Submitting video to insurance for claim

[ThePro]

Nevermind...

 

[jokiin]

I work in-house and have proposed a DashCam Discount program for our insureds. Out of 20 various proposals, mine won and we plan on going forward with it in 2017. I feel like all other insurance companies will follow suit. stay tuned....

I've had a couple of insurers contact me in the past asking all sorts of dashcam related questions, it's obviously something that is being considered but nobody has really made the move yet, I agree with your thinking, I think once one insurer starts doing deals it won't take long for others to jump on the bandwagon

 

[Sunny]

And I hope they give discount per dashcam.

 

[jokiin]

And I hope they give discount per dashcam.

we'd have no issue working with an insurer to do something specific for them, I think for the most part they might not yet really know what it is they would want, early days for them still

 

[ljw2k]

My Insurance ( Hastings ) wanted more money from me if I had a dashcam as they saw it as a modification over factory spec.

 

[jokiin]

My Insurance ( Hastings ) wanted more money from me if I had a dashcam as they saw it as a modification over factory spec.

that's the typical insurers thinking we're all used to

 

[dash riposki]

Not quite related, but I was at a warehouse facility the other day, operated by a large US trucking/leasing company. They had a notice up that dashcams in company owned vehicles were not allowed unless authorized by some desk jockey. The stated reason was THEY wanted total control of the cam and files in case of insurance claims. I have not noticed any commercial cam systems in those trucks.

 

[jokiin]

Not quite related, but I was at a warehouse facility the other day, operated by a large US trucking/leasing company. They had a notice up that dashcams in company owned vehicles were not allowed unless authorized by some desk jockey. The stated reason was THEY wanted total control of the cam and files in case of insurance claims. I have not noticed any commercial cam systems in those trucks.

have a friend here the drives road trains and the drivers use their own cameras even though the company has a camera system in all the trucks, the system they use sends 10 seconds of video anytime it get triggered and drivers were getting disciplined based on incomplete information and were getting sick of false accusations

 

[Kip]

My Insurance ( Hastings ) wanted more money from me if I had a dashcam as they saw it as a modification over factory spec.

Not surprised. Hastings are also bloody awful to deal with when it all goes wrong. Been there, done that, never again!

 

[2000rpm]

My Insurance ( Hastings ) wanted more money from me if I had a dashcam as they saw it as a modification over factory spec.

I didn't inform my insurer because I didn't expect a discount and didn't feel that a dashcam was much different to people who mount satnav or phone cradles on their windscreen or in my case, plug an MP3 player permanently into the car's USB port.
A dashcam is not an integral part of the car, unlike a change of wheels or an engine re-map or an upgraded turbo with performance exhaust.

I had a claim earlier this year and provided the video evidence to my insurer. They were a bit surprised that someone would have a dashcam and a bit unsure how to get a copy of the video from it so I put it on my Youtube account and also on MEGA and sent them the links.
Somehow they managed to look at it by the next day and used it to show that I hadn't driven into the back of the other car; the other car had reversed into me.
Nobody from my insurer's claim department in any way criticised me having a dashcam nor accused me of undeclared modifications. A few of the insurer's staff I spoke to on the phone relating to the accident felt that cams were a good thing.

A problem with insurers offering discounts for dashcams is that people would just buy a cheap one to get the discount and have a receipt showing they bought one, then send the cam back for a refund.
Alternatively, people buying really cheap cams might find they don't have good evidence - possibly no evidence if the cam doesn't work properly or fails soon after purchase.
Or the cam may simply not be running at the time.

I don't blame insurers for not offering a discount.

 

[Kip]

I asked my current insurer, Aviva, about a possible discount for having one installed, as some companies do offer discounts now.

Here's the exact reply I got:

"Thanks for your email and patience whilst waiting for my reply.

Although no discount is given for having these fitted, they can prove very useful, for example if there was a claim that was being disputed by a third party.

If you do decide to have one fitted, I’ll be happy to make a note of it on your policy for you, just let me know. There’d be no additional premium due as these are covered as standard under accessories, upto £500.

Please don't hesitate to contact me or one of the team if you need any further help."

 

[jokiin]

there's a couple of ways I see it working, insurers may endorse certain models as eligible for a discount on a policy, they could offer a reduced excess or deductible if video evidence can be produced and charge the normal rate if not, what can exonerate you could also implicate you so I can see how people might just claim a camera failed to record should the video work against them so there needs to be some reward for producing evidence

 

[dash riposki]

have a friend here the drives road trains and the drivers use their own cameras even though the company has a camera system in all the trucks, they system they use sends 10 seconds of video anytime it get triggered and drivers were getting disciplined based on incomplete information and were getting sick of false accusations

I went through the same thing for two years. The people reviewing the cam files had no idea what they were doing. The company figured if they paid for the service, it must be good, and the driver who had no tickets or wrecks for millions of miles must be wrong, or just 'whining'.

During the same period the company would send me safety awards, but the next week send me to 'safety class' over camera based violations. (which may include speeding based on the GPS system, which did not have me on the correct road, or the had an updated speed for that area in the database.) Total incompetence and insanity. Needless to say I moved on.

I had my own cam in the truck at the time, and saved all the files when I saw the commercial cam blinking. Didn't matter, the morons in the office were not interested.


FWIW, that company had a plan to install commercial cam systems in all the trucks, but abandoned it after getting them in 10% of the trucks, and 75% of the drivers with the cams quit within a few months. Yes, some of the drivers needed the cams, or needed to be doing something else for a living. (Not involving anything with wheels.)

Needless to say, I won't work for any company that has the commercial cam systems, or won't allow me to have my own dash cam.

I have nothing to hide, I'm the slow cautious driver who drives most drivers nuts.

 

[Nigel]

I think the reason that few insurers provide a good discount for having a dashcam is that, first it makes almost no difference to the likelihood of having an accident and second when an accident occurs, if it is recorded by a dashcam then it costs them more to deal with it. If there is no good evidence then the cheap call desk staff can declare that it will be handled as 50-50 blame which is quick and easy to deal with, but if there is dashcam evidence that it is the other persons fault then they need to involve expert accident investigators to analyse the footage and legal experts to make a claim against the other party and those people cost a lot of money. Overall for the car insurance industry there will still be the same number of accidents and the same amount to pay out, they don't want the legal costs to increase. The only exception is insurance scams but even then an individual case is likely to cost your insurer more with good evidence due to the legal costs, the other persons insurer may benefit if they can claim enough costs back from the scammer.

 

[Kip]

You only need to put into a search engine 'dashcam discount' to see how many insurers think they are a good idea (presumably because they can save the insurance industry time and money). Some examples: Swiftcover, RAC, Axa, Adrian Flux (who recognise many different dash cams, not just from a single manufacturer). Like anything new, the others just haven't caught up yet.

 

[Nigel]

We currently have about ~700 open cases in our firm and about 1/4 of the cases are claims that need to be investigated. If we can eliminate these claims and investigation costs by the attorneys in my firm, costs will go way down. I'd say about another 1/4 of these cases we are disputing liability so the camera evidence will hopefully be able to eliminate liability issues and erase the need for litigation and the costs associated with that.

I would expect the camera evidence to reduce the cost of those disputes, but don't you think that the number of disputes is likely to increase considerably if everyone has dashcams? People who think they have evidence will not except liability, even if the evidence can be viewed in different ways including in a way that appears to be proof that they were at fault. People who have no evidence except their own account with no witness evidence will give up before you need the legal people.

 

[Kip]

If the evidence could make both parties seem to be at fault, then yes, they might need some legal advice on the video clip itself, as to who is more at fault. If it's equal or partial blame to both parties then it's not really any different to how it would be without dashcam evidence (one party says one thing, other party says another, etc). Overall, I believe they will save the industry money, but more importantly, save the policy holder a lot of headache (providing they themselves are not at fault) when something happens as it will speed up the whole process. I think the number of actual claims being made would fall, if more people fit dash cams, more people will take extra care when driving.

 

[jokiin]

I think you have the part about legal costs backwards. I work for Insurance Defense and I see legal costs getting cut down in a big way. We currently have about ~700 open cases in our firm and about 1/4 of the cases are claims that need to be investigated. If we can eliminate these claims and investigation costs by the attorneys in my firm, costs will go way down. I'd say about another 1/4 of these cases we are disputing liability so the camera evidence will hopefully be able to eliminate liability issues and erase the need for litigation and the costs associated with that.

I need to put together a list of pros/cons for a few execs at my company regarding a possible discount program and I will definitely be using some of your guys suggestions (with cites to this forum). I'm hoping to change the auto insurance industry in the U.S. for the next 10-15 years until technology completely takes over and eliminates 80% of the business we do thanks to safer vehicles.

nice to see, great work

 

[sludgeguts]

I didn't inform my insurer because I didn't expect a discount and didn't feel that a dashcam was much different to people who mount satnav or phone cradles on their windscreen or in my case, plug an MP3 player permanently into the car's USB port.
A dashcam is not an integral part of the car, unlike a change of wheels or an engine re-map or an upgraded turbo with performance exhaust.

I had a claim earlier this year and provided the video evidence to my insurer. They were a bit surprised that someone would have a dashcam and a bit unsure how to get a copy of the video from it so I put it on my Youtube account and also on MEGA and sent them the links.
Somehow they managed to look at it by the next day and used it to show that I hadn't driven into the back of the other car; the other car had reversed into me.
Nobody from my insurer's claim department in any way criticised me having a dashcam nor accused me of undeclared modifications. A few of the insurer's staff I spoke to on the phone relating to the accident felt that cams were a good thing.

A problem with insurers offering discounts for dashcams is that people would just buy a cheap one to get the discount and have a receipt showing they bought one, then send the cam back for a refund.
Alternatively, people buying really cheap cams might find they don't have good evidence - possibly no evidence if the cam doesn't work properly or fails soon after purchase.
Or the cam may simply not be running at the time.

I don't blame insurers for not offering a discount.

The idea of a dashcam is fit/forget. Anything added that changes your car from the way it left the factory is classed as a modification & all mods must be declared. They most likely didn't care about the undeclared mod since you weren't making a claim off them, it was against the other driver's insurance. However, if your car was broken into & one of the items you were claiming for was a dashcam, it'd be a different story. They get particularly @rsey when people leave valuables on view. When investigating claims where you expect them to pay, they will look at every little detail, anything they can do to get out of paying. When you look at comparison websites, they ask about mods & give examples - even listing such petty things as stickers!

 

[Dashmellow]

I would be curious to know why member @Andrew Paul who claimed above to work for "Insurance Defense" and made some interesting comments about lowering insurance costs by convincing his superiors to provide a "DashCam Discount program for our insureds" has deleted all of his posts, which now only exist where members had quoted him?