Stupid Insurance Companies

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
A

Andrew Renshaw

Guest
Hi People,

Right I am going to name and shame. Three weeks ago I got my 88 inch Series
3. So I insured with Firebond, reasonable amount at £188 for third party
fire and theft, business use. They took £67 as a deposit and sent me my
documents. I had got them out of a Land Rover magazine. I filled in details
of the modifications that I had undertaken in the last three weeks. Really
radical stuff like:-

Soundproofing the Cab,
Adding rear seatbelts,
Fitting a louder horn,
Putting the spare wheel on the bonnet, even though it has the fittings
already,
Finally the massive one - putting chequerplate on my front bumper.


Well with this amount of radical modifications they decide they would have
to cancel my insurance. Within seven days I would be uninsured.

People be cautious with Firebond you do any modifications your insurance is
invalid. I could not believe it considering that they advertise in a Land
Rover magazine. Anyway at the moment I am trying to get back my deposit. I
cannot say much more as I am making a complaint to their Managing Director.

So I started to telephone around. Secure Direct would not insure the vehicle
as I had put chequerplate on the bumper and they had never heard of someone
doing that!!! They even asked why I had soundproofed it!!! Some other
companies who advertise in Land Rover Magazines did not know what a Series 3
was.

What a breath of fresh air when I phoned up Sureterm Direct - they said
straight away - well with a Land Rover you do modify it, people like to
play. My modifications made no difference whatsoever and they considered
they were minor, the only time they get worried is if I put a 5.7 litre
Chevy engine in. So they qouted me, wait for it: £173 Fully Comprehensive,
Class 1 Business, Green Lane use, loads of benefits and the deposit was
less. I could have kissed them. So I am now with Sureterm Direct and not
FIREBOND.

Andrew

I have been quoted happy.


 
Always worth talking to NFU Insurance to them its a Landrover, period!

Andrew Renshaw wrote:
> Hi People,
>
> Right I am going to name and shame. Three weeks ago I got my 88 inch Series
> 3. So I insured with Firebond, reasonable amount at £188 for third party
> fire and theft, business use. They took £67 as a deposit and sent me my
> documents. I had got them out of a Land Rover magazine. I filled in details
> of the modifications that I had undertaken in the last three weeks. Really
> radical stuff like:-
>
> Soundproofing the Cab,
> Adding rear seatbelts,
> Fitting a louder horn,
> Putting the spare wheel on the bonnet, even though it has the fittings
> already,
> Finally the massive one - putting chequerplate on my front bumper.
>
>
> Well with this amount of radical modifications they decide they would have
> to cancel my insurance. Within seven days I would be uninsured.
>
> People be cautious with Firebond you do any modifications your insurance is
> invalid. I could not believe it considering that they advertise in a Land
> Rover magazine. Anyway at the moment I am trying to get back my deposit. I
> cannot say much more as I am making a complaint to their Managing Director.
>
> So I started to telephone around. Secure Direct would not insure the vehicle
> as I had put chequerplate on the bumper and they had never heard of someone
> doing that!!! They even asked why I had soundproofed it!!! Some other
> companies who advertise in Land Rover Magazines did not know what a Series 3
> was.
>
> What a breath of fresh air when I phoned up Sureterm Direct - they said
> straight away - well with a Land Rover you do modify it, people like to
> play. My modifications made no difference whatsoever and they considered
> they were minor, the only time they get worried is if I put a 5.7 litre
> Chevy engine in. So they qouted me, wait for it: £173 Fully Comprehensive,
> Class 1 Business, Green Lane use, loads of benefits and the deposit was
> less. I could have kissed them. So I am now with Sureterm Direct and not
> FIREBOND.
>
> Andrew
>
> I have been quoted happy.
>
>
 
On or around Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:40:51 +0100, John Moppett
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Always worth talking to NFU Insurance to them its a Landrover, period!
>

yeah, right. They upped the price of the newer of the 2 discos (1995, so
hardly new) by 26.5% this year, for no obvious reason. can't get any sense
out of them as to why - either it's 'cos more discos are in high-risk
situations, or else they're trying to recoup losses made elsewhere.

not much choice here, as most of the "cheapo" insurers won't touch the
school work "hire and reward" aspect, so we pay up and look big.

I get mightily ****ed off by insurance companies in general. They assess
risks, charge premiums (usually, if you look into it, they take more from
you over a period of years than they ever pay out) and make a profit, and
then when the screw up and get it wrong and have to make lots of payouts
(e.g. for floods) do they turn around and say "sorry, you don't get any
dividend this year"? do they buggery. in the first place they chase after
their underwriters for the cash[1], and then miraculously all the insurance
rates go up by way over the inflation rate.

I reckon I'm gonna start me an insurance company. Trouble is, I'm too
basically honest.

[1] if you're a "name" at Lloyds, for example, then you can be liable for
serious amounts of money if it all goes tits-up. But the shareholders don't
cough, I bet.

 
I have my Ninety with firebond. Personal use, £123.00 fully comp. They took
into account :- Non-standard air filter, Chequer plate wing tops and rear
corners,CB radio, Bull-bar, front and rear diff guards, jackable
sills,steering gaurd, polybushes, larger tyres, off-road/greenlane use.
Evrything I threw at them, they said ok!

Stew.

--

1990 LR ninety (Jasmine) with bits on!
2002 Freelander Td4 ES (wifes)

"Andrew Renshaw" <andrew.hart.i hate [email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi People,
>
> Right I am going to name and shame. Three weeks ago I got my 88 inch
Series
> 3. So I insured with Firebond, reasonable amount at £188 for third party
> fire and theft, business use. They took £67 as a deposit and sent me my
> documents. I had got them out of a Land Rover magazine. I filled in
details
> of the modifications that I had undertaken in the last three weeks. Really
> radical stuff like:-
>
> Soundproofing the Cab,
> Adding rear seatbelts,
> Fitting a louder horn,
> Putting the spare wheel on the bonnet, even though it has the fittings
> already,
> Finally the massive one - putting chequerplate on my front bumper.
>
>
> Well with this amount of radical modifications they decide they would have
> to cancel my insurance. Within seven days I would be uninsured.
>
> People be cautious with Firebond you do any modifications your insurance
is
> invalid. I could not believe it considering that they advertise in a Land
> Rover magazine. Anyway at the moment I am trying to get back my deposit. I
> cannot say much more as I am making a complaint to their Managing
Director.
>
> So I started to telephone around. Secure Direct would not insure the
vehicle
> as I had put chequerplate on the bumper and they had never heard of
someone
> doing that!!! They even asked why I had soundproofed it!!! Some other
> companies who advertise in Land Rover Magazines did not know what a Series
3
> was.
>
> What a breath of fresh air when I phoned up Sureterm Direct - they said
> straight away - well with a Land Rover you do modify it, people like to
> play. My modifications made no difference whatsoever and they considered
> they were minor, the only time they get worried is if I put a 5.7 litre
> Chevy engine in. So they qouted me, wait for it: £173 Fully Comprehensive,
> Class 1 Business, Green Lane use, loads of benefits and the deposit was
> less. I could have kissed them. So I am now with Sureterm Direct and not
> FIREBOND.
>
> Andrew
>
> I have been quoted happy.
>
>


 
Weird - why have they been so awkward with me then? Iwas polite and
corteous. I even was very friendly on the phone.

A

"90ninety" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I have my Ninety with firebond. Personal use, £123.00 fully comp. They took
> into account :- Non-standard air filter, Chequer plate wing tops and rear
> corners,CB radio, Bull-bar, front and rear diff guards, jackable
> sills,steering gaurd, polybushes, larger tyres, off-road/greenlane use.
> Evrything I threw at them, they said ok!
>
> Stew.
>
> --
>
> 1990 LR ninety (Jasmine) with bits on!
> 2002 Freelander Td4 ES (wifes)
>
> "Andrew Renshaw" <andrew.hart.i hate [email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Hi People,
>>
>> Right I am going to name and shame. Three weeks ago I got my 88 inch
> Series
>> 3. So I insured with Firebond, reasonable amount at £188 for third party
>> fire and theft, business use. They took £67 as a deposit and sent me my
>> documents. I had got them out of a Land Rover magazine. I filled in
> details
>> of the modifications that I had undertaken in the last three weeks.
>> Really
>> radical stuff like:-
>>
>> Soundproofing the Cab,
>> Adding rear seatbelts,
>> Fitting a louder horn,
>> Putting the spare wheel on the bonnet, even though it has the fittings
>> already,
>> Finally the massive one - putting chequerplate on my front bumper.
>>
>>
>> Well with this amount of radical modifications they decide they would
>> have
>> to cancel my insurance. Within seven days I would be uninsured.
>>
>> People be cautious with Firebond you do any modifications your insurance
> is
>> invalid. I could not believe it considering that they advertise in a Land
>> Rover magazine. Anyway at the moment I am trying to get back my deposit.
>> I
>> cannot say much more as I am making a complaint to their Managing
> Director.
>>
>> So I started to telephone around. Secure Direct would not insure the
> vehicle
>> as I had put chequerplate on the bumper and they had never heard of
> someone
>> doing that!!! They even asked why I had soundproofed it!!! Some other
>> companies who advertise in Land Rover Magazines did not know what a
>> Series
> 3
>> was.
>>
>> What a breath of fresh air when I phoned up Sureterm Direct - they said
>> straight away - well with a Land Rover you do modify it, people like to
>> play. My modifications made no difference whatsoever and they considered
>> they were minor, the only time they get worried is if I put a 5.7 litre
>> Chevy engine in. So they qouted me, wait for it: £173 Fully
>> Comprehensive,
>> Class 1 Business, Green Lane use, loads of benefits and the deposit was
>> less. I could have kissed them. So I am now with Sureterm Direct and not
>> FIREBOND.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> I have been quoted happy.
>>
>>
>
>


 
Andrew Renshaw wrote:

> Weird - why have they been so awkward with me then? Iwas polite and
> corteous. I even was very friendly on the phone.
>

It's probably not Firebond themselves - they're a broker. It was probably
the actual insurer you were with wouldn't cover a modified car. If you'd
asked Firebond for a requote rather than maintaining the current policy
then they'd probably have come back with another company who could cover
you.

P.

--
The email address above is real.

http://www.geekstuff.tv/Landies/
 
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:57:16 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I get mightily ****ed off by insurance companies in general.

That's about all there is to say, really.



 
Andrew Renshaw wrote:

> People be cautious with Firebond you do any modifications your insurance is
> invalid. I could not believe it considering that they advertise in a Land
> Rover magazine. Anyway at the moment I am trying to get back my deposit. I
> cannot say much more as I am making a complaint to their Managing Director.

I was getting a quote off them an I reeled off all the bits on the 110,
including all the guards, the Rangie V8 in it, the sports exhaust, MT
tyres and so on. All was well until I said it had a suspension lift, at
which point the bloke basically said "Oh, right, we can't insure you
then. Bye."

Bizzare.

--
Paul Everett
repton at repton dot org
http://www.repton.org/
 
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:50:34 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:57:16 +0100, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I get mightily ****ed off by insurance companies in general.
>
>That's about all there is to say, really.
>
>

I heard a snippet on the news that the European court has decided that
it is unfair for insurance companies to give women favourable quotes
on the basis of their gender. About time too - if they decided black
people were higher risk there'd be uproar, but it's OK to act
prejudicially against young men, company directors etc that they have
no prior knowledge of.
--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
 
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:19:59 GMT, "Andrew Renshaw" <andrew.hart.i hate
[email protected]> wrote:

>What a breath of fresh air when I phoned up Sureterm Direct - they said
>straight away - well with a Land Rover you do modify it, people like to
>play. My modifications made no difference whatsoever and they considered
>they were minor, the only time they get worried is if I put a 5.7 litre
>Chevy engine in. So they qouted me, wait for it: £173 Fully Comprehensive,
>Class 1 Business, Green Lane use, loads of benefits and the deposit was
>less. I could have kissed them. So I am now with Sureterm Direct and not
>FIREBOND.

They are kind to modifications, and resonably priced, but now that you
have a policy with them prepare to be bombarded with letters and phone
calls!
They started sending me recorded delivery nagging letters telling me
to hurry up and send my forms back before i'd even recieved the cover
note.
At the end of the policy, they wouldnt stop ringing up till i told
them to bugger off and that i was never using them again! (It took 3
phone calls where i actually spoke to them, and about 5 where theyd
left messages with various family members for me)

 
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:20:18 +0100, Tom Woods <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:19:59 GMT, "Andrew Renshaw" <andrew.hart.i hate
>[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>What a breath of fresh air when I phoned up Sureterm Direct - they said
>>straight away - well with a Land Rover you do modify it, people like to
>>play. My modifications made no difference whatsoever and they considered
>>they were minor, the only time they get worried is if I put a 5.7 litre
>>Chevy engine in. So they qouted me, wait for it: £173 Fully Comprehensive,
>>Class 1 Business, Green Lane use, loads of benefits and the deposit was
>>less. I could have kissed them. So I am now with Sureterm Direct and not
>>FIREBOND.
>
>They are kind to modifications, and resonably priced, but now that you
>have a policy with them prepare to be bombarded with letters and phone
>calls!
>They started sending me recorded delivery nagging letters telling me
>to hurry up and send my forms back before i'd even recieved the cover
>note.
>At the end of the policy, they wouldnt stop ringing up till i told
>them to bugger off and that i was never using them again! (It took 3
>phone calls where i actually spoke to them, and about 5 where theyd
>left messages with various family members for me)

They also have a funny misprint in the letter telling you to hurry up
and send the photos of your vehicle. It says that you should send the
pictures 'at least 21 days after your proposal is accepted', when they
clearly mean 'not more than 21 days'.

Which reminds me - I haven't sent mine in yet and they have promised
to cancel my policy next week if I don't!
--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
 
Try contacting "Watchdog" BBC, they come up on a net search. You may get a
response. Also phone Ins. and ask for the press officer, if they put you
through tell them you are going to the press and would like their thoughts
before you do, if they will not simply tell the muppet at the end of the
phine the same. The latter seems to have quite spectacular results in some
cases, I did it with Argos and they replied and sorted out in 30 minutes
after two months of fart arsing around.
Keep a record of names when phoning with times.


 
>I heard a snippet on the news that the European court has decided that
>it is unfair for insurance companies to give women favourable quotes
>on the basis of their gender. About time too - if they decided black
>people were higher risk there'd be uproar, but it's OK to act
>prejudicially against young men, company directors etc that they have
>no prior knowledge of.

Great, so they'll up the premiums for women and leave
the rate for us blokes the same.

Nick
 
Tim Hobbs wrote:
> I heard a snippet on the news that the European court has decided that
> it is unfair for insurance companies to give women favourable quotes
> on the basis of their gender. About time too - if they decided black
> people were higher risk there'd be uproar, but it's OK to act
> prejudicially against young men, company directors etc that they have
> no prior knowledge of.
>

My insurance is high because I live in the inner city where the crowded
roads often have accidents and my vehicles are kept in the street where
there is chance of them being stolen, broken into or damaged by another
vehicle. These high premiums are clearly unfair and the insurance
company obviously has it in for people living in Hackney. Rates should
be levelled so that people like me pay no more than someone living in
the country or suburbs with their cars locked in the garage.

--
Keith (London, UK)
Land Rover Discovery 300TDI
Triumph Sprint Executive
Piaggio X9

 
Tim Hobbs wrote:
>
> I heard a snippet on the news that the European court has decided that
> it is unfair for insurance companies to give women favourable quotes
> on the basis of their gender. About time too - if they decided black
> people were higher risk there'd be uproar, but it's OK to act
> prejudicially against young men, company directors etc that they have
> no prior knowledge of.

I'm OK with this, in principle. Insurance is, after all, a business, and it
is fair enough that they base preimums on the likelihood of having to pay
out. If you were guaranteeing to cover someone's liabilities up to a couple
of million, wouldn't you want to discriminate between a 20-year-old male in
a BMW and a 50-year-old woman in a Fiesta? Taken to its logical extreme,
removing discrimination like this is absurd. You couldn't vary charges
according to whether a car was garaged or not, as that would discriminate
against poorer people who had to park on the street. Or against people with
drink-driving convictions because they had an "illness". Or against people
with a bad accident record because they might be just unlucky. It would
also remove a deterrent (to those of us who choose to insure our vehicles,
at least) - if you knew your premiums would stay the same no matter how bad
your driving was, where is the incentive to improve?

I take your point, though. If you are a middle-class, middle-aged,
employed, heterosexual male who pays his taxes and plays by the rules, you
are fair game for any amount of discrimination these days, sadly.

--

Rich

Series 2a
RR 4.6
V8 trialler
dog, wife, kids, whatever


 
You probably got diverted to the call centre in India or wherever.

In message <[email protected]>, Andrew Renshaw
<[email protected]> writes
>Weird - why have they been so awkward with me then? Iwas polite and
>corteous. I even was very friendly on the phone.
>
>A
>
>"90ninety" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>I have my Ninety with firebond. Personal use, £123.00 fully comp. They took
>> into account :- Non-standard air filter, Chequer plate wing tops and rear
>> corners,CB radio, Bull-bar, front and rear diff guards, jackable
>> sills,steering gaurd, polybushes, larger tyres, off-road/greenlane use.
>> Evrything I threw at them, they said ok!
>>
>> Stew.
>>
>> --
>>
>> 1990 LR ninety (Jasmine) with bits on!
>> 2002 Freelander Td4 ES (wifes)
>>
>> "Andrew Renshaw" <andrew.hart.i hate [email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Hi People,
>>>
>>> Right I am going to name and shame. Three weeks ago I got my 88 inch
>> Series
>>> 3. So I insured with Firebond, reasonable amount at £188 for third party
>>> fire and theft, business use. They took £67 as a deposit and sent me my
>>> documents. I had got them out of a Land Rover magazine. I filled in
>> details
>>> of the modifications that I had undertaken in the last three weeks.
>>> Really
>>> radical stuff like:-
>>>
>>> Soundproofing the Cab,
>>> Adding rear seatbelts,
>>> Fitting a louder horn,
>>> Putting the spare wheel on the bonnet, even though it has the fittings
>>> already,
>>> Finally the massive one - putting chequerplate on my front bumper.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well with this amount of radical modifications they decide they would
>>> have
>>> to cancel my insurance. Within seven days I would be uninsured.
>>>
>>> People be cautious with Firebond you do any modifications your insurance
>> is
>>> invalid. I could not believe it considering that they advertise in a Land
>>> Rover magazine. Anyway at the moment I am trying to get back my deposit.
>>> I
>>> cannot say much more as I am making a complaint to their Managing
>> Director.
>>>
>>> So I started to telephone around. Secure Direct would not insure the
>> vehicle
>>> as I had put chequerplate on the bumper and they had never heard of
>> someone
>>> doing that!!! They even asked why I had soundproofed it!!! Some other
>>> companies who advertise in Land Rover Magazines did not know what a
>>> Series
>> 3
>>> was.
>>>
>>> What a breath of fresh air when I phoned up Sureterm Direct - they said
>>> straight away - well with a Land Rover you do modify it, people like to
>>> play. My modifications made no difference whatsoever and they considered
>>> they were minor, the only time they get worried is if I put a 5.7 litre
>>> Chevy engine in. So they qouted me, wait for it: £173 Fully
>>> Comprehensive,
>>> Class 1 Business, Green Lane use, loads of benefits and the deposit was
>>> less. I could have kissed them. So I am now with Sureterm Direct and not
>>> FIREBOND.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> I have been quoted happy.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
Andrew Renshaw wrote:

> Hi People,
>
> Right I am going to name and shame. Three weeks ago I got my 88 inch
> Series 3. So I insured with Firebond, reasonable amount at #188 for
> third party fire and theft, business use. They took #67 as a deposit
> and sent me my documents. I had got them out of a Land Rover
> magazine. I filled in details of the modifications that I had
> undertaken in the last three weeks. Really radical stuff like:-
>
> Soundproofing the Cab,
> Adding rear seatbelts,
> Fitting a louder horn,
> Putting the spare wheel on the bonnet, even though it has the
> fittings already,
> Finally the massive one - putting chequerplate on my front bumper.
>


Can I just give a plug to Carloe Nash brokers? I have my bike with
them and rang up everyone for the Series III. I have no no-claims on
it as it's a second car and my NCB is used on the Rangey.

They have got me cover, fully comp plus legal and breakdown, for SDP
and commuting, green lane and off-road use for ?111. Not too bad a I
reckon.
 
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:47:24 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, Tim Hobbs
><[email protected]> writes
>>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:50:34 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:57:16 +0100, Austin Shackles
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I get mightily ****ed off by insurance companies in general.
>>>
>>>That's about all there is to say, really.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I heard a snippet on the news that the European court has decided that
>>it is unfair for insurance companies to give women favourable quotes
>>on the basis of their gender. About time too - if they decided black
>>people were higher risk there'd be uproar, but it's OK to act
>>prejudicially against young men, company directors etc that they have
>>no prior knowledge of.
>It isn't prejudice it is detailed statistical analysis by actuaries [1].
>Women are less likely to have an accident, young men under 25 are more
>likely to do so.
>[1] Actuaries - people who find accountancy too exciting.

It is prejudicial. Without any knowledge of my driving skills, my
personality, the type of driving I do or any other important factor
they pre-judge that I am a high risk because lots of other company
directors have accidents. That is, by definition, prejudicial. If I
resign my directorship tomorrow I will be no more or less likely to
have an accident, I will simply belong to a different statistical
grouping and my insurance will be cheaper.

Likewise, the young lady who drove me through a 30 limit at 65mph this
afternoon, over a blind hill and bend in front of a factory gate pays
less to insure her Golf VR6 than I do for my family Volvo estate.
Because she belongs to a different statistical group, not based on any
knowledge of that individual and the risk they present.

Hypothetically, if the actuaries were to find that black men had more
accidents than white men and loaded premiums accordingly (or refused
to quote to black men), do you think it would be accepted? What would
be the difference?

--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
 
While i was searching for insurance for my RRC, I telephoned, as a laugh,
the female only insurance company for a quote, Diamond i think they are
called (or was it 'the pink triangle'???), and they flatly refused to quote
me, I complained it was sexual prejudice, the answer was they could refuse
to quote anyone !!!!!!

If I look at the previous posting I have to agree totally with the
unfairness of categorisation:

Up until a few years ago I was a company director and it is true the
premiums were loaded, however the insurance company at that time did not
take into account any of the following facts:

Driving for 25 years
Not 1 single accident that was my fault (never a claim against me)
HGV Class 1 held for 20 years
IAM

On one quote at that time I changed my job title and the premiums dropped by
about 30%.

Even now, conversely, insurance companies seem to ignore the 'safest'
drivers' job titles, i am now a driving instructor (surely one of the safest
drivers to insure) which is basically ignored by all but a few companies
!!!!

Given my history, current job.....and in a RR, am i safer to insure than a
blonde bimbo in a mini?????

The statistics can be manipulated in many ways but the facts are that there
are fewer female drivers than men and female drivers travel substantially
less miles, per head, than male drivers, so on the face of it, yes, women
have fewer accidents, but, if you do the calculation to include miles driven
etc, the result is different. I do agree, however, with the fact that new
drivers between 19 and 25 do have more accidents.

AlunP

 
On or around Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:19:00 +0100, Tim Hobbs
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>It is prejudicial. Without any knowledge of my driving skills, my
>personality, the type of driving I do or any other important factor
>they pre-judge that I am a high risk because lots of other company
>directors have accidents. That is, by definition, prejudicial. If I
>resign my directorship tomorrow I will be no more or less likely to
>have an accident, I will simply belong to a different statistical
>grouping and my insurance will be cheaper.
>
>Likewise, the young lady who drove me through a 30 limit at 65mph this
>afternoon, over a blind hill and bend in front of a factory gate pays
>less to insure her Golf VR6 than I do for my family Volvo estate.
>Because she belongs to a different statistical group, not based on any
>knowledge of that individual and the risk they present.
>
>Hypothetically, if the actuaries were to find that black men had more
>accidents than white men and loaded premiums accordingly (or refused
>to quote to black men), do you think it would be accepted? What would
>be the difference?

now that'd be a good 'un. Black men driving BMWs... imagine the outcry
about racism... prolly find their insurance is cheaper...

I found this once. If I were married, my insurance would've been some large
percentage cheaper. Annoyed me at the time and much like your company
director thing, I imagine.

If I were married and had 3 screaming brats in the back seat and a nagging
wife in the front, I'd be *more* likely to have accidents as a result of
being distracted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr.Hames
2012 LR4 SDV6 Cross over pipe replacement
Replies
4
Views
763
freelance
freelance
JohnM70
L322 Window Tints
Replies
17
Views
1K
pwood999
pwood999
MJI
Insurance companies scared of chassis changes
Replies
8
Views
3K
Anaconda
A
M
Binnacle repair companies
Replies
3
Views
424
norseman
norseman
J
Driving 1700 miles Altrincham to Estepona Spain in 90 2015
Replies
13
Views
1K
lightning
lightning
Back
Top