Insurance.

[Kimbers]

Many have mentioned their car insurance going up by 30-40%. Which is painful. Had the same experience myself this year £398 to £750 on the Evora. Luckily my insurance company is excellent and I did an online quote with LV at £570 and they not only matched it they beat it at £470.

However I have just had my houshold insurance bill in.

I was paying £564 a year for Buildings and Houshold contents insurance. However they have just sent the renewal and its a whopping £854. 

In 28 years of having our own house we have never claimed on any insurance. Even when my son knocked the TV off the stand (they were expensive at the time at £1600 for a flat screen) we just bought another. So I was thinking. Why do I bother?

Yes I need Buildings cover but do I really need contents? I have weighed the cost to me vs what I pay and I am not sure anymore.

They have refused to cover Wendys paintings saying they are business stock and she would need business insurance. So she applied and they aid they don't cover paintings. Awesome! All her stock is paintings she's a painter you idiots! So is it really worth it?

Anyones thoughts on the matter?

[Gjk]

I agree with you @Kimbers. I unfortunately broke our TV, claimed on the insurance (first time ever) and after the excess received 220 quid. The renewal came through the post the other day and hey presto it had gone up by the exact amount that they paid out. I might as well of just purchased another TV and not bothered with the insurance company. Funnily enough it was LV. I think contents is a bit of a swizz as if you own anything of real value it needs to be declared anyway and if you do need to replace an item due to an accident most folk would just buy another outright.

[jerzybondov]

Generally speaking, unless you're legally obliged to have insurance, it doesn't make sense from a mathematical statistical viewpoint (in terms of risk / reward) - that is, unless you know something about your level of risk that the insurance company doesn't! So basically yes, sack off the contents insurance. 

[Bibs]

Mine was useful when the house flooded a few years back. £35k buildings and £15k contents claim. I think it went up about £8 the year after which I thought was a narrow escape! It was hard work dealing with them though - despite the house having 2-3" of water throughout, they initially insisted it hadn't rained the day of the flood and it took 9 months for them to start the work, 8 months for them to install a dehumidifier!! 

[exeterjeep]

https://www.am-online.com/news/manufacturer/2023/12/19/jlr-forced-to-offer-own-insurance-amid-security-fears

JLR forced to offer own insurance amid security fears

says.............

LR said the service has provided quotes to more than 4,000 clients since October, with an average monthly premium of less than £200,

[jep]

Total loss from fire or explosion is why I insure contents and the building. 

Your house may be safe but are your neighbours? If they go up in smoke, yours might too.

Please ensure you have a gas safety check annually and an electrical installation cert every 5 years. It should be law for every domestic property. It's only required if you let it out. Many owner occupiers live in ignorance. 

Justin 

[exeterjeep]

20 minutes ago, jep said:

live in ignorance. 

that's the house next door.

My parents had to have an electrical check on their house every 10 years, as part of the insurance for a thatched house. (NFU)

[C8RKH]

3 hours ago, Kimbers said:

Anyones thoughts on the matter?

You only need to claim once Tony.

About 5 years ago we went on holiday, and long story short, when we came back the house had been flooded by "steam" from an upstairs shower. It was literally raining from the ceilings, and 75% of the contents of our house had been damaged by water, and mould. The mould had loved the steamy warm conditions and was everywhere.

The contents payout was £50k, and we needed to be housed for 9 months elsewhere. Then the walls had to be stripped, replastered, and redecorated. Beds, mattresses and linens, carpets etc were all ruined.

Our insurance company (More Than) were absolutely superb. It will make @Colin P to hear me praise an insurance company, but they really were superb. The contractors for the reinstatement they used, were utter shite, but I can't blame the Insurance company for how they dealt with us and handled the claim.

So, think about the level of cover you need, but don't go without. One freak mishap and you could be out by £100k. Could you afford to cover that?

[Kevin Wheeler]

3 hours ago, exeterjeep said:

JLR forced to offer own insurance amid security fears

How about designing a car with, oh I don't know, a unique shaped peice of metal that is difficult to duplicate and fits into a special slot that you have to use to gain entry to the car? Would that make cars more difficult to steal?

[exeterjeep]

Could be the key to the problem.

[Colin P]

The comments about statistically insurance not being worth it is correct. Then again it is the whole principle of insurance. You divide the expected claims by the number of people that you are insuring and create a pool to pay out the one who has a claim. But because you are a company you need to then add expenses and, shock horror, profit. Therefore absolutely insurance does not stack up on a statistical basis. Right up to the point that you are the one who makes the claim.

I don’t buy warranties, I’ll just run the risk myself, but when it comes to your house and contents @Kimbers the question you have to ask yourself is, if it burnt to the ground and you only had the clothes on your back can you handle funding replacing everything else at your own expense?  Personally the answer is no, but as with my cars I just opt for the biggest excess there is, unless it has minimal impact on the premium. I also don’t buy personal effects, bikes, jewellery etc. just core buildings and contents.

House insurance (ok pretty much all insurance) is increasing a lot at present, there are genuine reasons for it which I could bore you all with, but suffice to say a key measure is ACPC (average cost per claim), which for the last few years in property insurance has been running at between 15-30% each year, compound, and this needs to be paid for out of the premiums. Not nice, but that is how it works.

 

 

@C8RKH just FYI in case you were unaware, More than are now Admiral, who bought the RSA book a couple of weeks. 

[C8RKH]

I agree @Colin P with most of what you have said.

However, Insurance Companies, from my own experience, do not do enough to manage their supply chain, especially when it comes to reinstatement, who often, are fleecing them out of thousands each claim, or, causing them to pay out more through inefficient, and lengthy repairs, that could be shortened.

I will always buy car, house (building and contents) insurance but never declare any "valuable" items and just accept I need to be careful with them. I always request the maximum I can as an excess too to reduce the premium as much as possible, again, on the basis that'll it make me more careful. 

[oneshot]

Of course if you have a mortgage you will probably find that it is a condition of the mortgage that the house is insured. Obviously this excludes contenst which is up to the owner.

[Kimbers]

26 years and not a claim. Thats the thing that galls me. 

I know I may need it but if you read my original post they have refused to cover Wendy's paintings which are over half if not more than the value of the contents and essential to her business so Pfffft. 

[C8RKH]

4 minutes ago, Kimbers said:

essential to her business

So she needs to get business insurance. Don't confuse the two things.

A sole trader who has a van full of tools needs to insure their tools "separate" from the van.

A newsagent owner who lives above the shop in a flat, needs to insure their shop contents differently.

Why would a "painter" be any different?

My wife is an essential domestic appliance in my house, and she needs to be insured separately!

[pete]

https://www.lemonade.com/homeowners/explained/art-insurance/

[andydclements]

9 hours ago, jerzybondov said:

Generally speaking, unless you're legally obliged to have insurance, it doesn't make sense from a mathematical statistical viewpoint (in terms of risk / reward) - that is, unless you know something about your level of risk that the insurance company doesn't! So basically yes, sack off the contents insurance. 

I'm generally with @jerzybondov regards it not making sense from a mathematic PoV.

You don't have insurance to cover the realistic losses that may well occur from year to year, you have it to cover any extreme losses that you can't easily cope with, just as per Bibs' flooding. there are exceptions like car insurance where it may be easier /cheaper to have fully comp because that gets legal cover for when a numpty denies responsibility for the damage, or where FC is actually cheaper than TPFT because it's seen as a different risk profile or covere3d by a different underwriter.

 

I wouldn't however sack off the contents cover entirely, but raising the excess may make sense for some. It means you'd probably never claim for the single items like TV or damage to a sofa, but you'd not have to raid a savings pot if the house burned down with all possessions gone. But that's just my view.

 

Bottom line.

Take all of the premiums paid across their customer base , deduct all of the claims paid, and the insurer should still be left with enough to cover costs (admin, IT, staff etc) and make a profit. So, yes policy holders will generally pay out considerably more than they claim. A small proportion will get back a lot more than they will every pay in, but that's not a "win" it just softened the loss they would otherwise have had.

[Colin P]

4 hours ago, C8RKH said:

However, Insurance Companies, from my own experience, do not do enough to manage their supply chain, especially when it comes to reinstatement, who often, are fleecing them out of thousands each claim, or, causing them to pay out more through inefficient, and lengthy repairs, that could be shortened.

But all this does Andy is to prove that in this instance you don’t know what you are talking about. A lot of effort goes into these supply chains and they represent savings over costs incurred when customers select their own contractors. Yes sometimes things go wrong and you’ve clearly experienced this, but you can pretty much guarantee it will have been held to account. 
 

You are correct on the paintings, it’s a business so not going to be attractive to most personal lines insurers. There will also be a restricted market given the subjective value of art. Fine Art and Specie is specialist (read fewer markets = less competition). 

4 hours ago, Kimbers said:

26 years and not a claim. Thats the thing that galls me. 

I know I may need it but if you read my original post they have refused to cover Wendy's paintings which are over half if not more than the value of the contents and essential to her business so Pfffft. 

I get it, but put this another way. Someone’s house burns down. It costs an insurer £600k. Basic Buildings and Contents can generally be had for <£300  a year, even now. So someone has to have insurance claim free for 2000 years to pay for the one house fire. 

[C8RKH]

I was talking about my experience @Colin P and in that everything I said was true and factual. I ended up sacking the contractors and pushing for a cash settlement to just get the job done myself. Otherwise we'd have been in rented accomodation for a further several months.

No action was taken on the contractors as I couldn't be arsed to file a formal complaint and my case administrator was actually a contractor to More Than. To say she was useless is giving her too much praise.

However I've been very fair re my praise of More Than as, as my insurance company, they did their bit.

Over the past 6 months I've been working in the reinstatement business, as one of the Companies I am supporting is a claims mgt. Company that vetts and supports contractors getting on to the various Reinstatement supply lists. I've seen good and bad but will say that ONLY when a customer formally complains does stuff really spring into action.

[Colin P]

@C8RKH I was referring specifically to your assertion that insurers do not manage their supply chains and allow contractors to:  "fleecing them out of thousands each claim, or, causing them to pay out more through inefficient, and lengthy repairs, that could be shortened." 

If you think that insurers do not manage their costs then you are mistaken. These supply chains are managed and on the whole represent not just significant savings, but they actually facilitate capacity to actually get repairs conducted and quickly. On the whole therefore they are financially beneficial, whilst also being beneficial for the customer experience.

Clearly it went wrong in your case and it won't be isolated, shit happens - it would be far worse without these supply chains though - especially when there is a surge event and capacity needs to be scaled up and the only way you get this capacity is by calling on these arrangements.

[C8RKH]

Again Colin my comment was based on my experience and the contractors were absolutely taking the piss and in my opinion fleecing the insurer.

Even now, a few years later we are uncovering problems were the contractors cut corners, no doubt charging the full amount to the insurers 

My case was probably an exception but I reckon the shenanigans added about £10k to the insurers costs, and if I hadn't called a halt, probably another £10k.

I think you raised a good point earlier re cost of a claim and premium.

It woukld have "cost" me over 200 years of premiums to "pay" for my event. More Than will never recoup that from me. However, I've stayed loyal as they have kept their premium competitive, I feel that as consumers we complain a lot re loyalty from companies we use whilst we move for the slightest of saving. More Than have more than earned my loyalty.

[Colin P]

1 hour ago, C8RKH said:

Again Colin my comment was based on my experience and the contractors were absolutely taking the piss and in my opinion fleecing the insurer.

The statement was sweeping and read on a natural reading implies that insurers generally do not manage their costs and don't care about managing their supply chains. I'm also aware that you are a naughty boy  and intentionally elicited a response from me.  I don't dispute your point in individual instances, just that on the whole a lot of due diligence goes into these arrangements and they are value for money. There are instances of people taking the piss in all industries and construction as a whole is pretty poor (you know my involvement in the cladding/construction issues). IT ain't far behind though, bunch of cowboys. 😜

2 hours ago, C8RKH said:

More Than have more than earned my loyalty.

I can't see the brand living on. I reckon you'll be on the standard Admiral product within 12 - 18 months. No shame there - we are. 

[C8RKH]

8 minutes ago, Colin P said:

intentionally elicited a response from me

I would never do anything so!.     Well, maybe..... 

10 minutes ago, Colin P said:

IT ain't far behind though, bunch of cowboys. 😜

You will get no defence from me. IT has been a huge waste of money for so many companies in so many areas. Promises lots. Rarely delivers. But has made a lot of ordinary, unremarkable, people a lot of money. Me included...

[Colin P]

You my friend are a loooong way from ordinary. 

[C8RKH]

My wife says "I'm special"!