A question about vehicle insurance

5 posts in this topic

I need to get vehicle insurance here in Germany and with this in mind, I'm in touch with one company and also one broker. I have several years of claim-free driving and thus wanted, naturally, to start with a no-claims bonus which would be as high as possible and consistent with the facts of my driving record.

 

A couple of weeks ago I received  letters from two brokers, those I dealt with in the past, neither of them in Germany, confirming that I do have these periods of no claims. Today I received a letter from that one company here telling me that neither of those letters is acceptable and that the companies who actually provided the insurance, the actual insurers, in other words, must provide confirmatory letters. (I don't see why it should take two weeks for them to tell me what they can and can't accept but that is another issue.)

 

To some extent I can understand this stance. Some people  cheat, no doubt, provide fraudulent letters or commit fraud in other ways. I wonder, however, whether a letter from an insurance company is any less easy to forge than a letter from a broker (if indeed this line of thinking has anything to do with the matter in hand). A car insurance provider in Germany can check with a broker abroad; equally it can check with an insurance company abroad.

 

I have also been told, however, that periods of insurance abroad cannot be added together for the purposes for the purpose of calculating a no-claims bonus. I am distinctly unsympathetic to this approach, seeing it, rather, as a way of minimising the “giving away” of any sum of money, as a way of maximising profit. If  the purpose of the letters from my brokers is to show that I am a safe and trustworthy (or sometimes, perhaps, lucky!) driver, then these letters show that. Whether insured periods abroad are separated, seems to me to be irrelevant. Others might see the matter differently.

 

My previous insurance policies of various kinds have been issued by UK- based insurers or brokers. My impression is that in all cases, both the setting up of the policy and subsequent claiming relied to a pretty large extent on trust. There was not this constant need to prove that one is not trying  to commit fraud, that one is not a liar, etc. etc.

 

I welcome any helpful comments on the above. I would also like to ask whether it is your impression that an insurance company in Germany normally takes the kind of stance I have attempted to outline above, or whether this is unusual. Thank you.






 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend you contact this company, English-speaking vehicle insurance experts:

 

https://culpeck.com/

 

Disclaimer: I´m an independent insurance broker but don´t deal with vehicle insurance. Second disclaimer: I´m not on commission.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the German insurance companies are wary of people with long breaks in their insurance, because they do not know why the breaks occurred, and because, if the break is long enough, one might not besuch a good driver after a long break.

Not sure if there is any real difference in the brokers sending letters of confirmation, or the insurance companies themselves, but I suspect the company linked to by John will be able to help.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the letter I received it's a case of "not possible to run together more than one policy entered into abroad" (Zusammenfassung not allowed). So if one goes from country A to country B, cancelling one policy and taking out another within a week or two - or even within a couple of days, perhaps - those two policies cannot be run together for the purpose of asking for a no-claims bonus.

 

Why should this be the case?  One possible answer is because the company in question makes the rules; it CAN make this particular rule; it can make this or other rules in its own interests because by so doing it can charge more for the policy. There doesn't have to be any reason that a potential customer might consider to be sound and reasonable. "Why?" Because it is so.

 

I have a question about brokers, one which I hope somebody will be able to answer. In theory a broker makes an arrangement that is in the best interests of the customer or client (“the best” might not be the cheapest). But could it not be that in practice this doesn't always happen? Could it be that a broker suggests to a client a policy that is not in fact the cheapest or otherwise the best but is one that provides the broker with more commission from a particular Insurance company than

otherwise would be the case? I'm just wondering how this works in practice.


 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used a letter from insurance broker that stated years of claim free driving, and this was accepted by the broker here and insurance company.

I think majority of brokers will look for best deal for clients. They would soon get a poor reputation if they did not!

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now