‘Modifications’ and insurance
Discussion
Apologies if this has been done to death, but my interest was again piqued by an article in the Saturday Telegraph, suggesting that your car insurance would go up by x amount if you had a roof-rack.
I wonder if anyone has any personal experience of this sort of nonsense?
I haven’t insured a car for years (company car), but my wife hasn’t mentioned having to declare her plastic door protectors or whatever.
I wouldn’t expect car insurance to pay out for a stolen roof rack, but I can’t imagine paying a compulsory annual premium simply for having one.
I wonder if anyone has any personal experience of this sort of nonsense?
I haven’t insured a car for years (company car), but my wife hasn’t mentioned having to declare her plastic door protectors or whatever.
I wouldn’t expect car insurance to pay out for a stolen roof rack, but I can’t imagine paying a compulsory annual premium simply for having one.
Is the article from the 1st April ?
Don't believe everything you read !
I have worked in insurance for 40 years and know of no insurers that would increase their premium or increase their terms for having a roof rack.
If there are any insurers that do, then you certainly wouldn't want to insure with them.
Insurers are generally concerned with modifications to the likes of engine, suspension, brakes, etc, e.g. performance enhancements.
Don't believe everything you read !
I have worked in insurance for 40 years and know of no insurers that would increase their premium or increase their terms for having a roof rack.
If there are any insurers that do, then you certainly wouldn't want to insure with them.
Insurers are generally concerned with modifications to the likes of engine, suspension, brakes, etc, e.g. performance enhancements.
Stuart1961 said:
Is the article from the 1st April ?
Don't believe everything you read !
I have worked in insurance for 40 years and know of no insurers that would increase their premium or increase their terms for having a roof rack.
If there are any insurers that do, then you certainly wouldn't want to insure with them.
Insurers are generally concerned with modifications to the likes of engine, suspension, brakes, etc, e.g. performance enhancements.
Unfortunately I’ve recycled it. It was in the ‘Money’ section. It also spoke about premiums going up if you fitted a parking radar etc.Don't believe everything you read !
I have worked in insurance for 40 years and know of no insurers that would increase their premium or increase their terms for having a roof rack.
If there are any insurers that do, then you certainly wouldn't want to insure with them.
Insurers are generally concerned with modifications to the likes of engine, suspension, brakes, etc, e.g. performance enhancements.
The problem is there is a complete lack of transparency on what a modification is.
The standard response from insurers is anything not factory fit is a modification you tell us what it is and we'll decide if we'll accept it and if we will charge more for it. Some even considered factory fit optional extras to be something you need to discuss with them.
There is no way to know that your insurer would have been willing to honour a claim in full on a car with a roof rack that was not declared, but also charge extra for anyone who has diligence to contact them about it.
I bet you'd be hard pushed to find a car on auto trader without a window sticker, and you'd be very hard pushed to figure out exactly what is standard, what is option on a 5+ year old car, let alone be absolutely confident that it is exactly as manufactured, so if it concerns them that blood much they should come and have a f
king look for themselves.
The standard response from insurers is anything not factory fit is a modification you tell us what it is and we'll decide if we'll accept it and if we will charge more for it. Some even considered factory fit optional extras to be something you need to discuss with them.
There is no way to know that your insurer would have been willing to honour a claim in full on a car with a roof rack that was not declared, but also charge extra for anyone who has diligence to contact them about it.
I bet you'd be hard pushed to find a car on auto trader without a window sticker, and you'd be very hard pushed to figure out exactly what is standard, what is option on a 5+ year old car, let alone be absolutely confident that it is exactly as manufactured, so if it concerns them that blood much they should come and have a f
king look for themselves.otolith said:
Don’t know about roof racks, but Admiral once increased my premium for specifying air conditioning on a new Civic Type-R.
Of courseWho's going to steal / crash / vandalize a civic type R without air conditioning?. Plus it will affect the value, sure they asked you what it was worth / what you paid but obviously air conditioning makes it worth more.
Regarding the type r with air con the only plausible reason is a front end impact could be more costly to repair because of the additional condenser fitted in front of the radiator but ffff me that's really pushing it. Id be amazed if there are any stats that show cars with A/C (a relatively small amount of ep3 type r) have been involved in more claims.
aka_kerrly said:
Regarding the type r with air con the only plausible reason is a front end impact could be more costly to repair because of the additional condenser fitted in front of the radiator but ffff me that's really pushing it. Id be amazed if there are any stats that show cars with A/C (a relatively small amount of ep3 type r) have been involved in more claims.
This was in 2002 - I doubt they had any meaningful stats for that model at all then.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff