Understanding Claims Severity Between BEVs and ICE Vehicles

Exploring Claims Severity in Battery Electric and ICE Vehicles

The most recent analysis highlights that gasoline-powered vehicles experience more expensive front-end damage in accidents compared to their battery electric vehicle (BEV) counterparts. This insight comes as part of a detailed study into vehicle collision impacts, revealing significant differences in claims severity between these two categories of automobiles.

Collision Data Overview

Collisions involving front-end impacts are notably common and lead to costs averaging 40% higher than those resulting from rear-end impacts. According to the latest findings, internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles show a front-end impact frequency rate of 31.59%. In contrast, BEVs demonstrate a lower frequency of 25.88%, but they tend to incur more rear-end damage, recorded at 35.98%, versus 27.57% for ICE vehicles. This differentiation presents a crucial understanding of the dynamics involved in vehicle accidents.

Analysis of Claims Frequency and Severity

Ryan Mandell, director of claims performance at the analysis firm, emphasized the connection between impact points and claims severity. Even while BEVs generally experience higher overall severity, understanding these dynamics aids auto insurers in evaluating risks, steering claims, and supporting policyholders with better information.

The Q3 report highlights several key statistics:

• Claims Frequency and Severity: Last quarter, the frequency of claims for repairable collision-damaged BEVs reached 3.01% in the United States and 3.97% in Canada, marking a significant year-over-year increase of 47% and 26%, respectively. On average, claims severity was $5,560 for BEVs in the U.S., compared to $5,229 for plug-in hybrids, and $4,426 for mild hybrids. ICE vehicles averaged $4,741. In Canada, these numbers were $6,923 for BEVs and $6,171 for plug-in hybrids, with mild hybrids and ICE vehicles showing values of $6,366 and $5,615, respectively.
• Total Loss Market Value: As the price gap narrows between BEVs and ICE vehicles, total loss outcomes show growing similarities. The average total loss market value for BEVs was $32,718 in the U.S. and $41,380 in Canada. Comparatively, for 2021 and newer ICE vehicles, the totals were $31,070 in the U.S. and $42,498 in Canada. Also noteworthy, the total loss frequency rates between these vehicle types are nearly indistinguishable, with BEVs totaling at 9.9% in the U.S. and 10.11% in Canada, compared to 9.98% and 11.74% for newer ICE vehicles.
• Keys-to-Keys Cycle Time: In the U.S., the average keys-to-keys cycle time stands at 19.5 days for BEVs, while ICE vehicles have an average of 16.5 days, showcasing an 18% discrepancy. In Canada, BEVs take an average of 17.2 days, whereas gasoline-powered vehicles average 14.3 days, indicating a longer cycle time for BEVs. This trend also extends to mild and plug-in hybrids, which exceed ICE vehicle cycle times in both nations.

Conclusion

The latest findings not only spotlight the differences in claims severity and frequency but also emphasize the evolving landscape as BEVs and ICE vehicles continue to compete in the automotive marketplace. Insurers aiming to navigate these transformations will need to adjust their understanding of risk and damage assessments based on these collision insights.

About Mitchell International

Mitchell International, based in San Diego, California, is renowned for delivering innovative technology solutions across various sectors, including auto insurance and collision repair. With a strong commitment to improving service processes, the company utilizes advanced technology such as artificial intelligence to meet the needs of its extensive client base. Each month, Mitchell processes millions of transactions for over 300 insurance providers, 20,000 repair facilities, and 70,000 pharmacies, showcasing its role in facilitating recovery and support.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary focus of the report discussed?

The report examines claims frequency and severity differences between battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

How do front-end impact frequencies compare between BEVs and ICE vehicles?

ICE vehicles have a front-end impact frequency of 31.59%, while BEVs have a lower frequency of 25.88%.

What is the average claims severity for BEVs in the U.S.?

The average claims severity for BEVs in the U.S. is $5,560.

Why is the total loss market value significant?

It signifies the financial implications of vehicle damage, showing how BEVs and ICE vehicles are increasingly comparable in repair complexity and costs.

What industry does Mitchell International serve?

Mitchell serves the auto insurance, collision repair, disability, and workers' compensation industries, offering technology-driven solutions.

About Investors Hangout

Investors Hangout is a leading online stock forum for financial discussion and learning, offering a wide range of free tools and resources. It draws in traders of all levels, who exchange market knowledge, investigate trading tactics, and keep an eye on industry developments in real time. Featuring financial articles, stock message boards, quotes, charts, company profiles, and live news updates. Through cooperative learning and a wealth of informational resources, it helps users from novices creating their first portfolios to experts honing their techniques. Join Investors Hangout today: https://investorshangout.com/

Disclaimer: The content of this article is solely for general informational purposes only; it does not represent legal, financial, or investment advice. Investors Hangout does not offer financial advice; the author is not a licensed financial advisor. Consult a qualified advisor before making any financial or investment decisions based on this article. The author's interpretation of publicly available data shapes the opinions presented here; as a result, they should not be taken as advice to purchase, sell, or hold any securities mentioned or any other investments. The author does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of any material, providing it "as is." Information and market conditions may change; past performance is not indicative of future outcomes. If any of the material offered here is inaccurate, please contact us for corrections.