If a fire ravaged through our home, completely destroying it, would I have enough cover to rebuild? This is the question that challenged my mind as I read a recent letter from our bank.

Their standard correspondence reminded me that while my mortgage was still held by them that I would need to keep my home insurance current and at its 'fair value'.

Now, understand that the fair value of our property has increased more than 300% over the past 3 years. Most of this increase has come from soaring land prices while 2/5 of the price would be the cost of rebuilding an equivalent home.

Yet our insurance company doesn't want to insure us just for the house. They want to know the total value of the property and then charge their premiums based on that amount.

Which beckons the question, "Why am I paying insurance on a piece of land?" Unless a nuclear bomb lands directly on my home and the area can never be rebuilt there are few reasons why the land will not retain its full value even after the house has been destroyed.

I have yet to phone my insurance company about raising the 'fair value' of our home but after raising this one with them before I know I'm not going to come out with much of a win.

Posted by Stuart at 5:54 AM | Permalink

Imagine car insurance premiums that were lower for you than your fuel-guzzling Jackass-impersonator neighbour. Rather than a one-size fits all deal where your high-risk neighbour pays the same as you, even though you catch public transport all week and only drive your fuel-saving hybrid to the shops and back.

Well in India, as of January 2007, it's all becoming a reality. The government is de-tariffing auto insurance premiums allowing insurers greater scope and consumers better deals.

Think about all the variables that will begin to evaluate your car insurance premium. Driver's age, mileage each year, type of car driven, previous driving felonies, type of car, where the car is parked (roadside or carpark), repair and spare parts costs, colour of the car (it matters!) and the list goes on and on.

No I know most car insurance premiums have worked many of these variables into their risk analysis already and in some ways there is not a lot here that sparkles. However, insurers have only analysed generic variables. With competition coming out of a fixed price history these risk variables could become almost tailor-made. It wouldn't surprise me if many niche insurers sprung up offering all types of targeted products.

You may see adverts for insurers offering car insurance premiums that are specific to 55 year old plus drivers who own a hybrid Prius, keep them hidden behind their B&D automatic roller door and only drive between 10am and 4pm on dry days. And these premiums will be a lot cheaper than another 55 year old who leaves his petrol-powered at a Park & Ride and chose blue metallic paint when he picked it up from the dealership.

The big plus out of this legislation is there will be more jobs for risk analysts.

Posted by Stuart at 6:58 AM | Permalink

Feasible life insurance is becoming harder to find as insurers are upping the ante with premiums and conditions for acceptance. Medical examinations are becoming the norm as insurers analyse the risk. Furthermore, insurers are becoming less interested in how healthy you are now and more intent on discovering what genetic issues may currently lie dormant in your body.

So it seems like a breath of fresh air when ING begin advertising their SureLife Plan. Always ready to tear apart any offering from banks and insurance companies, I began delving through the paperwork to try and explain the concept in terms that anyone could understand.

The first difference you notice with the the SureLife Plan is that ING doesn't require a medical examination for acceptance. Their only distinctions for premiums are your age bracket and whether you're a smoker or non-smoker.
They will also only cover you up to $500,000.

At a second glance, you're mystified to the reasons for their competitive rates. As most insurers are forcing a plethora of paperwork to be signed and the information they require exceeds the national census questionnaire, how can ING offer such reasonable premiums?

I think you can put it down to an insurer who's realising what the market wants (or in this case doesn't want) and is prepared to make worthwhile risk analysis. Most insurers want to iron out every abnormality in their risk assessments whereas it appears ING has realised that they are so minute they're not worth forcing the majority of consumers to suffer.

Continue reading "ING's Surelife Plan in layman's terms" »

Posted by Stuart at 5:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

With every new piece of technology it seems there's some shyster wanting to take advantage of the ignorant. Here's another example of a company cashing in on the unsuspecting.

Here's what they advertise as one of the key benefits of their insurance,

MP3 Player & music downloads - other insurers will cover the cost of a replacement MP3 player, but we'll even cover the music you've paid for and downloaded (subject to certain conditions). How's that for music to your ears?

Let's try and figure a scenario where this could ever apply.

• If the music has been downloaded illegally then regardless of how many songs you had none of them will be covered.
  


• If you copied them from your own original CD's then the CD's would be covered if lost in a fire or they were stolen, but this has no effect on the downloaded music.
  


• If you purchased the downloaded music from a reputable online music store such as Apple's iTunes then these would all still be available by logging in via your computer or another computer connected to the internet.
  


• If you didn't purchase the downloaded music from a reputable online music store you probably couldn't prove that you had it anyway, therefore a claim would be disallowed.
  

In reality, there is no circumstance where this feature would ever be of benefit and you would never be able to successfully make claim for it.

A tip for young players: Weigh each insurance policy up evenly by removing features that are unrealistic.

Source: Kwik-Fit Insurance

Posted by Stuart at 8:03 AM | Permalink

Blue is definitely not the new black. In fact, according to this article, your blue car is the most likely to be broken into than other coloured cars. Red comes in a close second, followed by silver and white.

And the colour that car thieves break into the least is ...drum roll please....none other than YELLOW! Maybe the colour makes them feel happy about themselves and less likely to impinge on another person's property.

Or maybe, it's just that there are less than yellow cars on the road?

Posted by Stuart at 7:53 AM | Permalink

Mankind's one united mantra would be "securing the best deal at the lowest price." We spend hours researching, bartering, and moving from store to store in our quest to save some money while walking away with a deal to die for.

This life philosophy isn't shared by Barclay's Insurance who believe we waste money not searching enough for the cheapest option in home insurance (that is if you trust an insurer to tell you that). In fact, they believe that Briton's could be saving themselves approximately £112.95 per annum if they shopped around for home insurance.

The problem with this statement is that it makes a big assumption that home owners have full information of every product and price available. I'm sure most people do shop around for their home insurance but there are so many more factors that present themselves when it comes to putting the money on the table than sheer price.

For instance, we had to make a claim on our contents insurance about 8 years ago after some towels which were drying near our open fire caught alight and burnt the carpet. Within 24 hours an assessor arrived to investigate the claim and told us to get quotes not only for the carpet but also for the towels. A short while later all was repaired and the costs were unseen by us.

Do you think we changed insurers? Not likely. Instead, we've never considered even looking at another insurer and we've told our friends how good this company is. Do we have the cheapest home insurance? Probably not. But we are assured that if we ever need to claim on it we will be well looked after.

Isn't that what insurance is about anyway? Consumers don't always need to buy the cheapest to have bought the best deal.

Posted by Stuart at 7:15 AM | Permalink

Two years ago we bought a late model Kia Carnival that still had an 12 month balance of a new car warranty. The dealership at the time were also offering a used car extended warranty of a further 2 years leaving us with 12 months of our lease that was uncovered.

They also offered us the choice of two other after-market extended car warranties. If I remember correctly, both were for a 2-year period but the premium warranty cost a little over A$1500 while the lesser cost about $600. Obviously the more expensive warranty covered more items but I was left wondering whether I could honestly live without it...it was only an extra twelve months!

Just to put some further light on the subject, 1 month after our new car warranty expired, the head on the engine gave way and we had to tow our 2003 Carnival back to the dealership for it to be replaced. Fortunately, Kia were in the process of replacing all engines (free of charge) in their Carnivals prior to the updated 2004 model so it only cost us the labour component. Only?

Do you know how long it takes to fix the head gasket on a car's engine?

See, the deal with an extended car warranty is that they usually only cover the parts. In most cases you will still be required to fork out the labour component. And, the parts covered are only if they fail apart from normal wear and tear.

Continue reading "Extended car warranty DO's and DON'T's" »

Posted by Stuart at 5:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Young motorists could have their insurance premiums slashed if they agree not to drive at night.

More Than car insurance is offering discounts of up to 40 per cent if drivers between 18 and 25 don't drive from 11pm to 6am.

According to Government figures, drivers under 30 make up 28 per cent of all deaths or serious injuries on the road, despite making up just 10 per cent of the driving population.

The new scheme, dubbed DriveTime, will see in-car tracking devices installed into customer's cars, which More Than will monitor to see when the vehicle is driven.

If the vehicle is moved between 11pm and 6am, More Than will charge a £25 penalty.

Roger Vincent at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents was upbeat about the scheme: "We know night time is a dangerous time for all motorists, but particularly for younger drivers, so it's certainly beneficial for road safety.

"It's a good idea, and we're looking forward to seeing how it pans out."

However, Auto Trader's 21 year old reporter Adrian Hearn is more cautious: "The policy has its ups and downs. Young drivers have been targeted by over-inflated premiums for years so it is a step in the right direction.

"However, for many young drivers, a car is essential for socialising, particularly in areas with limited public transport."

Source: Auto Trader

Posted by Stuart at 8:30 AM | Permalink

It pops into your mind every so often, that niggling thought that you still haven't tied up all those loose ends you planned to three years ago - or was it four? It's not that it isn't a high priority it's just that it's so easy to procrastinate on writing your last will and testament.

The reason I'm posting this very topic is because having a legal will has once again risen it's ugly head in our household. We have four children, a mortgage, lease on our car and several other assorted assets including home furnishings for which there is no designated benefactor.

If Deb and I were both to die tomorrow our financial situation could be tied up in bureaucratic red tape for months. The situation is even more exaggerated because there is currently no guardian to protect our children and I could envisage a major family bun-fight for who would step into this role.

So, it's time to clean up our act and get a legal will in place. Here's what I've found;

Continue reading "Legal Wills: Is your last will and testament finished?" »

Posted by Stuart at 7:38 AM | Permalink

It's never actually happened to me, but I do have friends that have suffered at the hands of an uninsured driver. While you pour out your hard-earned cash in premiums each year looking after your investment you have no control for others who don't.

When it comes to an accident that involves an uninsured vehicle you can lose big time. In fact, with the laws as they are, it makes more sense to not insure your vehicle.

Here are a couple of scenarios where you're insured but the other driver isn't. The first one occurs due to some fault on your part. The whole cost for the damage to both parties is paid via your insurer and your premiums then increase.

The second scenario lays the blame on the other driver. It was due to some error on their part that caused the accident however because they're not insured you need to take the claim to the courts. If there is a witness involved who will verify that the other driver was in the wrong your insurer will usually fight it for you. If there isn't, then you may as well walk away and fix the damage yourself.

If you do end up taking them to court and you win the ruling this doesn't necessarily mean that you're likely to see any funds - certainly not in the short-term anyway. The average person would be able to plea on grounds of financial hardship and be allowed to pay the debt back over an extended period - usually at a rate of $10 to $20 per week. This is fine if you have an understanding lawyer and panelbeater.

Needless to say, less and less drivers who are wanting to protect their no-claim bonuses find that pursuing a non-insured driver for compensation is a waste of time. Fortunately governments are starting to pay attention and in some countries, like the UK, they are beginning to regulate against drivers who don't insure their vehicles. Kudos to the UK government for imposing such hefty fines that make insuring seem more tempting.

Posted by Stuart at 7:58 AM | Permalink

I was traversing my way through cyberspace yesterday researching some information on insurance when I inadvertently typed "Unsurance" into Google instead of "Insurance". Expecting to merely be redirected by Google's "Did you mean" question I was flabbergasted at the sites that were available for this misspelt word.

Not only that but heading the list was none other than unsurance.com which begs the question what does unsurance.com offer? I thought perhaps they prescribed insurance for those that were a little less sure as to which policy they were after. Or perhaps, it was for those frustrated consumers who've religiously paid their premiums year after year and were rejected on the first claim they made.

Alas, unsurance.com is just another insurance peddler trying to make some money on the unsuspecting public who make mistakes from time to time. It seems to be the same strategy that opportunists use when they target eBay auctions hoping that a misspelt word will lay below the radar of most bidders.

So it seems that unsurance.com obviously gives no assurance which is what many of us have come to expect from insurance companies anyway.

Posted by Stuart at 8:23 AM | Permalink

Norwich Union is offering consumers who buy cars on Ebay 7 days worth of car insurance. Considering that a car is sold on Ebay every 2 minutes (yep...another one just sold) that's a huge undertaking. This is what they offer; full comprehensive coverage, unlimited legal liability for death or injury to any person, Up to £5m legal liability cover for damage to other people's property, Medical expenses, personal injury and legal protection.

Ok. So what' the catch. Obviously Norwich Union provide you with an obligation free quote for a further 12 months coverage but that's it. Regardless of whether you accept Norwich's quote or decide to take your car insurance needs elsewhere, the 7 days car insurance cover is free.

What a great deal and an excellent idea. The only limiting factor is that it is only available to UK Ebay subscribers. Hopefully other car insurers will take the lead on this and make it available the world over.

Source: Free insurance on Ebay-bought cars

Posted by Stuart at 10:22 AM | Permalink

If shopping around for the best car insurance quote excites you as much as visiting the dentist, new Australian financial services company, ARTOG.com.au, have launched an Australian first service that will be music to your ears. The company allows you to easily compare car insurance quotes from up to ten major insurers. Not only will this service save you tedious hours on the phone and internet, it could potentially save you thousands of dollars each time you insure by identifying affordable insurance for your circumstances.

“Everyone knows if you shop around and compare quotes, you will always get a better price,” states ARTOG General Manager, Kevin Sherman. “Understandably, people are time poor and would rather spend their free time doing pretty much anything else other than shopping around for car insurance!”

ARTOG’s ‘Compare My Rates’ (http://www.artog.com.au/ArtogPersonalQuote/ApplyStep1.aspx) feature is quick, simple and personalised. You simply enter your personal details once, and within two days receive an emailed price listing for the major insurers. This enables you to make a side-by-side comparison of the policy costs. In most instances ARTOG provides a quote number so you don’t need to re-enter your details when purchasing cover from your preferred insurer. The entire process is at no cost and totally obligation-free.

The savings on offer can be shown in the following example…

A 2004 Hyundai Accent (5Door Auto valued at $14,000) driven by a 20 year old female with no claims to her name would cost $4,411 to insure with one company or as little as $1,581 with another – that’s an incredible saving of $2830 (a 64% reduction). And ARTOG offers this service completely free.

Source: eMediaWire

Posted by Stuart at 9:45 AM | Permalink

We tread the internet in tip-toe fashion, trying not to clumsily step on anything hazardous to our online health or alerting the attention of unwanted hacker publicity. Why? Because we know that lurking in the not too distant background is the possibility that our identity could be stolen and used innappropriately or credit card details could be used to transact a criminal's spending spree.

We're just trying to download the latest offering from iTunes or pay for a successful auction win on Ebay unaware that the threat is real or that it may be greater than we first assumed. Most internet users, myself included, assume that e-crime is something that happens to other people and optimistically prescribe to the notion that companies are getting better at dealing with these security risks. They're not!

In fact, most online companies while employing a 128bit SSL for their transactions fail to secure the backend of their data, inadvertently creating a back-door for would-be hackers. Now imagine for a second that your data, address, full name, date of birth and credit card details are sitting insitu on some (unfortunately not-so) secure server with the backdoor left wide open. It's like a red-rag to a bull teasing hackers to try their luck.

And who's to blame for the increase in e-crime? Well, while we're pointing the finger it must be directed toward the door of the reigning governments initially. Are they fair dinkum (an Australian colloquialism translated as "genuine") about resolving this type of crime that will inevitably cost the community? There seems to be little that is being legislated in this arena and the resourcing for crime prevention compared to the resourcing of criminals borders on obscure.

My life, like many others, is becoming increasingly dependent on the web. Unfortunately though, it can be that life can be rubbed out quicker on the internet that it can in real life.

Read this article.

Posted by Stuart at 8:43 AM | Permalink

It makes you stop and wonder what women actually keep in those things that make them so tempting for thieves. Traditionally, men have chastised women for carrying everything bar the kitchen sink (and if the handbag was big enough this would also be a ready inclusion) and perhaps it's in the lucky dip mentality of these criminals that they continue to pursue them.

This article Churchill Home Insurance warns of handbag theft cites 1 in 3 women have lost their handbag at least once, either through carelessness or theft. The average cost of this loss is reported to be £228 (US$400) so it begs querying what on earth they could be after.

We know that most women don't carry cash - they have multiple store cards and the husbands Visa (all of which are maxed out). Any jewellery would usually be attached to their person in some form. Their keys would certainly reside in there along with a mid-morning K-Time health bar, tissues (both used and scrunched), and possibly some coupon cards and 2 for 1 offers. So what is it that theieves are after.

The big ticket item - cosmetics. There is obviously a black market operating for pre-owned cosmetics, maybe even through the cosmetic laundering cartel, Ebay. Don't be surprised if you end up bidding for a no-reserve blueberry lipstick that graced the face of someone living in downtown SOHO.

So women, the moral of the story is leave the pepper spray at home with all the additional cosmetics that make your handbag such a temptation. Carry only what you need for the day and don't buy cosmetics off Ebay.

Posted by Stuart at 7:40 AM | Permalink

Why would smokers need to pay higher premiums than other drivers? I'm not condoning the practise of smoking by any stretch of the imagination, however, I am intrigued to the reasons this would be a risk factor in the premia calculations.

Do car insurance companies expect that smokers might instantly die of lung cancer at the wheel, careering off into oncoming traffic? Is this a regular occurrence? Do they have data that states 1in 5 drivers who smoke will cause a major accident as they inadvertently suffocate while driving?

I can understand why they assess young drivers as a greater risk. I understand why they assess drivers who've had previous motor vehicle accidents as risky. But I just don't get this. Next they'll be increasing your premiums because you have a Plasma TV in your north facing living room.

Hang on! I've just worked it out. Maybe, while they're smoking they accidentally drop their cigarettes in their car and they end up burning the whole vehicle. Probably more risk there....

Read this funny little article.

Posted by Stuart at 7:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

There was the one about "...losing control of the car as the driver swerved to hit his mother-in-law" and other assorted goodies that fall into the category of "Are-these-people-for-real?" insurance claims.

Here's one: Churchill Home Insurance has had a claim for "...a roast chicken burning a hole in a kitchen carpet." After working in the hospitality industry for nearly a decade, I thought I'd seen most bizarre acts of cooking ingenuity. However, this one takes the cake (pardon the pun!).

How is that you make a chicken roast on the carpet? Do you rub it's legs together like an Indian trying to get a spark from two bits of wood? Is there some electro-magnetic energy source that allows one to bake a whole chook on the shag pile?

I've often wondered why people put carpet in the kitchen in the first place. Mind you, it seems quite reasonable a proposition if you can cook off it - doesn't it? You just need to beware that you don't leave the chicken on the carpet for too long.

Posted by Stuart at 7:17 AM | Permalink

Very rarely does a TV advert catch my imagination but one from Real Insurance slipped under the radar of complacency and pricked my ears to attention.They were offering....wait for it....a cash bonus paid back to you if you didn't claim.

The whole deal can be found at Real Insurance's website. Apparently, if you don't claim for 3 years you become entitled to receive 10% of your premiums paid back to you. What a great concept?

Sure, insurers have been offering discounts for yearsbut I've never seen them pay cash back to the customer. My only question is do they still charge the same premium's over that period or do lack of claims also reduce the risk thereby reducing the premium amount?

Posted by Stuart at 7:04 AM | Permalink

If you can save money on anything, insurance would have to be at the top of the list. If you don't have it - you'll find you probably needed it. If you do - you'll probably never use it. For most consumers insurance is money that could be better spent elsewhere so if you can save in this area you're doing you budget a huge favour.

This article outlined 4 great ways to save some more on your car insurance premiums.

Continue reading "4 tips for reducing your car insurance premiums" »

Posted by Stuart at 6:48 AM | Permalink

If you're married you would love to have a $1m+ to leave your spouse but the premiums for that amount are fairly restrictive. This article suggests 7 to 10 times your current annual salary which means for a $50K wage you would need $350,000 to $500,000 inlife insurance.

It's a topical discussion for my wife and I at the moment as we're sorting through some of our insurances. I think we've come to a conclusion that we need enough insurance to pay the mortgage out, pay all funeral expenses and then allow at least a couple years worth of salary to survive on for whoever's left.

It all depends on your life situation too. If you're single with no dependants you may not even bother with life insurance whereas a couple with kids will most likely need a substantial amount. My advice - work it out early and plan to make adjustments at regular intervals - perhaps every 3 years or so.

Posted by Stuart at 6:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The most expensive time of your life to be paying for car insurance is when you first get your licence. Car insurers who place value on risk ascertain that young people who are behind the wheel for the first time will have a greater chance of claiming than those who've been driving for longer.

However, it seems that some US car insurers are realising that students who do better at school are becoming less of a risk than those who don't. They're even willing to pay discounts of up to 15% to reward students with a "B" average or better.

Read the full article.

Posted by Stuart at 5:57 AM | Permalink