But a car is not insured at a fixed value but a prevailing market or retail value. They don't need to adjust my car's particular value as that is determined by the market.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Google Maps vs Waze vs Apple Maps vs physical paper maps?
But a car is not insured at a fixed value but a prevailing market or retail value. They don't need to adjust my car's particular value as that is determined by the market.
They will always pay out at the lower of market and insured value (retail or dealer depending on insurance).
Your premium gets adjusted once a year and is determined based on insured value.
If you don't change your insured value in line with market you will pay too much.
For example:
- You bought a new car in Jan 2009 for 200k. This is what you insure it for and this is what will determine your premium for the next year.
- In Jan 2010 market value of your car is R150k. If you write off your car this is what you will get. But if you don't make sure that the car's value has been changed in the insurers books you will pay a premium based on the initial R200k even though you will still only get R150 in the case of an accident.
- Thus, you need to make sure in Jan 2010 that the car is only insured for R150k which is its value. Your premium will then be adjusted downwards.
Its a stupid process which isn't necessary for all insurers but that's how it works with many (especially budget ones).
I never knew that. Especially, since they don't even list the value of the car in your policy. Scum bags.
I never knew that. Especially, since they don't even list the value of the car in your policy. Scum bags.
Now you know
. And I saved you a lot of money. That's actually one of the reason I'd suggest going to the bigger insurers. They'll generally do this automatically and provide you with values. But even then you have to make sure its being done.It's a problem of regulation in the sector I believe. There are no laws in place governing the value for which your car should be insured.
It is a loophole that a lot of insurers milk.
Insurance companies should be forced by law to devalue and adjust your premiums on a monthly basis at the very minimum - not once per annum.
By only re-adjusting once per annum it ensures that the premiums you are paying are too high for at least 11 months of the year because your vehicle devalues continually over time.
In a way I agree. The problem is that this would require a lot of extra work on the insurer's side which would result in additional costs which in the end you as the insured person would have to bear. Also, other risk factors are also evaluated on an annual basis which would have to change at the same time. This would mean enormous costs passed on to you which would outweigh the benefits of revaluing your car on a monthly basis. Semi-annually may work, not sure
UnUnOctium
Expert Member
Good guess on the first one though not exactly true. You do again seem to be making the grave mistake of blind assumption. You think that I don't pay the people whom I cause problems for? (Just so you know, that 'R0' to others meant that the other car had no damage and didn't ask me for anything).
I'm glad you have foresight in this argument. If someone were paid a bonus depending on how much profit the company they manage made this fiscal year, they'd obviously try to maximize profits (human factor of greed). Now if everyone was forced to buy the product they sell and their 2 'competing buddies' were in the same game with the same rewards, I doubt much competition would flourish. A good example being the price fixing of bread in the recent news. A large percentage of people in this country need to buy bread and can only afford to buy bread like Sasko and Albany. Why should those companies compete when they can up their prices simultaneously.
Brawler
Honorary Master
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 13,180
- Reaction score
- 4,404
Insurance is very expensive in SA...
Currently paying over a grand for a R200k vehicle, hoping it will drop substantially when I turn 25 in a year or so. Reckon when car is paid off i'm doing the 3rd party thing, if I write it off its upgrade time.
Currently paying over a grand for a R200k vehicle, hoping it will drop substantially when I turn 25 in a year or so. Reckon when car is paid off i'm doing the 3rd party thing, if I write it off its upgrade time.
Assuming you're telling the truth (which I don't doubt) you are one of the very few wealthy people who don't have insurance and thus are one of the very few people who would pay should they cause an accident. The problem are all the people who don't have insurance and don't have any money to pay either.
Imagine someone drove into you, wrote your car off, 100% their fault but had no money or insurance. Would you be happy? Surely not, I certainly wouldn't be. If insurance (at least 3rd party) was compulsory you wouldn't have to worry about a thing. But since neither of you are insured you carry the loss.
Again, its not you that's the problem but people who don't have money to pay and don't have insurance. The solution is to make it mandatory.
You clearly have no idea of competition policy and corporate governance. No one expects you too but maybe you should research either before making such a blind statement. Price fixing in the bread industry was possibly due to the dominance of less than a handful dominant players. The insurance industry is far less concentrated (more firms) which makes price collusion near impossible. Further, the industry is highly regulated making it even more difficult.
According to your posts your doing a postgrad in engineering. You should be clever enough to read up and understand some basic economic theory on competition policy, price collusion, monopoly pricing and the like. Once you've done that you'll realise that it is only possible if the two firms use price fixing which is illegal. Otherwise both firms will produce at an optimal level for a two firm industry and not at a monopoly price level which is implied by price fixing.
JungleBoy, keep in mind...
If you claim from insurance when someone ELSE drives into you:
1) You pay an excess (R2.5k or 5% of the claim value)
2) You get paid out book value or some such, which is ALWAYS less than retail. So there will ALWAYS be costs involved for you to replace your damaged car.
3) Your insurance premiums climb because you have a claim history - thanks to c*nts who don't have insurance.
So no, all is not fine when you have insurance and someone drives into you.
Just yesterday some douche of a woman in her X5 completely skipped a 4-way stop without even attempting to slow down and almost took me out. So remember it's not always your skill that counts. It's everyone around you as well.
If you claim from insurance when someone ELSE drives into you:
1) You pay an excess (R2.5k or 5% of the claim value)
2) You get paid out book value or some such, which is ALWAYS less than retail. So there will ALWAYS be costs involved for you to replace your damaged car.
3) Your insurance premiums climb because you have a claim history - thanks to c*nts who don't have insurance.
So no, all is not fine when you have insurance and someone drives into you.
Just yesterday some douche of a woman in her X5 completely skipped a 4-way stop without even attempting to slow down and almost took me out. So remember it's not always your skill that counts. It's everyone around you as well.
We had a women smash into us not so long ago, wasn't bad but I sure as hell wasn't going to be claiming from my insurance.
Why must I now pay the price for her stupidity?
I claimed directly from her insurance. Took awhile but they settled.
Why must I now pay the price for her stupidity?
I claimed directly from her insurance. Took awhile but they settled.
TheMightyQuin
Not amused...
I went shopping year ago. Came outside in shopping centres parking lot and someone had sideswiped my Landie. No witnesses, no letter and no footage on cc cams. R22 000 damage...cost me R2500 in excess. So there are situations COMPLETELY out of your superiour control (UnUnOctium) where having insurance does save your ass.
good for you bro. keep it that way, its safer ! theres way to many people (5 women this morning alone) driving like its F1 2090!
genetic
Honorary Master
Didn't you have a Polo before?
UnUnOctium
Expert Member
Totally agreed. I do believe that the argument is about making 3rd party insurance mandatory though. So even if the culprit had all the insurance in the world, you didn't know who it is.
@Tim182: Just keep in mind how many insurance companies are underwritten by others. I really do not believe that giving them the power to force you to give them your money will do any good as our clients where I work are the biggest names. From what I've seen, I'd really hate to give them even a cent. Then there's the matter of regulation (or rather the lack of it there will be) as, let's be honest, our government isn't high up on the moral conviction and regulatory efficiency lists.
Rosaudio
First Officer
Yeah, got rid of it though. No need for a car just yet.
My argument goes for insurers as much as it goes for reinsurers.
Sorry that makes no sense without any further info or explanation
Little do you know. Sure, we have a lot of regulation and many departments are indeed very inefficient. But competition policy and regulation in this country is better than you probably think and also better than it is in some developed countries. In South Africa government works very closely with many of the world's top competition policy consultancy firms to detect issues such as price fixing and enforce regulation.
When it comes to insurance some people weigh up the risks vs cost of insurance.
I know a lot of people that don't have household insurance. Their reasoning being that it's cheaper to pay for your own losses than pay insurance premiums your whole life even if you get cleaned out completely.
Another example, one guys car was insured but his camera gear was not covered as insurance insisted on separate coverage for the camera gear, he chose not to insure as the premiums were to high on camera kit and he opted to rather take the knock if it got stolen. His car was eventually stolen with the camera gear in the boot and he was ok with it. His reasoning was that the premiums to date would have been more than the replacement costs and it was, so he saved a lot of money.
You could do the same with a car, if you know you are a lower risk, safe driver, only do 10km a day in the village etc and your car is not worth that much why pay insurance all your life when you can replace that car yourself at a way lower cost to yourself than paying monthly premiums on the premise that something might happen?
You insure yourself to cover damage to your property, it should be a choice, nothing should be forced on people, there's way to much forcing going on already. If you want to drive a very expensive car then that is also your choice and you must make provision for mishaps, if you drive a R20k second hand car then you might not need that insurance if you have your own means to fix or replace it.
Last edited:
There is a big difference. Car insurance, at least third party which is what is being suggested, protects the other person.
Household insurance protects you.
If you drive into me I want compensation. And I want it quickly, without a hassle, without having to sue you in court because you apparently have no money, and without having to get my lawyer to write you a letter. That's where third party insurance comes in.
Household insurance protects you from accidents, theft, etc. I don't care if you lose your camera or your house gets broken into. I do care if you drive into me and don't want to pay
d0b33
Honorary Master
Yeah my reasoning sort of, not everyone can afford insurance anyway.