Crash - Insurance Unaware Of Engine Swap - Consequences
Discussion
Olivera said:
Soov330e said:
Exactly. They pay out. And then they come after the driver for the MONEY.
As I said before, do you have any evidence or proof of a UK car insurer successfully suing someone for a significant amount of money in this manner?I have personally never heard of an insurer seeking the full costs of the claim back from the 1st party, but it is a common conception that they will and I am sure some companies try.
Ransoman said:
No they don't. There are often loads of different diameters when buying disks just for 1 model because the larger the engine the bigger the brakes.
And it won't just be 41kg. The engine is bigger, the manifolds have to be bigger, the alternator, starter motor and wiring too. Then there is the gearbox and clutch. More fluids etc. It all adds up, you are looking at over 100kg in reality.
The stock brakes may still be able to cope (as in, bring it to a standstill) but will generate a ton more heat in the process. Repeat this for typical driving conditions - Start stop city, speeding up/slowing down for bends in the countryside etc and they will fade much quicker with the extra weight.
The brakes are also designed to bring the car to a stop from its max speed. I bet the brake fluid would be boiled by the time a 1.8's brakes has brought a 3.0 liter lump to a stop from 140mph.
The brakes need to be commensurate with the high spec tyresAnd it won't just be 41kg. The engine is bigger, the manifolds have to be bigger, the alternator, starter motor and wiring too. Then there is the gearbox and clutch. More fluids etc. It all adds up, you are looking at over 100kg in reality.
The stock brakes may still be able to cope (as in, bring it to a standstill) but will generate a ton more heat in the process. Repeat this for typical driving conditions - Start stop city, speeding up/slowing down for bends in the countryside etc and they will fade much quicker with the extra weight.
The brakes are also designed to bring the car to a stop from its max speed. I bet the brake fluid would be boiled by the time a 1.8's brakes has brought a 3.0 liter lump to a stop from 140mph.
Nanook said:
C70R said:
Your deliberate obtuseness is not helping the conversation. To clarify something, can I please have your opinion on two scenarios, and you can tell me which is more dangerous (from the perspective of braking efficiency/power):
Scenario 1: E46 318i with four occupants (4x 75kg) and 30kg of luggage. Total weight: 1690kg (1360kg + 330kg)
Scenario 2: E46 318i with E46 330i engine: Total weight: 1505kg (stated weight of 330i)
If 318i brakes are specified to deal with Scenario 1 within their tolerances, they are fine to deal with Scenario 2.
Well, if anyone knows how to be obtuse, it's you!Scenario 1: E46 318i with four occupants (4x 75kg) and 30kg of luggage. Total weight: 1690kg (1360kg + 330kg)
Scenario 2: E46 318i with E46 330i engine: Total weight: 1505kg (stated weight of 330i)
If 318i brakes are specified to deal with Scenario 1 within their tolerances, they are fine to deal with Scenario 2.
No, you cannot have my opinion on these two scenarios, as you're comparing apples with oranges and I'm not interested in getting into a stupid argument about it.
If you'd asked about a 318 being loaded up to it's MAM with a full payload of luggage and passengers, then taking into account the additional weight of the heavier engine on top of that, well that's something that's possibly worth discussing. Brake disc/pad/piston sizes, spring rates, damping rates, aren't based on a single figure. They're based on a range of mass, from the lightest the car is ever going to be, right through to the heaviest the car is ever going to be.
What an absolute wally. You've twisted the conversation so much that you don't even know what point you're trying to make any more. You're just throwing words around like some sort of demented Countdown contestant.
Just accept that you're wrong about the brakes. Cars with bigger engines don't always need bigger brakes.
In my example above (and the EXACT scenario we're discussing), the bigger engine in the 318 would have been absolutely within the standard brakes' operating margins. No ifs, no buts.
caelite said:
Olivera said:
Soov330e said:
Exactly. They pay out. And then they come after the driver for the MONEY.
As I said before, do you have any evidence or proof of a UK car insurer successfully suing someone for a significant amount of money in this manner?I have personally never heard of an insurer seeking the full costs of the claim back from the 1st party, but it is a common conception that they will and I am sure some companies try.
My memory is a little hazy but in these circumstances, the insurer would have the right to void the policy from inception (ab initio) due to the engine swap. They would say that they would never normally provide cover for highly modified vehicles and therefore void the policy from the start. In these circumstances, I'm not sure whether the MIB would deal with third party liabilities or the insurer is still on the hook for third party liabilities as Article 75 insurer (dealing in the shoes of the MIB).
When dealing with the third party as Article 75 or the MIB, they will ask the Claimant to sign a form of Assignment and Agreement. This preserves the insurer's or MIB's rights of recovery again the uninsured driver. They will also ask the uninsured driver to sign a form of Consent and Indemnity which allows the insurer/MIB to settle claims presented by the uninsured driver and it also confirms agreement from the uninsured driver that they will pay the third party outlays. If proceedings are issued, the uninsured driver is named as first defendant and the insurer/MIB are added as second defendant to protect their own position.
I have seen both insurers and the MIB go after uninsured drivers for their outlays. If those individuals are men of straw, they usually get nothing from them and close their file. This is the majority of people as people that are willing to drive uninsured are scrotes anyway without a pot to piss in. They can get attachment of earnings and charges on property though.
Also, if the uninsured driver plays ball and co-operates with the insurer/MIB, it can go in their favour. If liability is disputed, the MIB will still fight and if they have the co-operation of the uninsured driver and manage to defend the claim or get a percentage knocked off or contributory negligence, they may not go after them for their outlay or allow them to pay in instalments.
Olivera said:
cbmotorsport said:
A friends idiot son lost it on a bend and crashed into a house while driving drunk. His insurance is null and void as a result. They have paid out the third party's damage and are currently pursuing him for their outlay. It happens.
Eh? "Is My insurance policy is invalid if I drink and drive - Insurance companies do remain obliged under the Road Traffic Act to meet the costs of any claim by a third party for injury or damage."KungFuPanda said:
Interesting stuff...
Out of interest, do you have an idea as to what level of deception would result in the insurer not having ANY liability for any of the claim?I'm curious because I'm thinking about a scenario where some scrote has managed to get an insurer to provide cover in the most dubious of circumstances? Lying about licence held, car mods, convictions, previous claims, all at once for example.
It almost sounds as if insurers are on the hook, to some extent at least, by the simple fact that they've issued a certificate to a scrote regardless of how much they've been deceived.
C70R said:
Your deliberate obtuseness is not helping the conversation. To clarify something, can I please have your opinion on two scenarios, and you can tell me which is more dangerous (from the perspective of braking efficiency/power):
Scenario 1: E46 318i with four occupants (4x 75kg) and 30kg of luggage. Total weight: 1690kg (1360kg + 330kg)
Scenario 2: E46 318i with E46 330i engine: Total weight: 1505kg (stated weight of 330i)
If 318i brakes are specified to deal with Scenario 1 within their tolerances, they are fine to deal with Scenario 2.
Now who is being obtuse?Scenario 1: E46 318i with four occupants (4x 75kg) and 30kg of luggage. Total weight: 1690kg (1360kg + 330kg)
Scenario 2: E46 318i with E46 330i engine: Total weight: 1505kg (stated weight of 330i)
If 318i brakes are specified to deal with Scenario 1 within their tolerances, they are fine to deal with Scenario 2.
Scenario 2 should be E46 318i with E46 engine with four occupants and 30kg luggage, total weight 1835kg (1505kg + 330kg)
In my book 1835 is a fair bit more than 1690.
Dog Star said:
I had a monumental crash last year and wrote off a five month old E class.
I and the OH were take away from the scene by HATOs and the car removed by whoever recovers them off motorways.
Insurance never inspected the car - they just settled the week after.
Having said that there were no third parties or injuries involved, just the one idiot (me).
Hopefully you are both well on the mend from that.I and the OH were take away from the scene by HATOs and the car removed by whoever recovers them off motorways.
Insurance never inspected the car - they just settled the week after.
Having said that there were no third parties or injuries involved, just the one idiot (me).
The insurance company would have received photos and a report from the holding agents of the vehicle before paying out, it would then have been assessed internally before pay out, so although a physical inspector didn't attend (how do you know?) there would have been a process that would look at the condition of the vehicle.
PorkInsider said:
KungFuPanda said:
Interesting stuff...
Out of interest, do you have an idea as to what level of deception would result in the insurer not having ANY liability for any of the claim?I'm curious because I'm thinking about a scenario where some scrote has managed to get an insurer to provide cover in the most dubious of circumstances? Lying about licence held, car mods, convictions, previous claims, all at once for example.
It almost sounds as if insurers are on the hook, to some extent at least, by the simple fact that they've issued a certificate to a scrote regardless of how much they've been deceived.
It's a bit of a grey area as to when an insurer will void a policy. When I was still in practice which was in the early 2000's the insurer I used to handle claims for were quite relaxed. If any minor mods or undeclared points came to light after their policyholder was involved in a bog standard RTA, they'd just ask for the difference in premium to be paid. Most policyholders were happy to pay what was asked as they were still being insured. I think it's down to the individual insurer, as time passes by they're getting more tighter with this though.
KungFuPanda said:
PorkInsider said:
KungFuPanda said:
Interesting stuff...
Out of interest, do you have an idea as to what level of deception would result in the insurer not having ANY liability for any of the claim?I'm curious because I'm thinking about a scenario where some scrote has managed to get an insurer to provide cover in the most dubious of circumstances? Lying about licence held, car mods, convictions, previous claims, all at once for example.
It almost sounds as if insurers are on the hook, to some extent at least, by the simple fact that they've issued a certificate to a scrote regardless of how much they've been deceived.
It's a bit of a grey area as to when an insurer will void a policy. When I was still in practice which was in the early 2000's the insurer I used to handle claims for were quite relaxed. If any minor mods or undeclared points came to light after their policyholder was involved in a bog standard RTA, they'd just ask for the difference in premium to be paid. Most policyholders were happy to pay what was asked as they were still being insured. I think it's down to the individual insurer, as time passes by they're getting more tighter with this though.
Soov330e said:
Olivera said:
cbmotorsport said:
A friends idiot son lost it on a bend and crashed into a house while driving drunk. His insurance is null and void as a result. They have paid out the third party's damage and are currently pursuing him for their outlay. It happens.
Eh? "Is My insurance policy is invalid if I drink and drive - Insurance companies do remain obliged under the Road Traffic Act to meet the costs of any claim by a third party for injury or damage."TooMany2cvs said:
Reading the article, I suspect there was also a fronting question with that one...
No question of fronting obviously.....Lots of middle-aged mums have Corsas with fat alloys, lowered suspension, drain pipe "zorsts" and 500 watt amps etc.But the undeclared mods cannot be denied.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff