance plays on the emotion of fear so in times like this a lot of people are confused whether to stay with it or go without. In business there are legal obligations to ensure there is cover for public and employers liability, but when its contents replacement may not be as expensive as had been thought .  Make sure the alarm is working and as that supermarket ad says: every little bit helps. 

Thinking the same way a reduction on value of replacement can save money on the premium to be paid. It may not be a satisfactory result but it’s better to have cover than none at all. 

As for the politicians inability to understand what private enterprise does or how it’s run, just remember at Trident we understand only too well what you’re up against and are here to help you whenever we can.      

WHAPA! Whiplash!

The issue of claiming for whiplash is very contentious, given no one has managed to establish what actually is involved, apart from that a rear end shunt will clearly have an impact on the driver and passengers of the vehicle in front.

There was a story recently where a driver hit another car where he could only see the driver in front but when the claim came in there were claims for the driver and four other family members.  The Insurer had to pay out because there was no way of proving the ‘passengers’ weren’t in the car. 

Some might say it’s a cool way to make money but many others see it as a real abuse of the system, particularly Insurers. Fraud is becoming a serious problem and whiplash claims have gone crazy with the average pay-out now between £2,500-£3000. 

Accident management firms are viewed as vultures on the system because the increase in premiums is put down to their success.  Whilst that may be so, if I was involved in an accident, I would want the best pay-out possible and it takes an independent party to secure that.

In short I have nothing but contempt for those who put in fraudulent claims, and whiplash is the old favourite. Perhaps new legislation will limit the pay-outs on many ‘dubious’ claims but if Insurance is to work properly and people are to be enthused to buy it, then it must be seen that in the event of an accident that is not fraudulent, those who have the right cover are fully compensated and not palmed off with an insulting offer.