75ZT Community

Now, what do insurance companies know.......

I once had a 96 Discovery. Direct Line told me that I had to fit a Thatcham Alarm. Standard equipment for this year Disco. Well, we will have to charge you £40 to come and inspect the vehicle to make sure it is fitted. Needless to say I will never consider insuring with Direct Line.

Now, enthusiasts will know what is included in the spec for their car and what would have been an optional extra. However, 'I need another car don't care what it is' will not know if any manufacturer optional extras have been fitted.

Perhaps this needs to be bottomed out somehow. The term "modification" should really be defined. I think we are in no doubt that a re-map or a straight through exhaust is a modification. But what about a set of mud flaps or seat covers for example. Having a quick look at .ORGs insurance thread then one guy's insurance claimed such a set of mud flaps were indeed seen as a "modification".

I would imagine it depends upon one's insurer and whether there's an R in the month. Also the circumstances of the claim; minor bump, none recoverable theft or the ultimate as highlighted in Paul's example; a fatality.

Here's a suggestion gentlemen; I would suggest we are all with a number of different insurers, perhaps a phone call asking them to define the word "modification" may give us a clue. Or not.

Gary M.

Duncan wrote:Yes I was surprised, too. Admiral do make that distinction (that's why I left them) and one other I found while getting quotes (Direct Line I think). It really annoyed me with Admiral as it was totally unclear that they did this until this time last year when their wording changed to make it clear. They told me had always been this way, and I was basically daft for not realising that modified included manufacturers build options.

I think it's Admiral that are daft. They apparently are unaware that in 'our cars' the various option levels (and therefore the rating category) are actually in the car title ie Classic, Club, SE etc. So the max is the factory issue - can't be any more unless they are told. Anyway, there are no factory options that would come anywhere near let alone exceed the indemnity range! Actually, I'm having difficulty in thinking of an option that would increase the performance to a level that would attract a higher premium rate. A rather stupid attempt to avoid losing face and one that would explode in their face if a settlement figure was disputed!

That's another thing, it doesn't matter how much any offer of write-off value is, it should always be declined as inadequate as a matter of course. Insurance companies always beat the 'scrapper' down to the bare minimum when contract renewal time comes around. I once tried, successfully, to get a bit more out of them by asking them to waive the excess!

Borg Warner wrote:Perhaps this needs to be bottomed out somehow. The term "modification" should really be defined. I think we are in no doubt that a re-map or a straight through exhaust is a modification. But what about a set of mud flaps or seat covers for example. Having a quick look at .ORGs insurance thread then one guy's insurance claimed such a set of mud flaps were indeed seen as a "modification".

I would imagine it depends upon one's insurer and whether there's an R in the month. Also the circumstances of the claim; minor bump, none recoverable theft or the ultimate as highlighted in Paul's example; a fatality.

Here's a suggestion gentlemen; I would suggest we are all with a number of different insurers, perhaps a phone call asking them to define the word "modification" may give us a clue. Or not.


Gary M.

Exactly. The whole point of the subject of mods is again contained in the 'policy conditions'.
I think the word is adequately defined for the purposes of the cover, but owners tend to value the cars at value plus whatever they have spent on them! As mentioned above, a real wood dash, powerfolds, additional lighting, a sunroof etc all add up to perhaps an embarrassing percentage of the 'book' value of the car. And as there is usually a greater degree of attachment to the car when you are an enthusiast (as opposed to enthusiastic in general) well, you can't put a price on that!

Perhaps we should get a written answer to: "I have improved the resale value of my car by £1000 by the addition of..... and have receipts to prove. Would the value in the event of..... show this?" when renewal comes around.

A phone call might be useful, however when I asked Admiral to clarify it when I rang them, they guy on the phone was even more confused. What's more, all the information he recorded was wrong. The information from a phone call is worth about as much as the paper it's written on. You have to read, and double read the policy documents for definitions.

Something of a postscript to this:-

The defendant pleaded guilty at the plea and case management hearing at the Crown Court this morning. Adjourned for sentencing.

A further thought provoking item from the FS people though, was that the EPROM removed for testing had in fact, been the subject of modification and that several other interesting items of information had been recovered from the memory including the date and time that the code had been modified.

raistlin wrote:Something of a postscript to this:-

The defendant pleaded guilty at the plea and case management hearing at the Crown Court this morning. Adjourned for sentencing.

A further thought provoking item from the FS people though, was that the EPROM removed for testing had in fact, been the subject of modification and that several other interesting items of information had been recovered from the memory including the date and time that the code had been modified.

So they know when it was done; no saying it was done by the previous owner(s) then as a get out. Interesting, very interesting. Wonder if they could tell by which machine it was as well? If so could any action be taken against them as part of a civil action perhaps?

The debate has been started again on the OC in a new thread, with at least one person saying that following the post of the previous article they have informed their insurance with little difficulty in carrying on with their cover, albeit with an extra (reasonable) cost. Also interesting to note that those who carry out the modification are no longer stating that they are "invisible".

It has certainly made people think.

Gary M.

The defendant was sentenced in July, to six years and four months, five years disqualification and extended re-test. The Judge's summing up included, in mitigation, the continuing effect upon the defendant's physical and mental well-being but also the effect upon the family of the deceased, and the blatant attempt to conceal the modification to the car's performance, in aggravation. It also came out at the P&CM hearing that the defendant had also been composing a text message whilst stationary at the traffic lights but continued to do so as he drove onwards. The Judge stated that, in his view, this offence fell in category two of the Crown Court sentencing guidelines.

Hi Paul

Long time no visit by myself - I apologise. Guessing you may have seen yet more discussion on this subject elsewhere? I was going to ask for an update from you but unfortunately things got out of hand, as they do, so didn't want to bother you unnecessarily. It would appear I missed the opportunity but I'm sure it will be raised again, perhaps we may have more success next time.

Note to ones self and a New Year resolution; visit here more often.

Happy New Year everyone.

Gary M.