When a vehicle value is automatically shown, an experience 56% of consumers recall; a combined 84% ultimately accept the figure. However, the journey is far from passive. The vast majority of this group (nearly four out of five accepters) first perform a “trust but verify” check, scrutinising the figure before proceeding. While convenience is welcome, this active vetting process underlines that consumer trust is not automatic. Furthermore, a significant minority of 14% of those shown a value actively intervene to change it, reinforcing the need for insurers to earn consumer confidence in their data.
Why Customers Intervene: Perceived Value vs. Reality
The primary motivation for customers changing a pre-populated value is the perception that it is inaccurate. The most common reason, cited by 55% of those who changed the value, was the belief that the suggested amount was too low for their car. However, this is not just an emotional response; the second most common reason, cited by nearly a quarter of interveners (23%), was their confidence in a recent valuation they had obtained themselves. This points to an engaged, not just impressionable, consumer segment actively seeking to correct what they see as flawed data. This belief that values are underestimated is reflected in the actions consumers take: of the 14% who altered the figure, 11% increased the value, while only 3% lowered it.
The Misconception Linking Value to Coverage and Premiums
Consumer beliefs about the impact of vehicle value on their policy drive much of this behaviour. While the majority of consumers (72%) correctly understand that the vehicle's value affects their premium, a critical misunderstanding persists. One in five (21%) consumers mistakenly believe that entering a higher vehicle value results in better insurance coverage. This misconception is a key driver for manual valuation increases and creates a disconnect between the premium paid and the principle of indemnity, potentially leading to customer dissatisfaction and disputes during a claim.
Consumer Confidence and Valuation Methods
Despite the complexities of vehicle depreciation, 60% of consumers are either 'very' or 'fairly' confident that the value they enter is accurate. This confidence is often rooted in a simple, but flawed, methodology. When insuring a car for the first time, the most common method for determining its value, used by nearly half of consumers (48%), is simply stating the price they paid for it. The second most common method is using an online valuation tool (25%). This reliance on purchase price creates a fundamental customer expectation gap, as the value they are insured for may be significantly higher than the vehicle's actual market value, the basis for any total-loss payout.
Conclusion: The Path Forward for Insurers
The research presents a clear verdict: consumers want the convenience of pre-population but demand the control to edit the final figure. This behaviour is shaped by a high degree of confidence in their own valuations, which is often misplaced and a common misconception linking a higher value to better coverage. The opportunity for insurers is not merely to provide an accurate valuation, but to demonstrate its accuracy at the point of quote. By transparently showing the data sources or market comparisons used to generate the value, insurers can build the necessary trust to reduce manual overrides, improve pricing accuracy, and minimize downstream friction at the point of claim.
Notes: The analysis is based on a total of 833 car owners surveyed.
Submit a comment