If you try to claim "too much" from your car insurance, your policy can be cancelled

[WalkWithMe]

Short term insurance companies share information via South African Insurance Association Club
Long term insurance companies share information via Life Offices' Association (LOA Club)

Insurance companies tell you the data sharing it's to combat fraud and for your own good.... really?

Q1. Is insurance companies sharing information against the competition act?

Q2. Is insurance companies sharing information a violation of the POPI act?

1. No. They sharing with insurance bureau like a credit type bureau
2. No. T hey not sharing personal information but finicial data

 

[stefan9]

You can use it when you need it. But decades of research and stats show that if you need it constantly, and all the time - you're probably up to no good....

It should be upto the insurance company to prove those are invalid claims...Not canceling the contract cause they reckon you are claiming too often...

 

[boboudts]

If one is causing outsurance to lose money, which basically means, put your premiums into a savings account and insure yourself, all risks are yours to bear anyways.

Wait until you rear-end a cadres Roller or Ferrari and land up being sued for millions!

 

[Johand]

Four claims in 5 months? That seems excessive, but I guess it can happen. However the red lights went off when I read "adding that in three of the four claims she was not in the car when the damage occurred".

If she is the policy holder and regular driver for that vehicle then 3 claims where you are not in the car does seem fishy.

I won't judge outsurance too much... There seem to be more behind this story...

Years back I knew somebody that got insurance through her parents because her own claims history was terrible. Misleading insurers happens a lot...

 

[Swa]

Insurance companies are like casinos. As long as you keep losing they don't care but just as soon as you win too much they flag you and will throw you out. The scammers also keep putting the premiums up every year but when you want to claim the vehicle is supposedly older and worth less.

Not necessarily up to no good, but just a statistical probability.
If you look at the bell curve, you’ll have average claims in the middle, Extreme claims on the one end and people who never claim on the other hand

Yup they try to artificially adjust it so they only have the people who don't claim on the one end.

 

[Iwojima]

I was almost on the receiving end of this at the end of 2020.

I claimed 3 times during the year on my 2 vehicles. Note that all of these accidents were, indisputably, 3rd party at fault. My last claim prior to these 3 was a minor one in early 2017 (also 3rd party fault).

My broker contacted me in Dec to tell me that the insurer would be implementing an additional "special excess" of R2000 for future claims on my policy. 2 weeks later they then sent me my new renewal policy doc for 2021 which for both vehicles also saw a +/- 15% increase in premiums.

When I contacted my broker to dispute this they indicated this was an "effort" by the insurer to not cancel my policy as my claims total had exceeded premiums paid for a 3 year period. They were initially completely unprepared to look at the total 15 years I'd been a client with a great track record as far as claims go.

I did however manage to appeal via my broker to consider the above and the nature of the claims to get them to reverse the "special excess" decision. They did however retain the increased premiums.

TLDR: Apparently only your last 3 years matter so if you have a run of sh*t luck be prepared to fight like I did.

 

[Swa]

Four claims in 5 months? That seems excessive, but I guess it can happen. However the red lights went off when I read "adding that in three of the four claims she was not in the car when the damage occurred".

If she is the policy holder and regular driver for that vehicle then 3 claims where you are not in the car does seem fishy.

I won't judge outsurance too much... There seem to be more behind this story...

Years back I knew somebody that got insurance through her parents because her own claims history was terrible. Misleading insurers happens a lot...

Not being in the car seems to enforce her case. It also doesn't take into account she was claim free for 4 years. Plenty of people have a good record and then a run of bad luck but insurers don't look back that far. People generally also don't claim for small issues when it's near their claim free bonus year so claim statistics are skewed. Insurers will do anything not to pay more than what they make because that's the nature of their business but it also negates the purpose of insurance.

 

[Lupus]

I was almost on the receiving end of this at the end of 2020.

I claimed 3 times during the year on my 2 vehicles. Note that all of these accidents were, indisputably, 3rd party at fault. My last claim prior to these 3 was a minor one in early 2017 (also 3rd party fault).

My broker contacted me in Dec to tell me that the insurer would be implementing an additional "special excess" of R2000 for future claims on my policy. 2 weeks later they then sent me my new renewal policy doc for 2021 which for both vehicles also saw a +/- 15% increase in premiums.

When I contacted my broker to dispute this they indicated this was an "effort" by the insurer to not cancel my policy as my claims total had exceeded premiums paid for a 3 year period. They were initially completely unprepared to look at the total 15 years I'd been a client with a great track record as far as claims go.

I did however manage to appeal via my broker to consider the above and the nature of the claims to get them to reverse the "special excess" decision. They did however retain the increased premiums.

TLDR: Apparently only your last 3 years matter so if you have a run of sh*t luck be prepared to fight like I did.

Yeah they don't really look at the last year's, just the last 3. I had a claim on my Cruz in 2018, 3 claims on my house, 2 weather related and one stupid garden insurance broke my sliding door glass. Outsurance was like yeah listen premiums are going up on the home owners, my cars insurance is like hmmm you've been tagged as a high claimant your excess is going up. Like but one is home owners the other is car.

 

[diapason]

The scammers also keep putting the premiums up every year but when you want to claim the vehicle is supposedly older and worth less.

It seems that the majority of claims are for repairing damage. Costs of parts and labour increase constantly even though the car is depreciating.

 

[Iwojima]

Yeah they don't really look at the last year's, just the last 3. I had a claim on my Cruz in 2018, 3 claims on my house, 2 weather related and one stupid garden insurance broke my sliding door glass. Outsurance was like yeah listen premiums are going up on the home owners, my cars insurance is like hmmm you've been tagged as a high claimant your excess is going up. Like but one is home owners the other is car.

I think what's clear is flagging is automated and done at a customer policy level, i.e. a number of variables feeding into the equation with the result spat out for action by the insurer/broker.

No effort is being made by insurers to consider the finer points (e.g. extended history, nature of claims, etc) and brokers have become glorified post boxes for insurers to communicate with insured rather than to look after the insured's interests.

 

[Lupus]

I think what's clear is flagging is automated and done at a customer policy level, i.e. a number of variables feeding into the equation with the result spat out for action by the insurer/broker.

No effort is being made by insurers to consider the finer points (e.g. extended history, nature of claims, etc) and brokers have become glorified post boxes for insurers to communicate with insured rather than to look after the insured's interests.

Nope doesn't look like it, but they don't care either to be honest.

 

[Swa]

It seems that the majority of claims are for repairing damage. Costs of parts and labour increase constantly even though the car is depreciating.

Yeah but it's a balance. Insurers will never pay out more than what a car is worth, why they so easily write it off. A lot of cars also get stolen. If you do an assessment at another insurer your premiums decrease year on year yet their own assessments they keep on insisting that your premiums should go up.

 

[Johand]

Not being in the car seems to enforce her case. It also doesn't take into account she was claim free for 4 years. Plenty of people have a good record and then a run of bad luck but insurers don't look back that far. People generally also don't claim for small issues when it's near their claim free bonus year so claim statistics are skewed. Insurers will do anything not to pay more than what they make because that's the nature of their business but it also negates the purpose of insurance.

How can not being in the car reinforce her case? If I read that it sounds like this woman is not in full control of her car the whole time. There is a reason insurers ask who the regular driver is because the drivers cause accidents. If you let a reckless friend drive your car 90% of the time the risk goes up regardless of who the policy holder is.

But it is a common problem - tradegy of commons - "I don't have to be careful because insurance cover it.". And it is not really *that* bad for insurers in the long term because they keep their margin constant - everybody 's permium goes up. Insurers are actually protecting us from neglegent people, not just itself.

There are many people that behave recklessly because they have gotten the rest of us to pay for their behaviour. Blaming things on insurance companies is just a handy way to deflect. In reality insurers are just facilitators to enable people to share risk. And I don't want to subsidize people who can't exercise the appropriate control over their insured assets. Sure claims hit the insurers bottom line, but not as much as you think because short term insurance is very competitive - underwriting margins are really really thin, and premiums react relatively quickly to claims experience (just open any financial report from your favorite short term insurer).

 

[Swa]

How can not being in the car reinforce her case? If I read that it sounds like this woman is not in full control of her car the whole time. There is a reason insurers ask who the regular driver is because the drivers cause accidents. If you let a reckless friend drive your car 90% of the time the risk goes up regardless of who the policy holder is.

But it is a common problem - tradegy of commons - "I don't have to be careful because insurance cover it.". And it is not really *that* bad for insurers in the long term because they keep their margin constant - everybody 's permium goes up. Insurers are actually protecting us from neglegent people, not just itself.

There are many people that behave recklessly because they have gotten the rest of us to pay for their behaviour. Blaming things on insurance companies is just a handy way to deflect. In reality insurers are just facilitators to enable people to share risk. And I don't want to subsidize people who can't exercise the appropriate control over their insured assets. Sure claims hit the insurers bottom line, but not as much as you think because short term insurance is very competitive - underwriting margins are really really thin, and premiums react relatively quickly to claims experience (just open any financial report from your favorite short term insurer).

If she wasn't in the car she obviously couldn't have caused the damage. Are you in full control of your car all the time or do you also leave it unattended at times?

There are two types of policies. One is an open plan where it is assumed as part of the risk profile that apart from being legal the driver is unknown. That can't be part of your argument as it's already accounted for and people pay for it.

Insurance is supposed to be about shared risk but insurers try to put business first. Yeah there are risk profiles like how long a person has been legally driving and how old they are but being caught by a statistical anomaly is not part of that and you should not be penalised for that. Your premium is supposed to subsidise that as part of the nature of insurance. If you don't like that then insurance isn't for you.

 

[Swa]

Frane Selak (born June 14, 1929)[1] is a Croatian man who is known for his luck and is often addressed as the world's most unlucky luckiest man.

Selak's near death experiences began in January 1962 when he was riding a train through a cold, rainy canyon and the train flew off the tracks and crashed in a river. An unknown person pulled Selak to safety, while 17 other passengers drowned.[2] Selak suffered a broken arm and hypothermia.[3] The next year, during his first and only plane ride, he was blown out of a malfunctioning plane door and landed in a haystack; the plane crashed, killing 19 people.[3][4][5][6] Three years after that, in 1966, a bus that he was riding in skidded off the road and into a river, drowning four passengers. Selak swam to shore with a few cuts and bruises.[3]

In 1970, his car caught fire as he was driving and he managed to escape before the fuel tank blew up. Three years later, in another driving incident, the engine of his car was doused with hot oil from a malfunctioning fuel pump, causing flames to shoot through the air vents. Selak's hair was completely singed in this incident, but he was otherwise unharmed. In 1995, he was struck by a bus in Zagreb, but sustained only minor injuries. In 1996 he eluded a head-on collision with a United Nations truck on a mountain curve by swerving into a guardrail, which gave way under the force two days after his 73rd birthday,[2] Selak won €900000 (US$1,110,000) (£702,920) in the lottery.[3][1] At the time of his win, he also married for the fifth time.[3] While he purchased two houses and a boat with his winnings,[2] in 2010 being generous he decided to give most of the remaining money away to relatives and friends after deciding to live a frugal lifestyle.[3]


So is this guy really suffering from some curse like some people believe and should be penalised for it or is he simply a statistical anomaly out of 6 billion people getting caught in events he could not possibly predict or have any control over?

 

[Kawak]

Wait until you rear-end a cadres Roller or Ferrari and land up being sued for millions!

Cadre? Damn! I feel absolutely, perfectly fine to be poor and use the RAF on them, f their Lambo. I will actually "have" an epileptic attack and rear end them a few more times

 

[BadBoyGP]

Cadre? Damn! I feel absolutely, perfectly fine to be poor and use the RAF on them, f their Lambo. I will actually "have" an epileptic attack and rear end them a few more times

The supercar insurance will sue you, they will take you for whatever you have.

The saving, the salvage,everything.

And for the rest of your life.

 

[Moto Guzzi]

If you try to claim "too much" from your car insurance, your policy can be cancelled

If you file too many claims against your car insurance policy your insurer may fire you as a client and note the fact that they cancelled your policy in the national Insurance Data System (IDS).

So if you never or rarely claim do they pay you back out of concious, or walk away-?

 

[BadBoyGP]

So if you never or rarely claim do they pay you back out of concious, or walk away-?

Some companies do like a pay back incentive.

But the theory of insurance, they take the risk for that month/period for a fee.

The risk is the charge not the claim.

 

[My_King]

LoL - Pay the insurance company, it's the right thing to do(Or was that the SABC?), but please don't claim, you might just lose your Ou.....no claim bonus. But if you claim, dont claim too much you might just lose your policy.