4 ms·
> you just loose your no claims bonus but surely that's reasonable? Unfortunately not. In my experience, the slightest break in insurance coverage is an excuse
by gamble 16y ago
> you just loose your no claims bonus but surely that's reasonable?
Unfortunately not. In my experience, the slightest break in insurance coverage is an excuse to push you into the highest-risk pool. It's completely ridiculous. Perhaps the policy made sense before every piece of information relevant to insurance was tracked by computers, but now it seems like something that only exists to punish people who want to go car-free for awhile.
- dotBen 16y agoI see. I've only held a license in the US for 2.5 years so that's probably why I pay $200/month for insurance!
- cperciva 16y agoThat policy probably exists to stop people from lying about their accident history. It's really hard for an insurance company to distinguish between "I didn't have car insurance in 2002" and "I had car insurance in 2002 and got into a major accident I don't want you to know about".
- gamble 16y agoI would be surprised if the insurance companies had to depend on the honesty of their customers to know whether they'd be in collisions. Financial companies don't depend on my honesty to know if I've taken out a loan. They must share information about claims.
- cperciva 16y agoIf you tell them that you had insurance with company X, you can be sure that they'll phone company X and ask for your claims history. But there's far too many insurance companies around for them to phone everybody.