so, when a classic car insurer says it won't offer classic insurance for a list of occupations, why does it do this?

for example, i've been looking on the lancaster website. there are some seemingly random occupations that can't apply for classic car insurance, such as tv/radio presenter, celebrity, professional gambler, amongst others. these occupations where a car is not needed for their work makes me wonder whether they are being refused insurance because of the supposed nature/personality of the person doing that particular job, not because of the risk that the classic car might be used as part of their job. a radio presenter can't possibly use their car as part of their job, at worst they can commute without specifying it, but so can anyone working in say, an office, someone who is allowed to be covered by classic insurance.

courier/delivery drivers are also in this list, and are refused classic insurance. now, before continuing, i would like to know if the insurance company means delivery drivers/couriers who use their own cars (eg next catalogue, pizza delivery etc) or any kind of delivery driver, as it does not specify? obviously the former is a potential risk, as the classic car may be used without it being disclosed. the latter situation may include someone who uses company vans only, a clearly different, and less risky situation.

i'm a delivery driver, i drive supermarket vans, where everything is provided by the company, van, commercial insurance, breakdown cover, etc. i only use my own car for commuting. even then, i use my daily car (with a standard SD&P&Commuting policy which i have already bought) for the commuting, and my classic car is seperate to that, just for pleasure. if the reason for refusal of classic insurance is down to the proposed nature of the driver, reflected by their profession, then why on earth would delivery drivers be discriminated against? in my experience, and in my personal case, a delivery driver is proficient with the roads, completely suited to driving environments, and knows how to detach their emotions and feelings from the driving task. this, in my opinion, is completely opposite to say, a professional performer, who is likely to be extrovert, dramatic, perhaps easy to anger, and more likely to cause an accident because of this nature?

a delivery driver during work is obviously more likely to have an accident in the time scale of during a whole year compared to a year of someone in another profession, purely because of the amount of time they spend on the roads. but the % of accidents for a delivery driver compared to say the amount of time spent on the road (for a professional driver, say 30 hours a week) will be remarkably low, a sure indicator of a safer driver. and this in any case, is the concern of the commercial policy provider only. once this driver takes off his uniform and is in his classic car, he may spend the same amount of time on the roads in it as any other professional, but will surely retain that statistically safer driving record, because of his experience from work. older drivers are given cheaper insurance because they are less risky, because of the amount of time they have spent on the roads, the prime argument of insurance companies for the extortionate prices of policies for young drivers. surely someone who spends all day driving has similar, if not more experience than someone of equal age in another profession, and can be granted the same luxury?

i guess my real questions, in short, are, firstly, why are the kinds of people listed above refused classic car insurance? and what are the reasons for these kinds of people being refused classic insurance (performers, etc)? secondly why are delivery drivers 'tarred with the same brush' as these other types of people? as discussed, a logical assessment of the situation should dictate otherwise?

next, as a driver of a work van do i need to disclose this to the classic insurance company, or do they only mean people who use their own cars for work, and will i be refused classic insurance because of it?

finally, if i were a lorry driver, would i count as a 'delivery driver', and be refused classic insurance? why not?

i'd love it if one of the insurance companies on this forum could shed some light on the points i've raised, as this system doesn't makes sense to me

thanks for reading

Try being a trade plate driver, I don't even have my own car on the road when I'm doing that because my insurance goes silly.

i'd love it if one of the insurance companies on this forum could shed some light on the points i've raised, as this system doesn't makes sense to me

thanks for reading

No problem but please do not shoot the messenger

so, when a classic car insurer says it won't offer classic insurance for a list of occupations, why does it do this?

Certain occupations are very high risk and insurers have this exclusion to prevent them covering a risk they do not want on their books.

i guess my real questions, in short, are, firstly, why are the kinds of people listed above refused classic car insurance? and what are the reasons for these kinds of people being refused classic insurance (performers, etc)? secondly why are delivery drivers 'tarred with the same brush' as these other types of people? as discussed, a logical assessment of the situation should dictate otherwise?

Again - it's all down to risk.

Classic car insurance is all about low risk customers and cars.. something which greatly increases risk (eg a high risk occupation) could mean an exclusion from classic car insurance. There will be an element of people using and abusing their classic car cover for delivery work.

next, as a driver of a work van do i need to disclose this to the classic insurance company, or do they only mean people who use their own cars for work, and will i be refused classic insurance because of it?

finally, if i were a lorry driver, would i count as a 'delivery driver', and be refused classic insurance? why not?

Yes, you need to truthfully disclose your occupation. It could make a difference with some insurers.

Classic car policies are very restrictive eg, over 30's, second car, limited mileage, garaged etc

No problem but please do not shoot the messenger

Certain occupations are very high risk and insurers have this exclusion to prevent them covering a risk they do not want on their books.

Again - it's all down to risk.

Classic car insurance is all about low risk customers and cars.. something which greatly increases risk (eg a high risk occupation) could mean an exclusion from classic car insurance. There will be an element of people using and abusing their classic car cover for delivery work.

Yes, you need to truthfully disclose your occupation. It could make a difference with some insurers.

Classic car policies are very restrictive eg, over 30's, second car, limited mileage, garaged etc

thanks for the reply skyinsurance, i appreciate the time you took the time to write it, but please don't be offended by me saying it hasn't really answered my questions..

i am aware that i 'should' disclose this occupation because it has been asked, i'm also aware of the stricter requirements for a classic car policy. i fall foul of none of the other requirements you have mentioned except my occupation.

i am aware of the simple concept of risk and how insurance companies charge accordingly, i thought i had made that clear in my post. what i don't understand is how a delivery driver, such as myself, who drives work vans all day can be considered more risky than one of my colleagues who might work on the supermarket check-outs all day. as i have described, i am more experienced on the roads, and so surely my case compared with my check-out working buddy should be considered in the same light as an older driver being compared to a younger driver; i have been on the roads for more time, i am more experienced, i am safer. please correct me if this is not rational thinking?

the fact that i drive WORK vans only should not bring any risk of 'using the car for work' into the equation. the insurance provider in question has a strict 'no-commuting' clause in it's coverage, so it's just as likely (in fact more-so) that my check-out buddy could illegally use his classic car for commuting than i could use my car for deliveries, so refusing me cover purely for this reason is not valid. the refusal must be because they are assuming that because of my job title i am a 'higher risk' person? this is what i do not understand, for the aforementioned reasons.

if that is the only argument, exactly why is a delivery driver at a much higher risk when he takes his classic car out on his days off?

also, i hope you don't take my blunt replies as 'shooting you', it's just my nature when i don't understand things. thanks again for taking the time to read and reply

what i don't understand is how a delivery driver, such as myself, who drives work vans all day can be considered more risky than one of my colleagues who might work on the supermarket check-outs all day.

I'm not saying one is higher risk than another and I am sure it will vary between insurers but, and I apologise for the vague not specific nature of my reply but claims statistics is the answer.

also, i hope you don't take my blunt replies as 'shooting you', it's just my nature when i don't understand things. thanks again for taking the time to read and reply

Happy to answer but am wary from years of experience of answering forum based queries.

Happy to answer but am wary from years of experience of answering forum based queries.

do you mean weary of people acting on your advice and then getting in trouble? or do you just mean weary of people getting a bit angry!

do you mean weary of people acting on your advice and then getting in trouble? or do you just mean weary of people getting a bit angry!

I say it how it is, sometimes this rubs people up the wrong way.. also, insurance isn't the most popular of industries to work in, often people see an insurance company with a public profile and take the opportunity to have a dig.

Thanks

Ollie

Sky Insurance

What insurers cover and how much they charge is based purely on risk, the risks they want to cover and market competition.

As a professional driver myself (hgv) i know why insurers would discriminate against us, due to the higher risk of driving tired, i know a couple of lads who fell asleep at the wheel on the way back from work, writing their cars off in the process.

A lot of the driver training courses i've been to have focused on tiredness and how to avoid falling asleep at the wheel so the problem is quite well known.

If that's not a valid reason for an Insurer to avoid not insuring a specific occupation, i don't know what is.

Edited 30 May, 201313 yr by polo45

What insurers cover and how much they charge is based purely on risk, the risks they want to cover and market competition.

As a professional driver myself (hgv) i know why insurers would discriminate against us, due to the higher risk of driving tired, i know a couple of lads who fell asleep at the wheel on the way back from work, writing their cars off in the process.

A lot of the driver training courses i've been to have focused on tiredness and how to avoid falling asleep at the wheel so the problem is quite well known.

If that's not a valid reason for an Insurer to avoid not insuring a specific occupation, i don't know what is.

again, yes, i understand it's all about risk. i just fail to see where this claimed 'higher risk' comes from..

i see your point, but this is for classic car insurance, and commuting is not allowed. so there would be an agreement that nobody on the policy would be driving to and from work at all in the first place. so someone's working hours shouldn't add any risk to them using the car if they abide by the initial agreement and use it for sd&p only. so i'm not sure that's a fair point, and i still don't understand..

What insurers cover and how much they charge is based purely on risk, the risks they want to cover and market competition.

As a professional driver myself (hgv) i know why insurers would discriminate against us, due to the higher risk of driving tired, i know a couple of lads who fell asleep at the wheel on the way back from work, writing their cars off in the process.

A lot of the driver training courses i've been to have focused on tiredness and how to avoid falling asleep at the wheel so the problem is quite well known.

If that's not a valid reason for an Insurer to avoid not insuring a specific occupation, i don't know what is.

again, yes, i understand it's all about risk. i just fail to see where this claimed 'higher risk' comes from..

You have one example there from polo45. Take the entertainment industry or sports people. You are giving some "personality" a lift in your car and you have an accident. In "normal" life someone might be out of work as a result for say a week or two. You've just stopped someone from appearing at Wembly in front of 50,000 people. What? and they've cut their face? They MUST go to Mr Plastic Surgeon in Hollywood to get it fixed. And you can be sure they have a very good, very expensive lawyer. You can see the difference, and it all comes back to money and perceived risk. If you want to get Mr(or Ms) skyinsurance banging their head on the desk, just tell them you need to take your car airside at any airport in the UK.

What insurers cover and how much they charge is based purely on risk, the risks they want to cover and market competition.

As a professional driver myself (hgv) i know why insurers would discriminate against us, due to the higher risk of driving tired, i know a couple of lads who fell asleep at the wheel on the way back from work, writing their cars off in the process.

A lot of the driver training courses i've been to have focused on tiredness and how to avoid falling asleep at the wheel so the problem is quite well known.

If that's not a valid reason for an Insurer to avoid not insuring a specific occupation, i don't know what is.

again, yes, i understand it's all about risk. i just fail to see where this claimed 'higher risk' comes from..

You have one example there from polo45. Take the entertainment industry or sports people. You are giving some "personality" a lift in your car and you have an accident. In "normal" life someone might be out of work as a result for say a week or two. You've just stopped someone from appearing at Wembly in front of 50,000 people. What? and they've cut their face? They MUST go to Mr Plastic Surgeon in Hollywood to get it fixed. And you can be sure they have a very good, very expensive lawyer. You can see the difference, and it all comes back to money and perceived risk. If you want to get Mr(or Ms) skyinsurance banging their head on the desk, just tell them you need to take your car airside at any airport in the UK.

i already explained why i don't see how polo45's example applies to classic car insurance, as it's a no commuting policy. there's no need to be condescending.

thanks for explaining your own point though, i see it and understand it. although wouldn't you say that what you have described is more an issue of "cost" or "loss" to the company, than "risk"? first of all, i take it what you've mentioned could also apply to a sports personality, or anyone who relies on their body in their profession more than average..

so i see why some insurance companies might charge more to cover these kinds of personalities. if paddy mcguiness, or chris hoy crashing their classic car and getting injured is going to cost more than if i did it, i understand why insurance companies might not want to cover these kinds of people altogether. but it's not fair to say that chris hoy or paddy are more likely to crash their cars than i am, so can you call them more "risky" drivers?

anyway, i'm sorry if you think it's pedantic of me to clarify the terms. and i might be misinterpreting the terms that are actually used by the industry, i'm open to correction. what i'm trying to lead up to, and the differences i'm trying to highlight are as follows :

- i'm a delivery driver, and so am not going to be more "costly" to an insurance company if i get injured in a crash; i don't rely on my body any more than average.

- i'm not driving my classic car to or from work, so what my job is shouldn't affect how likely i am to crash (ie driving tired after work)

- if the "effect of my job on my driving attitude or competence" is the reason for the discrimination, then how can it be negative? as i've explained, technically a delivery driver/hgv driver should be less risky?

and yet, the classic car insurance company won't insure me at all. there must be a genuine reason, as i'm sure they'd love to take my money, but i'm just not seeing it?

and i don't want anyone banging their heads on the desk, i'm close to that at the moment myself.. i just want someone to answer my original questions in a way that is logical and understandable, as i have tried to be.

If you want to get Mr(or Ms) skyinsurance banging their head on the desk, just tell them you need to take your car airside at any airport in the UK.

Risk isn't something that they are plucking out of the air over their first brew of the day, it's determined by statistics of previous claims.

So naturally if they get lots of musicians claiming, then this will mean they will charge musicians more in the future, as statistics will either show they are more likely to claim, or more likely to raise an expensive claim if they do claim.

Some of the worst drivers I know are van drivers... amusing thing is they think that because they drive for a living it makes them a god behind the wheel

Risk isn't something that they are plucking out of the air over their first brew of the day, it's determined by statistics of previous claims.

So naturally if they get lots of musicians claiming, then this will mean they will charge musicians more in the future, as statistics will either show they are more likely to claim, or more likely to raise an expensive claim if they do claim.

Well then I suppose you can't argue with that. And I guess nobody tries to explain the reasons why, or knows why some professions are more risky than others. I'd love to see these statistics, can someone who isn't in an insurance company view them?

Some of the worst drivers I know are van drivers... amusing thing is they think that because they drive for a living it makes them a god behind the wheel

So you think you're better than them, what makes you think you know more about driving than them to judge them as 'worse'? Maybe they think the same about you. Presumably they are involved in more accidents than you for you to make such judgement.

In addition, most of the van drivers I work with are over 50, incredibly competent, responsible and safe on the roads, in and out of the vans. So on the subject of identifying trends, maybe it's just the people you hang out with.

They can think the same about me all they want, I'm far from the best driver in the world, never have been and never will. I'm am probably in a position to judge them for that very reason, I don't see it as some kind of competition, I just judge them on their driving. I've seen them do some fucking retarded shit while bragging about how amazing they are. Over confidence and arrogance seem to be traits shared by a lot of my friends in driving jobs.

And thats just the ones I know, the amount of retarded shit I've seen van drivers doing out on the roads probably answers the question of why they pay more for insurance than any reply to a thread on an internet forum ever could.

that said probably the most skilled driver I know is a van driver... insurers probably wouldn't exactly class his skills as insurance friendly tho

Edited 7 June, 201313 yr by Mclovin

And as if by magic i just watched a van nearly take out a passat as the van driver tried to over take him and two trucks before the very short dual carriageway (with a speed camera at the end) turned in to a single.

best bit is he then left at the next junction which was about 150 yards after