Ferrari 488 Insurance
Discussion
Thanks guys.
I've gone with Admiral for many years & saved 70% vs brokers. Never had any problems but with this 488 Spider, with it being worth a lot over list price & having spoken to 7 different companies/ brokers including ones recommended above, I've decided to go with a broker this time round.
Just comparing quotes before deciding Monday.
I've gone with Admiral for many years & saved 70% vs brokers. Never had any problems but with this 488 Spider, with it being worth a lot over list price & having spoken to 7 different companies/ brokers including ones recommended above, I've decided to go with a broker this time round.
Just comparing quotes before deciding Monday.
Another vote for me for AIB Hiscox, I have 3 cars, all insured with Admiral for many years. On the policy I have owned 3 458's, a 458 spider, an FF, a 488 over the years. Just bought a speciale and admiral could not quote on it, too much for them, shame as I say been with them for ever.
But feeling that with the value of the speciale being so far over list etc & the market value thing, it is now insured for a value I am happy at, cost me a few more ££, but the policy looks really good, kept all 3 cars together, so admiral have really lost out on a long term claim few customer...you would think they could have done something to 'hedge' out the car if the value was too much to keep the business but clearly not
Let us know who you go with once you have made your decision
Admiral will be absolutely fine until you have a claim but in that regard they are no different to any other company you find on compare etc. There will be a reason they are cheaper and the level of negotiation over price probably should tell you something too.
Tbh I don't understand anyone not using a broker to do all the work especially on any car that's unusual, expensive or whatever.
Nowell and Richards gets my vote - have had" fleet" policies through Chubb , Aviva and currently with Zurich.
Tbh I don't understand anyone not using a broker to do all the work especially on any car that's unusual, expensive or whatever.
Nowell and Richards gets my vote - have had" fleet" policies through Chubb , Aviva and currently with Zurich.
I'm ready to be shot down in flames......
I phoned Admiral to cancel & they dropped my premium to under half of the cost any broker could get to with the same saving on the excess.
I totally agree if I had a classic or a 3+ year old car, I'd either get a valuation carried out for Admiral to agree, or if they refused cancel the policy & go to a broker. That's for sure.
My 488 Spider is brand new & I know it's worth currently 40k over list. Admiral confirmed on the phone they will pay me the market value above list price as long as I have proof. I do + my Ferrari dealer would assist anyway.
I was told when my Lamborghini Huracan windscreen cracked that Admiral wouldn't fit a genuine manufacturer windscreen by other Supercar owners, but they did in fact fit a proper Lamborghini windscreen.
I want to give a shout out to Adrian at AIB insurance, as he was by far the most on the ball broker from the 5+ companies I talked to. Competitive too.
It's not just about the premium, it's about what you get on the policy. Having checked, I have no benefit from brokers policies vs Admiral bar AIB saying I can have a replacement Supercar whilst my car was in for repair, if God forbid I damaged it, however there is a cost limit which equates to I'd say ariund 3 days max hire. I could live without my Ferrari for that long as it's my toy/ play car.
Admiral have also confirmed when my 4th car turns up in 2ish months- the new Merc AMG GTR, they will give me the same NCD for that too so will offer a big saving there too.
If they've misled me then it's all recorded, but having been with them for 5+ years, I have no reason to doubt them to date.
Thank you all for sharing your experiences as it helps out one another.
I phoned Admiral to cancel & they dropped my premium to under half of the cost any broker could get to with the same saving on the excess.
I totally agree if I had a classic or a 3+ year old car, I'd either get a valuation carried out for Admiral to agree, or if they refused cancel the policy & go to a broker. That's for sure.
My 488 Spider is brand new & I know it's worth currently 40k over list. Admiral confirmed on the phone they will pay me the market value above list price as long as I have proof. I do + my Ferrari dealer would assist anyway.
I was told when my Lamborghini Huracan windscreen cracked that Admiral wouldn't fit a genuine manufacturer windscreen by other Supercar owners, but they did in fact fit a proper Lamborghini windscreen.
I want to give a shout out to Adrian at AIB insurance, as he was by far the most on the ball broker from the 5+ companies I talked to. Competitive too.
It's not just about the premium, it's about what you get on the policy. Having checked, I have no benefit from brokers policies vs Admiral bar AIB saying I can have a replacement Supercar whilst my car was in for repair, if God forbid I damaged it, however there is a cost limit which equates to I'd say ariund 3 days max hire. I could live without my Ferrari for that long as it's my toy/ play car.
Admiral have also confirmed when my 4th car turns up in 2ish months- the new Merc AMG GTR, they will give me the same NCD for that too so will offer a big saving there too.
If they've misled me then it's all recorded, but having been with them for 5+ years, I have no reason to doubt them to date.
Thank you all for sharing your experiences as it helps out one another.
FA57EST said:
I'm ready to be shot down in flames......
I phoned Admiral to cancel & they dropped my premium to under half of the cost any broker could get to with the same saving on the excess.
Somewhat related but that would've got my back up on its own... I realise that it's not unique to Admiral, but threatening to cancel and magically getting a much lower quote would really irritate me!I phoned Admiral to cancel & they dropped my premium to under half of the cost any broker could get to with the same saving on the excess.
I'd want the agreed value in writing myself.
It's interesting how people see things from different perspectives.
By definition an insurance company makes money and therefore as a customer you are overpaying for the true risk of a claim. I'm more than happy therefore to take as much risk as I can myself.
With respect to car insurance it is a legal requirement; I have to buy it but I will try to get the cheapest cover possible. In effect I want to shift the risk to myself and "self insure".
It's also a test for myself if I can truly afford a luxury purchase - whether it's jewellery, cars, paintings etc. If I can't afford to replace it then I can't afford it.
It's why I don't pay for warranties on any supercar. I'll self insure.
People will hate me saying this, but in my opinion if you buy a £250k supercar and it will make a marked difference to your finances if someone stole it and you got nothing back, then I would argue you can't afford the car in the first place relative to your net worth.
Edit: And I stress - I am not judging. I fully accept I am in a tiny minority with this opinion, with many supercar owners having cars worth a "large" % of their net worth. Everyone has a different approach to life and a different risk appetite. Oddly I am ultra conservative with respect to the ratio of car value to net worth - but I am happy to self insure as much as I can with all my luxury possessions.
By definition an insurance company makes money and therefore as a customer you are overpaying for the true risk of a claim. I'm more than happy therefore to take as much risk as I can myself.
With respect to car insurance it is a legal requirement; I have to buy it but I will try to get the cheapest cover possible. In effect I want to shift the risk to myself and "self insure".
It's also a test for myself if I can truly afford a luxury purchase - whether it's jewellery, cars, paintings etc. If I can't afford to replace it then I can't afford it.
It's why I don't pay for warranties on any supercar. I'll self insure.
People will hate me saying this, but in my opinion if you buy a £250k supercar and it will make a marked difference to your finances if someone stole it and you got nothing back, then I would argue you can't afford the car in the first place relative to your net worth.
Edit: And I stress - I am not judging. I fully accept I am in a tiny minority with this opinion, with many supercar owners having cars worth a "large" % of their net worth. Everyone has a different approach to life and a different risk appetite. Oddly I am ultra conservative with respect to the ratio of car value to net worth - but I am happy to self insure as much as I can with all my luxury possessions.
Edited by WDISMYL on Tuesday 4th April 11:58
WDISMYL said:
With respect to car insurance it is a legal requirement; I have to buy it but I will try to get the cheapest cover possible. In effect I want to shift the risk to myself and "self insure"
How does self insuring work with a 3rd party claim for injury or death? Your liability can run to 7 figures.Edited by red_duke on Tuesday 4th April 15:37
By definition an insurance company makes money and therefore as a customer you are overpaying for the true risk of a claim.
Could u elaborate ? Some years some Insurance companies don't make profits !
Everything else u wrote makes sense - obviously down to the individual to call.
My point is simply that when u have made that call and insured something you have no idea of how much hassle you may be letting yourself in for when you have to claim and going the cheapest isnt necessarily the best call.That said I have insured my childrens cars with Admiral for years and apart from the painful hour of my life negotiating once a year they are great - but I havent had to claim from them.
Could u elaborate ? Some years some Insurance companies don't make profits !
Everything else u wrote makes sense - obviously down to the individual to call.
My point is simply that when u have made that call and insured something you have no idea of how much hassle you may be letting yourself in for when you have to claim and going the cheapest isnt necessarily the best call.That said I have insured my childrens cars with Admiral for years and apart from the painful hour of my life negotiating once a year they are great - but I havent had to claim from them.
WDISMYL said:
It's interesting how people see things from different perspectives.
By definition an insurance company makes money and therefore as a customer you are overpaying for the true risk of a claim. I'm more than happy therefore to take as much risk as I can myself.
With respect to car insurance it is a legal requirement; I have to buy it but I will try to get the cheapest cover possible. In effect I want to shift the risk to myself and "self insure".
It's also a test for myself if I can truly afford a luxury purchase - whether it's jewellery, cars, paintings etc. If I can't afford to replace it then I can't afford it.
It's why I don't pay for warranties on any supercar. I'll self insure.
People will hate me saying this, but in my opinion if you buy a £250k supercar and it will make a marked difference to your finances if someone stole it and you got nothing back, then I would argue you can't afford the car in the first place relative to your net worth.
Edit: And I stress - I am not judging. I fully accept I am in a tiny minority with this opinion, with many supercar owners having cars worth a "large" % of their net worth. Everyone has a different approach to life and a different risk appetite. Oddly I am ultra conservative with respect to the ratio of car value to net worth - but I am happy to self insure as much as I can with all my luxury possessions.
I understand how you 'feel' about this, but I totally disagree and think many would find this opinion strange, whether they be less or significantly more wealthy than yourself. For instance one on my clients has net worth over £200 million. He can comfortably afford to lose his Rolex, one of his race horses to break a leg, his house to burn down, etc, but he would not be able to sleep at night without the peace of mind that insuring these assets brings. While you might think he's a fool for worrying about these events, that's just the way he feels and has nothing at all to do with his net worth.By definition an insurance company makes money and therefore as a customer you are overpaying for the true risk of a claim. I'm more than happy therefore to take as much risk as I can myself.
With respect to car insurance it is a legal requirement; I have to buy it but I will try to get the cheapest cover possible. In effect I want to shift the risk to myself and "self insure".
It's also a test for myself if I can truly afford a luxury purchase - whether it's jewellery, cars, paintings etc. If I can't afford to replace it then I can't afford it.
It's why I don't pay for warranties on any supercar. I'll self insure.
People will hate me saying this, but in my opinion if you buy a £250k supercar and it will make a marked difference to your finances if someone stole it and you got nothing back, then I would argue you can't afford the car in the first place relative to your net worth.
Edit: And I stress - I am not judging. I fully accept I am in a tiny minority with this opinion, with many supercar owners having cars worth a "large" % of their net worth. Everyone has a different approach to life and a different risk appetite. Oddly I am ultra conservative with respect to the ratio of car value to net worth - but I am happy to self insure as much as I can with all my luxury possessions.
Edited by WDISMYL on Tuesday 4th April 11:58
I personally think it's insulting to say that spending a few thousand on insurance is a waste of money and only for the poor (which Is really what you are saying). It's not, you are buying peace of mind. Most of the ultra wealthy individuals I deal with have worked incredibly hard to build their portfolio of wealth/assets. They value their wealth as much as anybody and see insurance as a very small cost for that peace of mind. What insurance is, is basically risk assessment. Only the most extravagantly risky people would risk a large loss for a small outlay and use insurance as a hedge.
So that is what I think we are talking about here I.e. Propensity and willingness to risk a huge loss to save a very small amount. Most of the wealthy people I know would find this a risk too far.
Don't put words in my mouth. I don't remember saying people were foolish for doing the opposite to me.
If I can't afford the tail risk - I will insure it as best I can. If I can then I don't bother. I haven't paid contents insurance for over 25 years. If my house burns down it's on me. But the house is insured! I sleep very well thank you very much.
I made it very clear it was how approached things. It was simply a different perspective. If you felt I insulted anyone then that's on you. It wasn't my intention at all.
I'm not telling anyone what to do - it's their business. I was just counteracting several people's posts who were arguing for going with the most expensive policy , because in their minds it gave them the best possible cover.
In fact many of these policies are underwritten by the same companies.
Besides a "huge loss" is relative to an individuals liquid net worth. So who are you to judge?
.
If I can't afford the tail risk - I will insure it as best I can. If I can then I don't bother. I haven't paid contents insurance for over 25 years. If my house burns down it's on me. But the house is insured! I sleep very well thank you very much.
I made it very clear it was how approached things. It was simply a different perspective. If you felt I insulted anyone then that's on you. It wasn't my intention at all.
I'm not telling anyone what to do - it's their business. I was just counteracting several people's posts who were arguing for going with the most expensive policy , because in their minds it gave them the best possible cover.
In fact many of these policies are underwritten by the same companies.
Besides a "huge loss" is relative to an individuals liquid net worth. So who are you to judge?
.
Edited by WDISMYL on Tuesday 4th April 14:02
Edited by WDISMYL on Tuesday 4th April 14:13
Durzel said:
Somewhat related but that would've got my back up on its own... I realise that it's not unique to Admiral, but threatening to cancel and magically getting a much lower quote would really irritate me!...
Yes but that's just how it works. Any insurance company is a business trying to make money. So they'll try to charge you more but if they want your business then they'll settle for charging you less in the end if you're prepared to haggle - and many people aren't - so they get a balance between those that just pay the extra; those that just go elsewhere and those that will contact them and get the price reduced.AndyGarton said:
Is Admiral charging less than half of what any broker could do too good to be true? I suspect so. Good luck ... I hope you don't have to claim!
I used to insure my cars through a broker until I happened to notice in the small print that they were adding an extra percentage onto the premium for their efforts (that's on top of the commission they would already be getting from the insurer). When I cancelled they then offered to compare quotes from other insurers, something I had assumed (my stupid fault for not checking, I guess) they were already doing at each renewal (and the renewal reminder they sent me was carefully worded to imply that was what they were doing without explicitly stating it). So it turns out they were effectively charging extra commission for forwarding a renewal letter to me. So dealing direct with an insurer, who then are not needing to pay commission, it is entirely possible to get a better deal, particularly if you are an existing customer who's business they want to retain.WDISMYL said:
It's interesting how people see things from different perspectives.
By definition an insurance company makes money and therefore as a customer you are overpaying for the true risk of a claim. I'm more than happy therefore to take as much risk as I can myself.
With respect to car insurance it is a legal requirement; I have to buy it but I will try to get the cheapest cover possible. In effect I want to shift the risk to myself and "self insure".
It's also a test for myself if I can truly afford a luxury purchase - whether it's jewellery, cars, paintings etc. If I can't afford to replace it then I can't afford it.
It's why I don't pay for warranties on any supercar. I'll self insure.
People will hate me saying this, but in my opinion if you buy a £250k supercar and it will make a marked difference to your finances if someone stole it and you got nothing back, then I would argue you can't afford the car in the first place relative to your net worth.
Edit: And I stress - I am not judging. I fully accept I am in a tiny minority with this opinion, with many supercar owners having cars worth a "large" % of their net worth. Everyone has a different approach to life and a different risk appetite. Oddly I am ultra conservative with respect to the ratio of car value to net worth - but I am happy to self insure as much as I can with all my luxury possessions.
Most interesting because it is not dissimilar to my own view. I just thought I was alone!By definition an insurance company makes money and therefore as a customer you are overpaying for the true risk of a claim. I'm more than happy therefore to take as much risk as I can myself.
With respect to car insurance it is a legal requirement; I have to buy it but I will try to get the cheapest cover possible. In effect I want to shift the risk to myself and "self insure".
It's also a test for myself if I can truly afford a luxury purchase - whether it's jewellery, cars, paintings etc. If I can't afford to replace it then I can't afford it.
It's why I don't pay for warranties on any supercar. I'll self insure.
People will hate me saying this, but in my opinion if you buy a £250k supercar and it will make a marked difference to your finances if someone stole it and you got nothing back, then I would argue you can't afford the car in the first place relative to your net worth.
Edit: And I stress - I am not judging. I fully accept I am in a tiny minority with this opinion, with many supercar owners having cars worth a "large" % of their net worth. Everyone has a different approach to life and a different risk appetite. Oddly I am ultra conservative with respect to the ratio of car value to net worth - but I am happy to self insure as much as I can with all my luxury possessions.
Jonathan
AndyGarton said:
A better deal certainly, because you avoid their commission/charges completely. But less than half?!?
Yep def less than half on both premium & excess. FYI many luxury car brands use "approved paint shops" that will paint 5-7 luxury/ supercar brand of cars. I.E. it's not just for Ferrari, or just Lamborghini etc. My Porsche 991 911 Turbo Cab had paint by a "Porsche approved" paint shop (also approved for other makes of car) through Admiral. No problem.
I agree each to their own. Admiral Group is one of the largest car insurance providers in the UK. I'd rather save the £1400+ per year thanks. I don't need to, but I choose to. Agreed Brokers get a kick back from the insurer & have a commission themselves often built in.
If I need an agreed value on a 20 year old classic Supercar like some of my friends, I'd get the valuation & if Admiral refused to cover (I think they would cover) I'd obviously go to a broker. This 488 & the 3-4 more in the pipeline will be new so I'm happy to stick with Admiral for now personally.
Edited by FA57EST on Tuesday 4th April 15:48
WDISMYL said:
People will hate me saying this, but in my opinion if you buy a £250k supercar and it will make a marked difference to your finances if someone stole it and you got nothing back, then I would argue you can't afford the car in the first place relative to your net worth.
I think it's more the case that if the difference between a good policy and a bad one is a few hundred, then as a proportion of the value of the car it's trivial. You can get a crap policy, and fulfil the requirements of being insured, with the policy itself being all but worthless in the event of a claim. That, to me, is only insurance in name only and isn't really any different from fronting or not having insurance at all (legality notwithstanding).
For the same reason as I don't understand why people skimp on things like surveys when buying houses, I wouldn't bother with an insurance policy on a car if it is tokenistic. There is a value to me in knowing that I won't have to waste my time getting into an argument over market values, or where repairs are carried out, etc - that I might have to with a insurance broker for whom 99% of their business is run-of-the-mill cars.
Everyone's risk profiles and tolerance for their time being wasted is different though, I appreciate that.
FA57EST said:
AndyGarton said:
A better deal certainly, because you avoid their commission/charges completely. But less than half?!?
Yep def less than half on both premium & excess. FYI many luxury car brands use "approved paint shops" that will paint 5-7 luxury/ supercar brand of cars. I.E. it's not just for Ferrari, or just Lamborghini etc. My Porsche 991 911 Turbo Cab had paint by a "Porsche approved" paint shop (also approved for other makes of car) through Admiral. No problem.
I agree each to their own. Admiral Group is one of the largest car insurance providers in the UK. I'd rather save the £1400+ per year thanks. I don't need to, but I choose to. Agreed Brokers get a kick back from the insurer & have a commission themselves often built in.
If I need an agreed value on a 20 year old classic Supercar like some of my friends, I'd get the valuation & if Admiral refused to cover (I think they would cover) I'd obviously go to a broker. This 488 & the 3-4 more in the pipeline will be new so I'm happy to stick with Admiral for now personally.
Edited by FA57EST on Tuesday 4th April 15:48
Yipper said:
The problem with Admiral is, their "market value" is "book value" (not "agreed value"), so in the event of a writeoff or theft they will ultimately pay what is in Glass's Guide (or whatever trade book they use). And the mainstream price-guides are not geared up to pricing niche supercars, so they always err on the side of caution and price on the lower end of the scale. In short, you are almost certainly not going to get anywhere near the payout expected if the car is written off.
I was dealing with a manager who confirmed its market value & agreed this car is currently very rare. She also confirmed I can supply evidence like a letter from the Ferrari dealer on value, comparable cars for sale etc & that they would pay out over market value if the evidence backs this up. I also stated the value as over market value too for the quote, so premium is calculated on 30k over list. I'm happy with that. I respect the fact that people are divided between those like me using compsnies like Admiral & many of you using brokers. Nice to have choice.FA57EST said:
I was dealing with a manager who confirmed its market value & agreed this car is currently very rare. She also confirmed I can supply evidence like a letter from the Ferrari dealer on value, comparable cars for sale etc & that they would pay out over market value if the evidence backs this up. I also stated the value as over market value too for the quote, so premium is calculated on 30k over list. I'm happy with that. I respect the fact that people are divided between those like me using compsnies like Admiral & many of you using brokers. Nice to have choice.
They told me and it was their VIP lot that said this, it's market value i.e. trade value. And why should you have to go hunting evidence to say it will cost X amount if the worse should happen. Get a proper policy and if you do write it off then the amount is paid without having to gather evidence. FA57EST said:
Yipper said:
The problem with Admiral is, their "market value" is "book value" (not "agreed value"), so in the event of a writeoff or theft they will ultimately pay what is in Glass's Guide (or whatever trade book they use). And the mainstream price-guides are not geared up to pricing niche supercars, so they always err on the side of caution and price on the lower end of the scale. In short, you are almost certainly not going to get anywhere near the payout expected if the car is written off.
I was dealing with a manager who confirmed its market value & agreed this car is currently very rare. She also confirmed I can supply evidence like a letter from the Ferrari dealer on value, comparable cars for sale etc & that they would pay out over market value if the evidence backs this up. I also stated the value as over market value too for the quote, so premium is calculated on 30k over list. I'm happy with that. I respect the fact that people are divided between those like me using compsnies like Admiral & many of you using brokers. Nice to have choice.As others have said, I have had a phone monkey, supervisor and claims manager on 3 separate occasions, from 2 separate departments, in the past month, tell me Admiral only ever pay "book value", never "agreed value", and never "retail value". Their "market value" is trade, not retail. They also told me the car valuation given on the policy before a claim has little or no impact after a claim (because I also tried to inflate the car price for a quote!). Just the fact they are telling you one thing, and me (and others) another thing, should ring alarm bells. Inconsistency of verbal advice is a classic sign that "something is not right". Admiral are a great company, but I'd wager someone with a £250k car that is written off or stolen would be lucky to see a £200k payout from Admiral (and other similar mass-market insurers).
Of course, the way to get around it is to take out gap insurance with someone like ALA. That way, you can make up any Admiral shortfall.
A bit of an old post but I am to thinking of doing the admiral plus gap insurance route. My wifes Porsche 992 is with Admiral with the safety net of the Porsche gap insurance which came with the car FOC as part of the deal. With my 488 Spider I was thinking of going the same route with a back to invoice gap policy from Ferrari and then going to Admiral with a multi car policy which is really cheap. The logic being that if the worse happened and a total loss claim was made the Ferrari gap would beat up Admiral to give a good settlement to reduce their loss. It has the added advantage of getting a back to invoice settlement as opposed to market. The ferrari gap is expensive but if the cost is spread over the 3 years that I will probably keep the car for it would still save around around £3k compared to specialist broker costs. Even with specialist brokers I still have concerns with their market values and very restrictive mileage limitations they impose. Also the service I get from brokers just providing quotes (Hiscox has taken nearly a week and repeated calls to come back with the surcharge for the change from 458 to 488 for the remaining few weeks of the policy) does not inspire confidence when with my wife's car it was sorted in on one call to Admiral (and there was no surcharge). The extra charges brokers charge just do not seem to be buying better service in my experience.
Finally with regard to choice of garage for repairs, as I understand, they cannot insiste on a none improved Ferrari repairer and you can insiste it goes to the correct repairer. Also many parts Ferrari will only supply to their approved repairers so I do not think Admiral would have much option in the matter. Also being under Ferrari warranty Ferrari recovery will only deliver to an approved repairer for any repairs. If you do not follow this route Ferrari remove your warranty so Admiral would be putting you in a worse case than before the accident which I assume they cannot do.
What are peoples view on this route?
Finally with regard to choice of garage for repairs, as I understand, they cannot insiste on a none improved Ferrari repairer and you can insiste it goes to the correct repairer. Also many parts Ferrari will only supply to their approved repairers so I do not think Admiral would have much option in the matter. Also being under Ferrari warranty Ferrari recovery will only deliver to an approved repairer for any repairs. If you do not follow this route Ferrari remove your warranty so Admiral would be putting you in a worse case than before the accident which I assume they cannot do.
What are peoples view on this route?
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff