The Lemon Fool

bungeejumper wrote:

Lootman wrote:I had not thought about it historically either. Although my wife and I have always had 2 cars in 2 separate names and 2 separate insurance policies. So that if one of us got dinged with higher rates because of an accident or traffic offence, the other would not suffer.

That'll work just as long as neither of you is a named driver on the other's policy. As I found out about ten years ago, when my wife was peripherally involved in a multi-shunt caused entirely by an L-driver about five cars away from her.

My wife and her car were undamaged, and so were the cars immediately around her. Nobody for a single moment suggested that she was responsible for anything, and she didn't receive any communications at all about the matter. Ever!

But, about three months later, my car's insurer wrote me a furious letter, accusing me of concealing the fact that she had been involved in an accident in her own car. And cancelling MY NCB until such time as "her" accident claim had been resolved. (Sure enough, it was in the hands of somebody's battling solicitors......)

Believe it, word gets around pretty fast on the insurance claims database. And my own insurer had figured that this fault-free driver (my wife) was also a named driver on my own car's policy - and that that fact alone was sufficient reason to accuse me of concealing her "involvement in an accident claim". I can tell you, I drove pretty carefully for the next nine months, which was how long it took for the shambles to be resolved.

[Edit]: Meanwhile, my wife never received any warnings about any danger to her NCB. Or any formal notification that the case had been resolved. Or anything at all, in fact.I nstead, I had become the punchbag.

BJ

bungeejumper wrote:

Lootman wrote:I had not thought about it historically either. Although my wife and I have always had 2 cars in 2 separate names and 2 separate insurance policies. So that if one of us got dinged with higher rates because of an accident or traffic offence, the other would not suffer.

That'll work just as long as neither of you is a named driver on the other's policy. As I found out about ten years ago, when my wife was peripherally involved in a multi-shunt caused entirely by an L-driver about five cars away from her.

My wife and her car were undamaged, and so were the cars immediately around her. Nobody for a single moment suggested that she was responsible for anything, and she didn't receive any communications at all about the matter. Ever!

But, about three months later, my car's insurer wrote me a furious letter, accusing me of concealing the fact that she had been involved in an accident in her own car. And cancelling MY NCB until such time as "her" accident claim had been resolved. (Sure enough, it was in the hands of somebody's battling solicitors......)

Believe it, word gets around pretty fast on the insurance claims database. And my own insurer had figured that this fault-free driver (my wife) was also a named driver on my own car's policy - and that that fact alone was sufficient reason to accuse me of concealing her "involvement in an accident claim". I can tell you, I drove pretty carefully for the next nine months, which was how long it took for the shambles to be resolved.

[Edit]: Meanwhile, my wife never received any warnings about any danger to her NCB. Or any formal notification that the case had been resolved. Or anything at all, in fact.I nstead, I had become the punchbag.

BJ

Arborbridge wrote:The classic one is being scraped in a car park. Not your fault, but the loading (if it occurs at renewal) has some logic: your risk profile has, they would argue, risen.

servodude wrote:...It's only idiomatically that lightning never strikes twice

there's plenty of effort put in to make sure you can be pretty certain of where it's going to strike and to make it do so

bungeejumper wrote:

servodude wrote:...It's only idiomatically that lightning never strikes twice

there's plenty of effort put in to make sure you can be pretty certain of where it's going to strike and to make it do so

Awkward, I know, but there's plenty of solid actuarial evidence that, if your name's Troy or Kaz or Duwayne, you're likely to have more accidents than other people. Car insurers used to get a lot of flak for loading premiums according to such unspoken socio-economic indicators. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5896561 , for example.) I imagine they still do?

Apologies for wandering off-topic. This thread, of course, is primarily about NCBs, not premiums.

BJ

servodude wrote:Really tricky to pull apart the correlation and causes with this kind of stuff - and I imagine there's a big dose of Simpsons Paradox (especially if you don't adjust for geography effectively)

bungeejumper wrote:

servodude wrote:Really tricky to pull apart the correlation and causes with this kind of stuff - and I imagine there's a big dose of Simpsons Paradox (especially if you don't adjust for geography effectively)

Thanks, I had to look that one up. It was worth it.

BJ

Lootman wrote:I didn't bother with a claim either, and never reported the accident.

chas49 wrote:

Lootman wrote:I didn't bother with a claim either, and never reported the accident.

And how did you answer the question on your next renewal which said (something like) "Have you been involved in any accident (whether or not you were at fault) in the last 5 years"?