Conference terri::cars_uk

>     My insurance brokers told me that wouldn't effect premiums.  They were 
>     only concerned if the changes were "to make the car faster"!  If now 
>     being able to corner at .91g is irrelevant, an exact definition of this I 
>     can imagine!

Your broker is wrong. As an obvious example, what about a car that is jacked up
at the back ? It won't make it go any faster, but trust me, your insurance
company will want to know !!

>         At what point does an insurance company consider the modification 
>         relevant to a car's risk, and therefore your premium?

As soon as any material change is made to the car which alters it from the
Manufacturer's specs.

e.g. Paint it green instead of blue - They won't care since there is no
				      material alteration to the risk.

     Change the tyres to bigger ones - This does alter the car, theoretically
				       they will want to be notified.

When notified, Insurance companies will quite often decide they don't care.
However, they can get very picky at the time of a claim when they find out about
modifications, even when it is one that they would not have objected to. If it
is a alteration they are not sure about, they will forward it an an engineer for
his comments. In extreme cases they may wish the car to be inspected. Putting a
1000cc engine in an 850cc mini is unlikely to warrant anything more than a group
change, but a 1275cc engine will warrant a full inspection, re-rating as a
1275GT and probably a premium loading as well.

I knew a large property damage claim that was thrown out once because the
steering wheel had been changed to a totally non-standard one. They can claim
that putting in a $1000 radio over and above the standard one increases the
theft risk over and above what they are charging you for.

As a general guide, you will find that brokers usually don't understand (unless
they are a specialist broker) Lloyd's syndicates are very picky and Composites
usually have a large dose of common sense.

>     I have made a slight modification my car's suspension.  I merely renewed 
>     old tired dampers with better quality new ones, nothing too harsh.  

Any material change ? I suspect not. But if in doubt, tell them. And make sure
that the insurance company are told, not just the brokers. You'll end up sueing
the brokers under their pi Insurance if they don't tell the insurers and you
lose out on a claim.

As a guide, tell them, preferably in writing. They won't load you needlessly.

M.

In another case, a person who had a van fitted up as a fish and chip van
lost on a claim because they had not declared it to be modified from the
manufacturer's standard body. 

Legally, insurance contracts are issued on the basis of total disclosure. 
In theory you have an obligation to tell the insurance company every last
detail about any change to the vehicle that makes it different from when it
was supplied new by the manufacturer.  In practice most insurance companies
apply a rule of reasonableness, so if you didn't say something minor was
changed - like conversion to run on unleaded fuel, or fitting a rear window
wiper - they will disregard it and honour the claim.  However, they would 
legally be at least able at challenge the claim in these circumstances.

jb

    
    What about a second hand car which has had the cylinders bored, ports
    flowed, modified camshaft... Stuff you can't see without dismantling
    the engine. And the previous owner didn't tell you.
    
    My guess is that you sign "to the best of your knowledge all
    information given is true" legally you should be covered. But I am and
    always have been of the opinion that insurance companies are outside
    the law.
    
    I wouldn't like to try it though.
            
    Chris
    

indeed you do sign "to the best of...."

Insurance companies are, in fact, severely restricted by law. They also restrict
themselves further.

You wouldn't expect your claim to be bounced because your tyres were one size
too large, would you ? Well they could. As it happens in a world where insurance
companies are so unpopular, it would be business suicide to do so.

Insurance companies virtually never step outside the contract in their favour.
The insured people regularly and often intentionally do.

Why is it that people who are otherwise totally honest, see nothing wrong in
ripping off either insurance companies or the taxman ??

M.

� You wouldn't expect your claim to be bounced because your tyres were one size
� too large, would you ? Well they could. As it happens in a world where insurance
� companies are so unpopular, it would be business suicide to do so.
    
    Depends if you mean width or diameter! :^)
    
    Mark

    � Why is it that people who are otherwise totally honest, see nothing �
    � wrong in ripping off either insurance companies or the taxman ??    �
    
    
     Because with tax you never actually see your money get spent and with
    insurance, because they can charge you what they like and it's money
    better spent on wider tyres, flashy cams, etc.....
    
    	...Matt

    
    You might ask why normally honest people are prepared to work for BT,
    too! :^)
    
    Mark

    > Why is it that people who are otherwise totally honest, see nothing
    > wrong in ripping off either insurance companies or the taxman ??
    
    Now if you'd said -
    'Why is it that people who are otherwise totally honest, see nothing
    wrong in ripping off either insurance companies or bookies?' I'd see
    your point. After all, insurance companies are basically just glorified
    bookies.
    
    Brian

    
    You take the fuse out of your car, therefore modifying or adapting
    it's behaviour other than the manufacturers intention. You subsequently 
    have an accident (whether due to the modification or otherwise) which 
    leads to the vehicle being examined by a qualified person acting on behalf
    of the police or insurance. What is the legal position in this
    scenario? I always thought that a condition of your insurance policy
    was that the vehicle was *NOT* modified in any shape or form, I've even
    heard of claims being rejected due to `enhancements' such as different
    exhausts or wheels being fitted to vehicles. Surely in this case, even
    though you think you're improving the adverse condition performance of
    the vehicle, it could be construed as a non-standard vehicle.
    
    Mr. Boring

    
    ...just put the fuse back in as you climb from the wreckage.... %^)
    
    graham

    
    
    Aaaaarrrgghh...  I can't I've broken both my arms, and I can't take off
    my shoes to enable me to use my feet %^)
    
    Ian

    
    .... then the fuse was probably shaken loose by the impact ! %^)
    
    

    
    Then it serves you right for buying such a poorly built car that fall
    to bits at the first sign of impact...%^(

    Blow the fuse, and put it back...
    
    Laurie.

    
    re. Blow the fuse
    
    So that's what you get upto in Belgium is it %^)

    
    Only slightly connected to replacing parts after accidents but anyway,
    I once had a hire car which were taking from Basingstoke to Avimore, to
    go skiing, Somewhere just before the Scotish borders after you leave
    the A1, is I think the A66, this particular section has 2 or 3 very
    prominent hills almost like hump back bridges but on a much larger scale.
    Over the 1st one no problem, over the 2nd and this was getting to be
    fun, so due to positive encouragment the 3rd was taken at 90 MPH, all
    four wheels left the ground and we were actually airbourne for 60 or so
    miliseconds, great fun was had by all. BUT, no power on the downward
    part of the hill, so we coasted to a halt opened the bonnet and all 4
    of us had a look, nothing obvious apart from some little plastic cup like 
    object which had apparently become loose as we touched down, so we clipped
    it back on, made sure that all the leads coming off from the bit it
    connected to were ok and tried to start the car. several hours and a
    loooooooong walk later the AA man arrived, we explained what had
    happened, almost, we left out the bit about the plastic thing falling
    off. Anybody who's worked in a support role will be familiar with what
    happened next, the bit where you stop beleiving what the customer is
    saying and start checking everything yourself, well the AA man started to 
    check, He couldn't quite figure out how the car had managed to get 30
    miles from civilization without a rotor arm inside the distribitor cap.
    Should have seen his face when he found it missing. First time any of
    us had heard of a rotor arm.
    
    

    
    Another bit missing story...
    
    I used to work for a well known tyre manufacturer. Anyway, one day the
    verification (anybody remember when everything was verified in the days
    before quality assurance???) post reported a light truck tyre had been
    found. We duly had it X-rayed and found it was missing one of the
    fabrics which serve to form the triangulation in the summit of the
    tyre. These fabrics are (usually) put on before the tread section is applied
    and the whole assembly rolled and sealed before removal from the
    fabrication machine. On approaching the chap who had made the tyre he
    only response was to shrug his shoulders and insist "Well, it was in
    there when I sent it for cure!!!"

re .16

Thankyou for that Candid Camera story. It made my day!

Getting this topic back to where it should be......

I asked Direct Line Insurance what the extra charge would be to replace the
engine in my Mini 1275GT with a 1275cc A+ series engine from either a Metro or
preferable an MG Metro.  I pointed out that this was not a modification, but
simply replacing a worn out engine, and they said they would not insure the car
if the engine had been changed, implying that if I had put a 1000cc engine, they
would still not insure me.

This I thought was somewhat silly, and I told them so, but did they care!  Nope.


Does anyone know if this practice is common amoungst insurance companies, as I
need to change my engine shortly, and I can't afford a huge insurance hike...


Mark

    When I replaced a worn out engine in an old heap I used to own, I never
    even thought to contact my insurance company.
    
    I can't see what the problem is if it is the same capacity. 
    
    Royston
    
    

I think they may have missunderstood where you were coming from !!

Ask to speak to someone in their technical department or explain this is a 
mechanical repair as the engine is worn out and not any kind of performance
modification.

Andy

Anyway it shouldn't concern the insurance company as it is not classed as a 
modification, just a repair. So long as you inform DVLC there shouldn't be a 
problem. I could understand it if it was the other way around,
i.e. 1275GT in to a metro or ordinary mini !

Thanks,  I'll try them again tomorrow.

Thing is, they even checked with their underwriters, who said no-go.  It
certainly is strange to classify a repair as a modification.  The MG metro
engine could be classified that way possibly, as it's more powerful than my old
GT engine (I think!).  Gotta find one yet though before the current one jumps
out of the car (mountings aren't too good - one sheared off, and can't repair
it)...

M

    
    Why did the moderator move my entry now residing in .9 from where it
    was, ie. a subject regarding taking the ABS fuse out to improve the
    braking of vehicles in the snow? The note is now out of context,
    considering I put it in to make people aware that taking this advice in
    the base note *MIGHT* put their insurance at risk. Now I'm in trouble
    with Mr. TEER for getting the note off the subject. 
    
    Ian...

I wondered why your reply was put in here aswell!!

>    Why did the moderator move my entry now residing in .9 from where it
>    was, ie. a subject regarding taking the ABS fuse out to improve the
>    braking of vehicles in the snow? The note is now out of context,

it seemed that this topic was a better place to discuss the impact on
car insurance of engine modifications than the winter driving note,
especially as the subsequent replies had totally gone off the original
topic.
Cheers,

Chris.

    .14�    Blow the fuse, and put it back...
    
    	Have you seen the GATSO traffic-light photo taken at the Master
    Brewer, Hillingdon that showed a Granada piling into the side of a van,
    with a bike behind the van ? 
    
    	 Apparently, when they got the car driver for that they did him for
    everything - including defective brakes!  The photo showed the car had
    locked up - It had ABS, so the brakes were defective! If he had not
    got ABS they would not have done him for that.

    I'm not sure I believe the deductions there.  My car has ABS and my
    wheels lock up, that's how ABS works (the wheels lock then ABS lets go
    of the brakes) so if the picture was taken at just the right time, it
    would show locked wheels.
    
    On "The Bill" they check accidents by the length of the skid marks (on
    the road) so they could have determined whether the car had ABS from
    the solid skid marks (rather than dotted with ABS).
    
    tp

    I don't see how they could do the driver for driving with defective
    brakes. The Prelude has ABS and it hardly ever goes off so how would I
    know that it was defective. Perhapse the Police would like we to test
    the ABS every time a start a journey. That would be fun.
    
    	o Start Journey
    	o Get on M3, accelerate to 70.
    	o Remember "I forget to test the ABS"
    	o Hit the brakes (very hard)
    	o ABS engades at about 15-10 mph.
    	o Oh yes they work.
    	o What is that nice lorrey doing up in my boot ?
    
    	Only half :-)
    
    		Rik

    What is the legal definition of "defective brakes" anyway. ABS is
    designed to "fail safely", in other words act like normal brakes?
    
    And are Audi drivers breaking the law when they turn their ABS off in
    heavy snow?
    
    mb

      I suspect it was just another thing to charge him with.  
    
      As far as "defective brakes" go, don't some of the MOT rules say
    something about certain things being not required if not fitted as 
    original equipment but if they are subsequently fitted then they're 
    tested?  
    
    	Following that, I'd expect that a non-working ABS system might well
    be considered as defective!

    Apparently, all the major insurance companies had a big meeting this week
    to discuss ways of not paying out on insurance claims. A spokesman
    denied that they were looking for small print loopholes to avoid
    payment, but that they were concerned that only genuine claimants
    should be paid out, since the amount paid out had risen significantly
    in the last couple of years.
    
    The report then showed that, on house and car insurance, premiums had
    risen by 23%, while payouts had risen by 13% over the last couple of
    years.
    
    So, it looks as though anything out of the ordinary with your car may
    just give them a reason to quibble about the claim and perhaps not pay.
    
    Terry

    
    I heard this on the radio.
    
    They were saying that part of their job is to stop people claiming when
    they shouldn't, so this is a meeting targetted at these false
    claimants.
    
    Still, if someone comes up with a loophole which would stop false
    claims, I'm sure we can rely on the insurance people not to use it to
    stop valid claims going through, can't we! 8-[
    
    Steve.