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

[Mekon]

I wrote my car off in January and Miway paid me out. I then got a snotty email.
This paragraph here irks me:


I was going to claim a year prior when a moron rear ended me but since it was a new policy (5 days to go before it was 3 months old) I would have to pay a double excess which would have been R11k. So I went the 3rd party route and claimed directly from morons insurance. I let Miway know I would not be claiming but going the 3rd party route but they still see it as a claim.

 

[requiem]

So if everyone who is higher than the average gets kicked out they effectively lower the average claim amount.

Given enough time no one will be able to have insurance

 

[Hemi300c]

I wrote my car off in January and Miway paid me out. I then got a snotty email.
This paragraph here irks me:

View attachment 1047497
I was going to claim a year prior when a moron rear ended me but since it was a new policy (5 days to go before it was 3 months old) I would have to pay a double excess which would have been R11k. So I went the 3rd party route and claimed directly from morons insurance. I let Miway know I would not be claiming but going the 3rd party route but they still see it as a claim.

Request a full claims experience and if on query it.

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

insurance companies are a business after all, they have to ensure the amount of money coming in, is always LESS than that going out.

thats why they ask you how many claims you have done, why they base everything around how long you have been a loyal customer
and why they do such a song and dance on getting more people to buy,

Insurance is essentially made up of 2 kinds of people, Sales and Lawyers.

 

[Johand]

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.

1. On point one. Even if you are not in your car you need to be responsible for who you loan it to, where you park it etc. Insurance doesn't mean that you shouldn't act responsibly anymore.

2. You are simplify an "open" plan. There is still some responsibility there. And they haven't denied any claim -- they are just saying - "we don't think you are responsible". If you have personal cover but you loan your car to every Tom, Dick and Harry then your risk goes up. And you won't have a big problem, unless the claims experience increases - which in this case it did. They are essentially saying -- we don't think you are responsible enough for our taste -- we will cover your claims to date, but we choose not to do business with you - because frankly we do not trust you to be responsible. I certainly won't enter into any contract where I don't trust the other party -- why should they be forced to? I have some very good friends, but I know I would never lend a book to them because they are scatter brained and probably won't return the book, because they have shown in the past that they don't return books (not because they are evil people, just scatter brained). So I exercise my judgement. Why can't insurance companies exercise their judgement in deciding who to have contracts with. If they denied a claim - yes, then it would be a different story. Here they just choose NOT to contract. And it is not discrimination that is protected by the constitution. I can't walk up to you and force you into a contract.

3. Insurers can't take up open-ended risk - that would be insane. They have to charge premium based on risk profile and which they reinsure - and while the formulas is more complex it essentially boils down to Premium = Probability * Claim Amount + Overhead + Underwriting Margin. They had two choices -- increase her premium by a ridiculous amount (1000% or similar) or just notify that the contract does not work anymore.

 

[PaulMurkin]

Insurance in South Africa falls into a specific category. One should look at Douw Steyn as an example. That category is the customer is to be screwed for every cent, every possible way.
Miway is bad, however. Outsurance are by far the worst. Also note that, Outsurance will load your premium if you have a bad credit profile i.e. you were unemployed and it happens to be FNB that got a judgement against you. (FNB and Outsurance are related companies).

As far as this record of accidents go... they use that against you at every opportunity. We're still carrying the pain of an accident deemed not our fault (in fact it was proven the other party didn't have a valid license and was negligent). That one accident, for reasons unknown, is a millstone around our necks. However it doesn't matter anymore... we left SA a few months ago. (FYI the accident happened in 2011, the last quote we got in 2020 they STILL had the cheek to refer to it... ) It makes me wonder how these habitual reckless drivers (the ones who frequently wrapped their car around the lamp posts) got to be insured no problem

 

[Swa]

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.

Good luck proving it was your fault.

 

[Swa]

1. On point one. Even if you are not in your car you need to be responsible for who you loan it to, where you park it etc. Insurance doesn't mean that you shouldn't act responsibly anymore.

2. You are simplify an "open" plan. There is still some responsibility there. And they haven't denied any claim -- they are just saying - "we don't think you are responsible". If you have personal cover but you loan your car to every Tom, Dick and Harry then your risk goes up. And you won't have a big problem, unless the claims experience increases - which in this case it did. They are essentially saying -- we don't think you are responsible enough for our taste -- we will cover your claims to date, but we choose not to do business with you - because frankly we do not trust you to be responsible. I certainly won't enter into any contract where I don't trust the other party -- why should they be forced to? I have some very good friends, but I know I would never lend a book to them because they are scatter brained and probably won't return the book, because they have shown in the past that they don't return books (not because they are evil people, just scatter brained). So I exercise my judgement. Why can't insurance companies exercise their judgement in deciding who to have contracts with. If they denied a claim - yes, then it would be a different story. Here they just choose NOT to contract. And it is not discrimination that is protected by the constitution. I can't walk up to you and force you into a contract.

3. Insurers can't take up open-ended risk - that would be insane. They have to charge premium based on risk profile and which they reinsure - and while the formulas is more complex it essentially boils down to Premium = Probability * Claim Amount + Overhead + Underwriting Margin. They had two choices -- increase her premium by a ridiculous amount (1000% or similar) or just notify that the contract does not work anymore.

1. You're the one assuming negligence. You can't be responsible for your car when you leave it in a parking lot. Someone can come by with a towtruck and steal it like they did ours. Someone who doesn't know how to park can rear end it. Or it can simply fall on EFF vandalism. That's what insurance is for, to protect YOU.

2. You are making numerous assumptions here. Firstly there is nothing here to indicate it was loaned to every Tom, Dick and Harry. Insurance policies already take into account that unknown persons (from the perspective of the insurer) will drive the car. What they are in fact saying here is "we were happy to take your money for taking on this risk, but now when we have to pay we no longer think you are good for us". Sure they can legally discriminate like this. The law also allows people to run around acting like dickheads but it doesn't mean they should and it doesn't allow them to penalise others for it.

3. It's not open ended risk. A risk profile is based on demographics. Your age and number of years you've been driving are the main factors. There are also others but statistical anomalies are not part of it, or not supposed to be. Insurance is shared risk. As part of the bottom of the graph you are supposed to subsidise the top. If everyone only ever claimed what they paid it would indeed not make sense.

 

[My_King]

Most people are so gullible.
Why even have insurance if you are afraid of using them:

 

[system32]

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

You seem to know and be very sure of yourself.

What exactly is the information that's being shared?
(Have you seen what Experian leaked)

Why does a competitor have access to your current premiums?
Sounds anti-competitive to me.

When I've applied at other insurance companies, the new company seemed to know more personal information than I expected.

What's the process to get access to our information?

 

[BadBoyGP]

You seem to know and be very sure of yourself.

What exactly is the information that's being shared?
(Have you seen what Experian leaked)

Why does a competitor have access to your current premiums?
Sounds anti-competitive to me.

When I've applied at other insurance companies, the new company seemed to know more personal information than I expected.

What's the process to get access to our information?

I'm 200% sure here.

I cannot answer your other questions, coz I don't know how they have your details.

All I can say is that FSPs will attract a huge fine if they misuse your data.

I would suggest listen carefully when doing a quote, everything they do has to be disclosed.

 

[Kornhub]

OutCrap will shaft you every chance they get exactly why you avoid them like the plague.

But according to the ads on tv...

 

[WalkWithMe]

You seem to know and be very sure of yourself.

What exactly is the information that's being shared?
(Have you seen what Experian leaked)

Why does a competitor have access to your current premiums?
Sounds anti-competitive to me.

When I've applied at other insurance companies, the new company seemed to know more personal information than I expected.

What's the process to get access to our information?

Insurance companies do credit checks on clients.
There is some stuff shared with credit bureaus
Regarding what fields are shared, I can't answer that besides my NDA wouldnt allow me (but I dont see that data myself)
There is data like claims, values and denials (often related to fraud)
Some claim types like electronics or vehicles share serial numbers, VIN, IMEI. So if a cell phone is scrapped the IMEI number is shared. So if you try claim the same phone from another insurer you in for nasty surprise.
In terms of anti-competitive, they stick to the law and dont share things that are anti competitive

 

[BadBoyGP]

Insurance companies do credit checks on clients.
There is some stuff shared with credit bureaus
Regarding what fields are shared, I can't answer that besides my NDA wouldnt allow me (but I dont see that data myself)
There is data like claims, values and denials (often related to fraud)
Some claim types like electronics or vehicles share serial numbers, VIN, IMEI. So if a cell phone is scrapped the IMEI number is shared. So if you try claim the same phone from another insurer you in for nasty surprise.
In terms of anti-competitive, they stick to the law and dont share things that are anti competitive

100% correct.

Risk factors are use to determine premium.

This is such a highly regulated industry, it's not even funny.

 

[Lupus]

But according to the ads on tv...

They will save you money... Ever wonder why they show people saving money on TV? Cause those that do save money should be celebrated and shown.
It's like those DotSure ads for pets, what they don't tell you is that any operation over 10k isn't covered.