Fully Comp -vs- 3rd Party Fire & Theft

[Naths vRS]

Ok just a quick question as I'm slight baffled.

 

I got a quote on a D reg MKii Cav, this afternoon.  obviously 1 quote - Comprehensive and the other 3rd Party Fire & Theft. both in locked garage etc, the only details I changed were the cover of Insurance.

 

Comprehensive: £296/year

 

3rd Party F&T: £443/year 

 

And that's without adding my Fab VRS on to it too?

[Huskoda]

I regularly see that fully comp comes up cheaper. I haven't (nor has anyone I know) bothered with anything less for a long time.

[ChrisKnottIns]

What's the question?

[Naths vRS]

@Huskoda - Yeah I was thinking about fire & theft as it's only an 'old' daily so thought I'd get away with it but I guess not.

 

@ChrisKnottIns - Why is 3rd Party Fire & Theft more expensive than Comprehensive on an "old" car?

 

 

*NB: I did get the quote on a "supermakert site" rather than one particular site. 

[Ootohere]

Well know for decades now.

 

3rd Party Fire and Theft covered drivers can sometimes not care less, their vehicle has no real value to them.

 

So bigger claims from Other Road Users and 3rd Parties that suffer from recklessness.

 

A Generalization, but relevant to high price of 3rd Party Fire and Theft Cover.

The figures must show something like that, not just an Urban Myth.

[ChrisKnottIns]

^ ^ what he said ^ ^

[Naths vRS]

Well that's screwed me up then. . 

 

I'll have to ring my insurance up and see how much difference it's going to be adding a second car. :think:

 

Thanks for now.

[ChrisKnottIns]

Give us a call if you need any help.

[Naths vRS]

Thanks CKI.

[Oldfellah]

Naths vRS

I find the biggest cost issue insuring a second car is having (or not) a separate NCD history. Many companies will start cover on a second car without giving any NCD, so if you have had a second car at any time before don't forget to say so. Also, some companies are better at giving multi-car discounts: Admiral is well known, but LV/Frizzell is another and there are probably more. There can also be introductory discounts for second cars to make that first year more palatable. Could be worth trying the various brokers as well (e.g. Adrian Flux).

[SkyInsurance]

We charge less for the lesser level of cover. 

[Guest]

Well know for decades now.

 

3rd Party Fire and Theft covered drivers can sometimes not care less, their vehicle has no real value to them.

 

So bigger claims from Other Road Users and 3rd Parties that suffer from recklessness.

 

A Generalization, but relevant to high price of 3rd Party Fire and Theft Cover.

The figures must show something like that, not just an Urban Myth.

 

The first part makes no sense to me! Reckless drivers will be reckless even if fully comp'd. 

 

What makes more sense is the idea that sets of accidents involving fully comp'd cars will, for a large enough sample size, cost two insurers the same. The moment a fully comp'd person hits a 3rd party car, it becomes a ball ache for the insurers as their potential payouts are not the same - unless it's always the 3rd party's fault, the fully comp guys insurance will be doing all the work (covering two cars). So its in the insurance companies' collective interest to get as many road users fully comp as possible, saving them hassle of having to haggle so hard over liability for every single claim. 

 

Conspiracy theory alert!

 

I even reckon some insurance companies have arrangements with others, along the lines of "we'll pay for our own clients' cars unless someone admits liability". I know someone who made a claim for damage someone else did to their car, but even though the other person's insurance was supposedly paying for it his insurance premium went up...

 

[/conspiracy theory]

 

I was quoted £2k for 3rd party, more than three times my fully comp cost. That is the insurers pushing fully comp policies, not penalising 3rd party drivers for being reckless. I wonder if sky would be cheaper for 3rd party than my fully comp cover come renewal...

Edited 9 January, 2014 by Guest

[Ootohere]

Hardly matters if it makes sense or is actually the fact.

 

Because as we know, or many know, 3rd party Quotes often make no rhyme or reason, and lots of us may have had TPF&T ot just 3rd Party Quotes higher than Fully Comp.

 

& yes there are actually people that go for 3rd party fire and theft so that a car can be on the road, cover is provided and they do treat the car 

recklessly, i did not mean 'Reckless Driving', i ment the likes of mates driving and the likes.

Careless, reckless and could not give a monkeys.

 

Many nutters out and about, well in my world. Just get a car Insured before your Case comes up types.

So what some nutters used to do can effect all of us.

 

..............................................................................

I had a very recent accident, covered fully comp, 

other Driver had no ID, did not know his name, or who he was working for, driving a car with no Tax Disc displayed from an Auction into Long/Short Term Parking until collected.

His supervisor needed to get the Details sent to them by Text.

Working for the Biggest Delivery and car Preparation Company in the UK supposedly.

I was right on to check the car was Insured, it was a Lease Car in the process of being sold, a 12 Plate.

 

My car is Fixed, i paid the full Excess, my Company was great.

They are not Interested in getting it to 50/50 or listening to me,

The other Vehicles Owners have not submitted a Claim or a Report or any Statements.

(i suspect me and them are covered by the Same Underwriters.)

 

So yes the Insurance Companies/Underwriters like the Simple cases, settle their Clients case.

 

george

[Guest]

Well if something is clearly nonsense then it's not 'fact'. Original question was:

 

"Why is 3rd Party Fire & Theft more expensive than Comprehensive on an "old" car?"

 

The response:

 

"3rd Party Fire and Theft covered drivers can sometimes not care less, their vehicle has no real value to them",

 

makes no sense as an answer to the original question.

 

People don't buy 3rd party cover because they don't care about their own vehicle and just want the minimum level of insurance - they buy it because it is (or rather, should be) the cheapest way to insure a vehicle! The reason (fact) that some insurance companies charge more for the lesser level of cover is purely to discourage people from getting anything less than fully comp insurance. So the original question becomes:

 

"Why would insurance companies want to discourage people from buying the lower levels of cover for their vehicles?"

 

 

If 3rd party insurance was cheaper than fully comp (as it should be in a free market - pay less for less), then I agree that a 'typical' driver who buys the more expensive fully comp cover is likely to take more pride (and hence be more careful) than someone who would be happy with the lower priced third party cover. But the actual pricing of 3rd party higher than fully comp should not be confused with (for example) how the insurers calculate their premiums, where higher risk groups get charged more.  Applying the same rational to 3rd vs fully comp is incorrect (i.e. 3rd party typically higher risk so warrant higher premiums), because individuals have a choice here - the people who would choose 3rd party over fully comp if it was cheaper, can just choose the cheaper, fully comp option now. 

 

Still don't get it? Then ask yourself: why would Damo, a 'typical 3rd party insured driver', pay more than the minimum cost to insure his vehicle?

 

Answer - he wouldn't. He would just buy the cheapest cover he could get, which in this day and age is fully comp cover. So with that myth cleared, we just have to ponder why insurers want people to be fully comp. 

 

To me, it seems a no-brainer that they would try to sell the policies that are cheaper for them to deal with. If sk4gw was insured 3rd party in the accident he described, his insurance wouldn't have had to cough up for fixing his car, so on the face of it the fully comp policy is costing them money. But if he wasn't fully comp, sk4gw may have been more intent on getting his insurance company to get the other driver's insurance to fix his car, which presumably costs them more money in people hours chasing up claims than it does for his insurer to just pay for his car to be fixed before whacking up his premium come renewal time.

 

 

I personally despise insurance companies. Our legal system works on the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', and there would be outrage if people were sentenced after various profiling found them to be 'from a higher risk category of committing a crime', yet my premium as a teenager was sky high because of all my ****ish peers have accidents. Insurance cost should reflect your record, not your risk, IMO. 

 

[/rant]

 

Sorry :S

Edited 10 January, 2014 by Guest

[Mr Ree]

We charge less for the lesser level of cover. 

So there you go then.

 

Pick the bones out of that.

 

Any wonder exasperation levels with your industry are running so high? 

Absolute horrendous bloody minefield for us mere worn out over fleeced sheeples

Edited 10 January, 2014 by Mr Ree

[Girardi]

Conspiracy theory alert!

 

I even reckon some insurance companies have arrangements with others, along the lines of "we'll pay for our own clients' cars unless someone admits liability". I know someone who made a claim for damage someone else did to their car, but even though the other person's insurance was supposedly paying for it his insurance premium went up...

 

[/conspiracy theory]

Most people who make a claim of any kind - whether at fault or not - will find their premium rises at renewal.

Insurance isn't some big conspiracy, it's based on statistics. The fact is that if you make a claim because someone else has damaged your car, whether or not it's your fault and whoever pays out you're still 100% more likely to make a claim than someone with no claims to their name at all. At renewal, you're a higher risk and therefore your premium is loaded accordingly. To quote everyone's favourite meerkat "simples".

[Huskoda]

Most people who make a claim of any kind - whether at fault or not - will find their premium rises at renewal.

Insurance isn't some big conspiracy, it's based on statistics. The fact is that if you make a claim because someone else has damaged your car, whether or not it's your fault and whoever pays out you're still 100% more likely to make a claim than someone with no claims to their name at all. At renewal, you're a higher risk and therefore your premium is loaded accordingly. To quote everyone's favourite meerkat "simples".

 

Someone is a bigger risk because they were hit from behind while they were sat stationary at a red light?

[BJM]

Are you talking about premiums rising because of

 

1. Loading of premium ?

 

or

 

2. Loss of (usually 2 years) No Claims Bonus? 

[Girardi]

Someone is a bigger risk because they were hit from behind while they were sat stationary at a red light?

 

Compared to someone who's never been hit at all, then statistically yes. I'm not saying it carries the same weighting as what would apply to the person that hit them whilst stationary at a red light (clearly the much higher risk), but it will still have more of an impact on the renewal premium than another claim free year would - protected NCB or not.