Following on from this thread, I had a quick look for insurance.

I'm 31, no claims or points (finally!) with 5 years ncb on, er, one of our cars!
It would be garaged "overnight" and secure car park (I'm the security) during the "day" (I work nights so I do this backwards)
I put a value of £300 and 3k miles per year. Given that value I started with fire and theft.

Best quote £324.77

Thought it a little steep seeing as it's £100 more for the mondeo, but figured it can't be much more for comprehensive so I changed it (no voluntary excess)

Best quote £279.88

So the question is "Double-you tee eff?" How's it CHEAPER for more cover?

Yep. found exactly the same with my old S40 Volvo, cheaper to insure fully comp and cheaper still if I put my wife and son as named drivers. How does it work?

I've read that going for fully comp shows that you are a more responsible and reliable citizen. But surely the boy racers know this ?
Why would anybody go for TPO ? Maybe it's because with fully comp you would be covered for personal injury and the Insurance Co can get kickback from the personal injury specialists that they sell your details to ?

I have heard of this happening, and there is a certain amount of logic to it which runs along the lines of 'if they are after TPFT, then they must be a higher risk in the first place'.

There are also quite a few who won't cover you for anything other than fully comp.

Aye, got my ancient 106 for under £200 comp, the 3rd party ONLY was way over £400!

And, can anyone explain how the type of cover you have changes your risk?

[Edited on 10/9/11 by coozer]

people still think that there is some sort of reason how brokers get their figures. Its random.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coozer
And, can anyone explain how the type of cover you have changes your risk?

---