mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
Else why would he do this?
https://www.eta.co.uk/2015/12/02/in...-compensation-shortchanged-by-george-osborne/
https://www.eta.co.uk/2015/12/02/in...-compensation-shortchanged-by-george-osborne/
I have no idea of the details, but ETA do have a fairly hefty financial incentive for not being impartial in that advertorial, don't they?Else why would he do this?
https://www.eta.co.uk/2015/12/02/in...-compensation-shortchanged-by-george-osborne/
Yet insurance broker ETA Cycle Insurance believes it’s not guaranteed these savings will be passed on to drivers via cheaper insurance premiums.
“Whiplash claims have fallen by more than a third in the last four years and yet still the insurance industry has not reduced premiums,” says ETA. “More importantly, no safeguards are yet in place to safeguard the right to compensation and legal representation when cyclists and pedestrians are hit by cars.”
even though motor premiums are currently at an unsustainably low level and need to go up by about 25% for the market to make money.
Point of order - these almost certainly weren't case managers employed by or for the insurance company. They were probably employed by claims management companies, a scourge on the country, whose business model is to get details of the victims of accidents by any means possible (many of them illegal) and the monetise them by selling them on. They add absolutely nothing to anybody's claim, and are at the heart of the increase in both whiplash claims and in industrial deafness claims. Both of which, at the end of the day, we all pay for.Whiplash is an issue with many claims being fraudulent, and the insurance companies are part of this!
We were side swiped when a car drove out of a parking space into the side of the car. Bent car, but at that speed no injury
For the next 6 weeks we were inundated with calls from the insurance company's cas managers asking if we were sure we were not injured and suggestingthat a whiplsh would enable us to claim a "considerable sum"
Some companies do manage to sell car insurance profitably, some of the time, by having better technical analysis than anyone else. Some companies have a business model whereby the insurance policy itself is sold as a loss leader and the profit comes from ancillary services (breakdown cover, legal expenses cover, NCD protection). Some companies are new enough and slick enough that their expenses are very low and they can make money out of what they sell. Some companies rely on inertia - they attract new policyholders with an artificially low premium and then whack it up in years two and three. Some companies do motor insurance because it provides them with just about enough contribution to expenses to enable them to do more profitable lines like household and commercial, and because it diversifies against those other lines to give them a more stable profit overall. Some companies do motor insurance because they're not brave enough to stop and sack all of their motor staff.The point about car insurance being a loss maker is made regularly.
What I fail to understand is why do so many companies advertise so hard to get business which is not profitable?
All motorists are legally obliged to have insurance, so there's no need to advertise its availability at all.