Compensation Culture

[chesters1]

No personal injury, but a motor claim all the same. Me wife text me to tell me a motor bike pulled out from a side turning without even looking today, the only thing injured was the car. The guy apologised to her profusly and said he would prefer not to go through the insurance route to repair the car.

 

She did the right thing by saying to him, let me husband make the decision. I thought about it for half a milisecond and declined, spoke to our insurance co and started the ball rolling. They checked and found that the bike is insured, however something was not quite right, they told us that it was no concern to us.

 

I can't see the point of having a decent insurance policy, then take a chance on someone not being 100% and further, not reporting the incident to your insureres, who ever is at fault.

 

trouble is most insurers will write an old car off in a jiffy and the owner will get probably the scrap value if he's lucky.

i ran into a car (his fault) and i got the chap to pay for the parts needed ,he was out of pocket but my car was still on the road ,if it was up to the insurers i wouldnt have a car (its 28 years old) and be heavily out of pocket replacing it.

 

insurers dont need the hassle of claims they just want the money your forced to pay by law ,they have scores of lawyers doing their best to get out of any claim sent in.

 

the annoying thing for me is the bullshine pointing out the no win no fee merchants (a fine excuse to force the insurance prices up) but pocketing millions encouraging and supplying the no fee lot with your details ,so sign of data protection when theres a few quid to be made

Edited September 10, 2011 by chesters1

[Now there's a right un.]

There is always a solicitor or businessman who would skin sh*t if they could sell the smell.

 

 

When I was young [15] I was knocked off my bicycle and almost killed. The driver had Angina and he shouldn't of even been behind the wheel. He also lied to the Police claiming I was at fault. This was countered by a Bus crew.

In my day I had to pay to sue for compensation.

My Mother did not have the means to press for compensation and I lost out, by todays standard, on a payout of around £35,000.00. Had we had the system then we have today I would have had a tidy nestegg...and why not?

If you really think this is just about the so called compensation culture then think the flip side.

If there were no claims then insurers would have a higher dividend from their shares and you would still pay higher premiums.

Insurers do not like paying out simple as that as it damages their profit.

 

 

 

 

 

@ Steve Walker---You do not think that just because someone says that Insurance isn't profitable that they are not making money?

All big companies have within their portfolio loss making companies or organisations.

The losses, as I am led to believe, are tax deductable at the end of the financial year.

In other words what they lose from one company is compensated by a reduction in tax.

 

If insurance was such a loss making industry we would not have any.

[Phone]

All,

 

I have to tell you I rarely get into "cultural" discussions within. Equally, I rarely depend on WIKI for an explaination of ANYTHING. However, this seemed pretty interesting to me whilst "putting a handle" on this fourm discussion topic. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation_culture " looks well balanced and could apply anywhere in the 1st world I'd think?

 

As always, I guess the issue is "fairness" (similar compensation for similar circumstances throughout the nation). We use a system in the US that seems WAY out of balance right now based on regional politics and differences.

 

I don't think anyone would deny valid claims and valid values. What is/has become difficult is a definition of "reasonable".

 

Phone

[kirisute]

All,

 

I have to tell you I rarely get into "cultural" discussions within. Equally, I rarely depend on WIKI for an explaination of ANYTHING. However, this seemed pretty interesting to me whilst "putting a handle" on this fourm discussion topic. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation_culture " looks well balanced and could apply anywhere in the 1st world I'd think?

 

As always, I guess the issue is "fairness" (similar compensation for similar circumstances throughout the nation). We use a system in the US that seems WAY out of balance right now based on regional politics and differences.

 

I don't think anyone would deny valid claims and valid values. What is/has become difficult is a definition of "reasonable".

 

Phone

 

i think your right..its all about what price do you put on what has happened/been caused?

ok my back is aching still and still got a bit of a tension headache....but lets face it...take some ibuprofen and im good to go. so whats reasonable for that?

if your leg is broken and your off work for 6 months then whats reasonable for that....

its when culture starts to put monetary value on things that its all goes wrong.

i remember hitting an ice cream van when i was about 20...he claimed for 12 weeks loss of earnings..the insurance company told me his van was back on the road in a week! LOL!

as for paying a pittance to write off an old car...does anyone know what insurance brokers actually work on for write offs? is it current market value? or scrap value? most people ive talked to; with similar age cars to mine; have all said they were given current market value....which i guess is Parkers Guidebook prices.

[chesters1]

i think your right..its all about what price do you put on what has happened/been caused?

ok my back is aching still and still got a bit of a tension headache....but lets face it...take some ibuprofen and im good to go. so whats reasonable for that?

if your leg is broken and your off work for 6 months then whats reasonable for that....

its when culture starts to put monetary value on things that its all goes wrong.

i remember hitting an ice cream van when i was about 20...he claimed for 12 weeks loss of earnings..the insurance company told me his van was back on the road in a week! LOL!

as for paying a pittance to write off an old car...does anyone know what insurance brokers actually work on for write offs? is it current market value? or scrap value? most people ive talked to; with similar age cars to mine; have all said they were given current market value....which i guess is Parkers Guidebook prices.

 

not sure how they value "old " cars (mine is too old to be in a guide) i presume the minimum they can get away with minus the excess ,in the case of my golf i would get little for it if anything .

technically if its not your fault i think you can demand it be put back to what it was before the crash but most insurance companies will not admit this and write it off saving them money ,the other point also being it will no doubt cost far more to d so than the car is worth anyway (half an hour in a garage and mines already owing money! )

 

its also good to note some things are accidents ,who can say they never have any before getting the companies involved that insist theres always blame ,they're not in it for you your take is a fraction of what they get out of it ,every letter they send earns them money never mind what they get out in other costs from the other party

 

also.... the chap in the advert that's ladder slipped and he fell off "they gave me the wrong ladder" ker ching err wasn't he partially responsible for excepting it ,not supporting it and climbing up it ?

Edited September 12, 2011 by chesters1

[ColinW]

Unfortunately it is quite wrong to say insurance companies "don't want to pay out". Insurance is like any other financial service business, the more money they have coming in and out the more money the bosses can pay themselves in bonuses. It's not their money so why should they worry about paying out? If they paid out nothing and took nothing they would not have a business!

[chesters1]

Unfortunately it is quite wrong to say insurance companies "don't want to pay out". Insurance is like any other financial service business, the more money they have coming in and out the more money the bosses can pay themselves in bonuses. It's not their money so why should they worry about paying out? If they paid out nothing and took nothing they would not have a business!

 

makes more sense if they pay out the least possible not the maximum available ,all insurers have scores of insurance law guys trying to wheedle out of paying with the slightest excuse ,why are so many cars written off for minor bumps today ? because it costs them more to have it repaired even at their recomended garages where no doubt they get a considerable discount for monopolising them they are generally all colluding with each other to save them money so X writes a car off (saving them money) i have no doubt Y will do the same in return

dont think insurance people are looking after your interests for the love of it they get money because the car owner is forced to pay them under penalty of law (and ofcourse the tax the government gain from making it a law) and when you have no choice in a matter you always get ripped off.

in a counter to your position if insurers paid out what they should pay out they would be out of business long ago

 

the world is run by money ,governments need it and people want back handers ,all of them will do anything ,force anyone by any means to hand it over ,giving some back is a ludicrous idea to them

Edited September 12, 2011 by chesters1

[Steve Walker]

For quite some time, the only thing keeping motor insurance afloat was the investment income they made on premiums between taking them in and paying them back out again as claims. Not much investment income for anyone these days. They're all trying to get to the point where they make a profit out of the difference between what they take in and what they pay out, but the UK insurance market is massively competitive on price. That's why they are happy for referral fees to ambulance chasers to be banned - they would rather not play ball, but if they don't, the competition will and will then use the fees to subsidise their premiums.

[chesters1]

i expect in this competitive world half the insurance companies are the ambulance chasers

i think the point was the insurers blame the compo people for being forced to raise the insurance premiums but go cap in hand supplying them with the names and addresses of the very people they are using the excuse to to raise their premiums.

 

not just insurers the gov make a great bit of money for peoples details under the "interested third parties" clause on one hand they tell us to be careful with our details and ID while on the other hand selling it to anyone "interested" enough to want it

modern companies are a devil to sort out ,RBS owns Churchill insurance ,direct line and privilege trouble is is it possible to sort out all the offshore subsidiary companies to see what else they may own ,perhaps there's just one company owning both the majority of insurance companies and the ambulance chasers you would be hard put to know for sure !

HSBC appears to be chinese

satander is? spanish? and seems to juggle loyds and satander execs frequently

Edited September 12, 2011 by chesters1

[Phone]

All,

 

The one that sticks in my "craw" is a McDonalds case. McDonalds was required to recall all coffee cups and add the warning "caution - contents may be hot" when they lost a $5,000,000 lawsuit because a customer spilled a cup on themselves and McDonalds didn't tell them the coffee was hot. DUH? The culpable party in the judgement (IMO) was the JURY (because McDonalds could afford it). The customer was embarrased and inconvienced. McDonalds should have had the foresite to tell the consumer.

 

That's horse puckey!!!!!

 

Phone