Insurance

[Fredoops]

I took it as high as I could Fredoops which was above the dispute department. so much for agreed value

the ombudsman agreed with the insurance company?

[buddah51au]

I didn't involve the ombudsman, but my dealings with Suncorp will soon be over. there are other Insurance companies & banks. Now that I am wiser for the experience I know the right questions to ask before they get my business

[Fredoops]

I didn't involve the ombudsman, but my dealings with Suncorp will soon be over. there are other Insurance companies & banks. Now that I am wiser for the experience I know the right questions to ask before they get my business

vote with your feet I guess.

Im stuck with suncorp for home insurance because the flood business. Cant get decent flood insurance elsewhere sadly.

[blabla]

Ppl read ur pds don't complain about the decisions that are made by the company. Day in day out I hear customers wing about insurance premiums being to high. Ok so the way insurance works is that all premiums payed in Aust goes into a pool of funds. Now from this pool of funds they pay out the claims that are logged. The more claims that are logged it starts to drop so the company has to inc there premiums to keep paying claims out. And unfortunately everything that happens around the world affects us too.

[ChaosMaster]

Ppl read ur pds don't complain about the decisions that are made by the company. Day in day out I hear customers wing about insurance premiums being to high. Ok so the way insurance works is that all premiums payed in Aust goes into a pool of funds. Now from this pool of funds they pay out the claims that are logged. The more claims that are logged it starts to drop so the company has to inc there premiums to keep paying claims out. And unfortunately everything that happens around the world affects us too.

There's the pool of funds, then there's their profits. The problem isn't that they aren't making enough money to cover for the looses done by the floods and hail and w/e. The problem is that the companies have an annual profit margin, which they want to keep increasing every year. E.g. If AAMI made $30 Mill in profits last year, they'll aim for $31 Mill this year. That the reason insurance prices rise every year regardless of natural disasters or not.

Now the thing is, after the Natural disasters, a big chunk of their profits have been lost. Their still making money, but their not happy with it. E.g. AAMI would still be making $15 Mill in profits for the year, but their original goal was $31 Mil. So they think; "Hey, we aimed to make $31 Mill, and we will reach our target and charge them double to make up for it. Best thing about this is, if there is no natural disasters next year, our profits would have jumped to $60 Mill, as we're not going to reduce the price after it's risen anyway." Thus the consumers are charged double so that the company can make much more money. If you look at RACV (again, as an example), they too were making $30 mill last year, and aiming for $31 this year, thus a slight increase in the insurance price. After the disasters hit, their profits for this year dropped to $15 mill, but their not going to jack up the prices to make up for it. They think; "Hey, we're still making a profit, and next year we'll be back on track again if nothing bad happens. Our customers have been loyal so lets not screw them over."

Of course both are examples, but AAMI currently charges as much, if not more, than RACV, and their quality of service is much much lower. Makes you wonder why anyone would go with them in the first place.

As for you Bla, did you even read what Bud said? He signed up for market value. Say you've got a 5 year old NSX (just as an example), it's written off, and the insurance gives you a brand new base model Jazz instead. Would you be happy? Just because the insurance company judges your NSX to be worth the same as a Jazz, doesn't mean it is. A 5 year old NSX would be work in excess of $60k, where as a Jazz wouldn't even make $20k. Examples a bit exaggerated, but you still get the picture.

[Fredoops]

There's the pool of funds, then there's their profits. The problem isn't that they aren't making enough money to cover for the looses done by the floods and hail and w/e. The problem is that the companies have an annual profit margin, which they want to keep increasing every year. E.g. If AAMI made $30 Mill in profits last year, they'll aim for $31 Mill this year. That the reason insurance prices rise every year regardless of natural disasters or not.

Now the thing is, after the Natural disasters, a big chunk of their profits have been lost. Their still making money, but their not happy with it. E.g. AAMI would still be making $15 Mill in profits for the year, but their original goal was $31 Mil. So they think; "Hey, we aimed to make $31 Mill, and we will reach our target and charge them double to make up for it. Best thing about this is, if there is no natural disasters next year, our profits would have jumped to $60 Mill, as we're not going to reduce the price after it's risen anyway." Thus the consumers are charged double so that the company can make much more money. If you look at RACV (again, as an example), they too were making $30 mill last year, and aiming for $31 this year, thus a slight increase in the insurance price. After the disasters hit, their profits for this year dropped to $15 mill, but their not going to jack up the prices to make up for it. They think; "Hey, we're still making a profit, and next year we'll be back on track again if nothing bad happens. Our customers have been loyal so lets not screw them over."

Of course both are examples, but AAMI currently charges as much, if not more, than RACV, and their quality of service is much much lower. Makes you wonder why anyone would go with them in the first place.

As for you Bla, did you even read what Bud said? He signed up for market value. Say you've got a 5 year old NSX (just as an example), it's written off, and the insurance gives you a brand new base model Jazz instead. Would you be happy? Just because the insurance company judges your NSX to be worth the same as a Jazz, doesn't mean it is. A 5 year old NSX would be work in excess of $60k, where as a Jazz wouldn't even make $20k. Examples a bit exaggerated, but you still get the picture.

I don't disagree with you, but I gonna play the devils advocate here

The insurer increased cost by about 25%-30% over the past 2years.

Insurer's reinsurance gone up by about 20-25%% since the qld floods. So the company's that offer flood insurance got screwed royal by the European reinsurers.

So they slap the price increase to the consumer.

Those insurers who doesn't offer flood insurance, their reinsurance didn't go up as much.
Yet they increase the price by a similar amount. Now who's taking the customer for a ride here?

Also, so you know that the gross margin for car/home insurance is only 10-15%? Coles makes more selling chips and veggies.

Now about that thing there, A more valid comparison would be a 2009 Civic sport vs. 2012 civic sport. The old one has a superior K-series engine. The new one has a cheap Thai made R-series engine. There isn't any more K-series civics. Its still a civic, its still a civic SPORT. What do you do? Buy a k20 and fit it in a 2012 civic? Unlikely.

I recken the insurance company should've negotiated a settlement... But they didn't.

[ChaosMaster]

Just out of curiosity though. How does the rating system work? As in, for the past 5 years, I've had my car insured under my dad's name. If I change it over to mine. Will I still be on the worse rating or do I get a slightly higher rating for having no accidents in the past 5 years?

[Fredoops]

Just out of curiosity though. How does the rating system work? As in, for the past 5 years, I've had my car insured under my dad's name. If I change it over to mine. Will I still be on the worse rating or do I get a slightly higher rating for having no accidents in the past 5 years?

Depends on the company's guidelines.

Usually what people do is have the insurance under joint name for a while. Then dad calls up to remove himself. The rating should retain whatever it was on

[ChaosMaster]

Depends on the company's guidelines.

Usually what people do is have the insurance under joint name for a while. Then dad calls up to remove himself. The rating should retain whatever it was on

Yeah, well having my dad's name on it doesn't really help. Might as well leave it as in my own name as they charge based on youngest driver.

[eurogo]

had my civic with shannons, didnt have to be apart of a club just interested in cars etc. Prices were pretty expensive due to me being 22 at the time. Had a car accident and the car was writeen off, they didnt want to know me after that.
Currently have my euro with aami, cheapest i've found, nrma are wanks they quoted me 400 more then aami. This year i got a quote for $1400 from aami, rang them up as it was $200 more then last year. They ended up with a computer glitch as it said i was only meant to be paying $794, they had to honour it so i payed it a week later, $794 for a 24 yr old with 2 loss of licence and one at fault, thankyou aami!

[buddah51au]

There's the pool of funds, then there's their profits. The problem isn't that they aren't making enough money to cover for the looses done by the floods and hail and w/e. The problem is that the companies have an annual profit margin, which they want to keep increasing every year. E.g. If AAMI made $30 Mill in profits last year, they'll aim for $31 Mill this year. That the reason insurance prices rise every year regardless of natural disasters or not.

Now the thing is, after the Natural disasters, a big chunk of their profits have been lost. Their still making money, but their not happy with it. E.g. AAMI would still be making $15 Mill in profits for the year, but their original goal was $31 Mil. So they think; "Hey, we aimed to make $31 Mill, and we will reach our target and charge them double to make up for it. Best thing about this is, if there is no natural disasters next year, our profits would have jumped to $60 Mill, as we're not going to reduce the price after it's risen anyway." Thus the consumers are charged double so that the company can make much more money. If you look at RACV (again, as an example), they too were making $30 mill last year, and aiming for $31 this year, thus a slight increase in the insurance price. After the disasters hit, their profits for this year dropped to $15 mill, but their not going to jack up the prices to make up for it. They think; "Hey, we're still making a profit, and next year we'll be back on track again if nothing bad happens. Our customers have been loyal so lets not screw them over."

Of course both are examples, but AAMI currently charges as much, if not more, than RACV, and their quality of service is much much lower. Makes you wonder why anyone would go with them in the first place.

As for you Bla, did you even read what Bud said? He signed up for market value. Say you've got a 5 year old NSX (just as an example), it's written off, and the insurance gives you a brand new base model Jazz instead. Would you be happy? Just because the insurance company judges your NSX to be worth the same as a Jazz, doesn't mean it is. A 5 year old NSX would be work in excess of $60k, where as a Jazz wouldn't even make $20k. Examples a bit exaggerated, but you still get the picture.

When you Insure a product for an agreed value & it is lost within the first 12 months (in my case less than 3 months old) you should get a new replacement. That is generally how car insurance works, but I now know home contents is totally different. A classic example that was given to me is laughable - lets say you have a top brand 50" Plasma TV that is lost for whatever reason, Suncorp claims that as long as it is replaced with a 50" Plasma they have met their obligation, even it the replacement is of a lesser brand & quality. That is unfair on any customer, we expect the product to be replaced with 1 of similar value & quality. I say similar value & quality due to what I had being very rare & hard to get.

[Fredoops]

When you Insure a product for an agreed value & it is lost within the first 12 months (in my case less than 3 months old) you should get a new replacement. That is generally how car insurance works, but I now know home contents is totally different. A classic example that was given to me is laughable - lets say you have a top brand 50" Plasma TV that is lost for whatever reason, Suncorp claims that as long as it is replaced with a 50" Plasma they have met their obligation, even it the replacement is of a lesser brand & quality. That is unfair on any customer, we expect the product to be replaced with 1 of similar value & quality. I say similar value & quality due to what I had being very rare & hard to get.

Sad part is that Suncorp dont have people who know anything about bikes, im pretty sure they have a bike shop working for them, someone in the industry to quote on bikes (like with any other crap), so some knucklehead in a bike shop somewhere obviously dont care enough.

hence why I always get my own comparison quote on the item outlining the specs so if they complain about "item replacement based on features" i got something to go on.

I dont trust some big appliance/computer/bike shop to actually know what they are doing

PS: thats a Fondriest isnt it? mum had one of these she complained it was to light and swapped it for a Giant.... Told her to get the new R20 for like $2 grand shipped from the states... woman said no.

Mind if I ask what Suncorp offered as a replacement? that looks like a R10? so logically you should get the R20 I told my mum to get?