Cat D and Insurance

[748]

Sorted out my insurance this morning for the FRP. The car was registered a Cat D write off several years ago (damaged wing and front bumper apparently)
This fact does not bother me as I am not buying the car to make money on it and I intend to keep it.
I went on that meeerkat website thingy and saved the cheapest quote. There is no provision on these forms to indicate whether the vehicle has cat d history.
When the guy from the insurance company rang me to confirm all the details I told him about the cat D and asked if it would make a difference.
"That depends on the underwriters" he said."I'll have to ring them"
Some time later he was back to tell me that the premium would increase by about £30.
I agreed to this and went ahead with the proposal. Then out of interest I asked him why it made a difference to the cost of insurance if a vehicle has previously been a cat D write off.
He said he honestly did not know.
Does anyone know if there's a specific reason? Or are they just using it as an excuse to charge a bit more?

 

[oilburner]

It could be that as it's been in an accident before any further accidents could cause more damage than the same crash would to a non Cat D car

 

[748]

Maybe, but if it was something like that I would have thought it would've been a bit more than 30 quid.
Not complaining though :lol: at least they know about it now.
I thought the information was stored in a database and would have flagged up with registration. It's strange how if you don't declare it and you have to make a claim they know about then and void your insurance :?

 

[Ian G]

are they just using it as an excuse to charge a bit more?

This.

I don't see how it is an increased risk. They're very expensive to repair anyway so even a tidy, straight one will easily exceed the repair cost / car value ratios.

You could argue that its more likely to be written off but in a lot of cases, that saves money in storage and hire car fees so as an insurer you're no worse off having paid out the entire value to the customer instead of all the hangers-on.

Money for old rope.

 

[tuonokid]

Just a thought.
Is there a not guy from Adrian Flux on here that could explain all this?
Barry

 

[748]

Well, I got a baby Oleg meerkat out of it :lol:

 

[DAN@ADRIAN FLUX]

Hi,
It would be difficult for me to comment directly regarding other insurers policies when it comes to covering category C & D written off vehicle however to let you know they we have no issues regarding this. We may ask you to supply appropriate paperwork sometimes to support the fact it's been repaired satisfactory in some cases like a copy of recent MOT or engineers report etc.
Regards,
Dan.

 

[warrenpenalver]

Its what dan has alluded to IMO.

A previously damaged car runs a risk of not being properly repaired and hence a small chance of coming off the road or the consequences of a future crash being worse as a result - in insurance terms a slight increased risk.

Im sure some actuary type will have data they can twist to show this to be the case.

As Dan above says, they can cover with an engineers report. In theory at cat c/d car with a satisfactory engineers report should by logical sense be cheaper to insure. The previous damage is not a risk factor of predicting a likely future crash or its severity, as the engineers report shows proper repair. However, writen off cars are always worth less, therefore the insurer would pay out less to you in a total loss claim. less likely payout should equal less premium.


However as we all know, mainstream insurers only seem to use statistics and data that helps them increase the premiums and then sell us the idea that NCB is the fair way to offset it and reduce premiums.

 

[Ian G]

The stats also completely overlook the nature of the damage. I've just put a Ka back on the road having replaced the door which had been bent back. No doubt that will cause some insurers to stroke their chins but I can't see any reason why it should be a higher risk. In fact, it'll get written off again anyway with the slightest bit of damage, if anything the payout will be less, as Warren correctly points out.

Quite right they'll use the data to increase the premiums but when there's a logical connection between data and a lower risk, those seem to get overlooked.

Like its cheaper to park my daily in L17 than in L26, despite when I leave it in L26, its in a garage with a 3mm steel plate door, two padlocks and most of the time, a tractor across the front of it.

And don't even talk to me about Flux and Liverpool, they run a mile :lol: