Insurance Quotes

Doing my diligence for upcoming insurance renewals I have noticed that even the quote processes ask who one’s current cover is with. Since there are only a small number of underwriters one could be reasonably suspicious about the integrity of companies quoting against their own brands equally to quoting against other underwriters’ brands.

If one chooses to buy, it is reasonable to disclose the current cover to assure the applicant has been honest, but to get a quote?

Another biggie was delivered by Budget Direct. It seems if you had an accident in the past 3 years, even if you are the innocent party, disclosure results in about a 50% quote increase! Funny how they penalise one for being hit by another careless driver. But I have always known humour is a personal thing so must assume their underwriters are into serious dark humour.

So two issues: 1) disclosing the current insurer for a quote tells them what they need to do if they want one’s business; and 2) significantly jacking up the premium when disclosing ones ‘victimness’ is pretty special. Is this common? I had not had a ding in decades, until last year, so the concept of now being a pariah because I had the misfortune to be hit by another is new to me.


I’m sure the insurers know exactly what the competition charges for their policies, so if they know who you are with, they can work out what your paying, and what you are and aren’t covered for. That will give them a big advantage know what they are up against when providing their quote.

I have a vague recollection that being involved in an motor vehicle accident suggests that the driver can be a higher insurance risk than normal, even if not at fault. Your usual insurer may be willing to assume that risk based on you history, but a new insurer may not.

But fear not dear pariah, after a time without any more accidents your risk profile drops back down.


Budget keep telling us that their premiums are so low because they don’t insure Captain Risky. What they are saying appears to me to be that they don’t insure if you have had an accident, they only insure those who are accident free. In my opinion and assumption (without proof so only conjecture) if you have an accident whether your fault or not they will pay out but will either decline your renewal or increase the premiums so much it becomes cheaper to change insurers. Thus keeping their policy holders mostly accident free ones. Only those who accept the large policy increases after an accident still being on the books or those who remain accident free. They have an extremely low risk tolerance it would seem.


Seems pretty unfair doesn’t it @PhilT. I’ve noticed in the past that insurances can offer a penalty even for drivers that are not at fault. Keep an eye out for that subtle but important distinciton when collecting quotes as it could form part of your ‘duty of disclosure’ - your obligation under the law to provide insurers with the info they require to assess risk.

To my reading this shouldn’t apply to the pricing, and we’ve often heard of consumers getting a cheaper price experiementing with the quoting tools even with their existing insurer (getting a quote as a ‘new customer’). If you notice this, make sure to call your insurer to negotiate a discount or be ready to switch.


I found Real Insurance to be attractive up front. It is not included in the Choice reviews. Their quote system did not appear to ding for a not-at-fault.

I got low end quotes and they offer discounts via a ‘pay as much as you drive option’, and they are comparatively well reviewed on productreview, at least such as car insurance goes. Real is a brand from Hollard, but Hollard itself does not have a great reputation, and while claims are 24x7 customer service is essentially business hours 5 1/2 days. PS - I know a quote is a quote, and if I go to buy, the quote might not be the final price, as sometimes happens. :open_mouth:

Has anyone had experience with Real Car Insurance they could share?


My parents had policies with Real a few years ago. My father asked me to help him with a claim that had been paid, but the excess had not been refunded despite him not being the driver at fault. The at-fault driver was on a provisional license, was driving his parent’s company car, and an independent witness had testified that the P-plater was travelling at an estimated 100km/h in a 70 zone before side-swiping my father’s car on a bend in the 6-lane road.

It took a lot of to-and-fro with the Claims team, but eventually they told me that they considered the P-plater was not 100% at fault. They explained that this was because of an answer to a question that was given when my father lodged his claim by phone. My personal take on the situation, after reading the transcript, was that they had badgered an elderly driver with a clean driving record into agreeing that he may have begun to change lanes before his vehicle was hit.

At the time, my wife’s car was also insured with Real. After this episode, she also decided to insure with a different company.


My initial interest in Real was piqued by their low premium quote (their policies are ‘tighter’ than most competitors) and comparatively good reviews on I sent an email to them clearly titled ‘pre-purchase question’ but they did not respond after 4 days and counting, so it begs why customers seem happy with their service, or maybe about the veracity of at least some of their accolades. Sales organisations usually pay attention to new business so when they do not, how do they treat their customers?

That was certainly a shocker @ScottOKeefe, and thanks for the info. All considered I decided to do likewise.


Insurance is gambling - the broker is the bookie - the only difference is they are preying on our fear not our greed.

They will always state you need to divulge any information that affects their risk but they will never give you details of how they evaluate their risk.

Insurance is an industry long overdue for transparency, standardisation … reform …