Modifications - for insurance purposes.
Discussion
If in doubt then declare. There is a world of difference between declared Factory spec and mods done by dealers or individuals and the individual deciding what's important to mention isn't the same as the Insurance company deciding. The expression " utmost good faith " applies and if the Insurance company decides you've not declared something which could have influenced their Underwriting and / or their terms then they can simply decline any claim -the small print will make this abundantly clear. The choice of car and Insurer will also make a difference - I've never heard of a sticker making the difference though unless its a foot wide saying Porsche on the back of a Corsa.I remember a boring chat with Direct line quite a few years ago on the options listed on my ( admittedly new ) Porsche until I said none that weren't fitted at the factory - they were then happy.
How many people don't have OEM brake pads and discs, or tyres anymore and don't even realise?
I would have thought consumables and service items don't have to be declared. As for looking up what a car had when it left the factory, if I look on Ford ETIS about my Fiesta ST, there are plenty of inaccuracies, and mine's not modified at all.
What about my new 310R - it'll come out of the factory with over £7k of options specified, all of which could be bought later and put on an existing 310R that left the factory without them, thus modifying it.
There has to be some common sense applied.
I would have thought consumables and service items don't have to be declared. As for looking up what a car had when it left the factory, if I look on Ford ETIS about my Fiesta ST, there are plenty of inaccuracies, and mine's not modified at all.
What about my new 310R - it'll come out of the factory with over £7k of options specified, all of which could be bought later and put on an existing 310R that left the factory without them, thus modifying it.
There has to be some common sense applied.
Edited by Gulf7 on Tuesday 13th August 14:29
Often the extra premiums are so small that it's pointless not declaring them. My Exige has uprated nitron shocks, the insurance company wanted another 15 quid.....
Then again it does depend on the insurance company. I bought a new Subaru Impreza STI many years ago and I had it fitted with a Prodrive pack prior to delivery. The documentation with the Prodrive pack came with s sticker declaring what the car had fitted and to inform your insurance company. I informed my insurance company and they wanted another 50 or 60 quid off me for the power increase. The following year I insured with a different company who weren't interested, as the Prodrive pack was seen as a factory option.
Then again it does depend on the insurance company. I bought a new Subaru Impreza STI many years ago and I had it fitted with a Prodrive pack prior to delivery. The documentation with the Prodrive pack came with s sticker declaring what the car had fitted and to inform your insurance company. I informed my insurance company and they wanted another 50 or 60 quid off me for the power increase. The following year I insured with a different company who weren't interested, as the Prodrive pack was seen as a factory option.
RSTurboPaul said:
I am sure I read on here recently that insurance companies now cannot refuse to payout on a technicality that has nothing to do with the claim being made (e.g. crashing into a ditch being unaffected by having tinted rear windows) but I can't find where it was mentioned now.
That's not true. If you follow that logic, if you took out life insurance without telling them you had terminal cancer, and you got struck by lightning, they'd have to pay out. Errr no they wouldn't. They can refuse a claim if, had they known the truth, they wouldn't have covered you at all. Doesn't matter if the cause of the claim had nothing to do with the non disclosure. If they would have covered you, but at a higher premium, they have to pay, and can deduct the extra premium from the payout, providing the non disclosure wasn't deliberate. If they think or know the non disclosure was deliberate, to get a lower premium, they can refuse to pay out.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
RSTurboPaul said:
I am sure I read on here recently that insurance companies now cannot refuse to payout on a technicality that has nothing to do with the claim being made (e.g. crashing into a ditch being unaffected by having tinted rear windows) but I can't find where it was mentioned now.
That's not true. If you follow that logic, if you took out life insurance without telling them you had terminal cancer, and you got struck by lightning, they'd have to pay out. Errr no they wouldn't. They can refuse a claim if, had they known the truth, they wouldn't have covered you at all. Doesn't matter if the cause of the claim had nothing to do with the non disclosure. If they would have covered you, but at a higher premium, they have to pay, and can deduct the extra premium from the payout, providing the non disclosure wasn't deliberate. If they think or know the non disclosure was deliberate, to get a lower premium, they can refuse to pay out.
I found the webpage I was thinking of:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2015/02/new...
RSTurboPaul said:
I am sure I read on here recently that insurance companies now cannot refuse to payout on a technicality that has nothing to do with the claim being made (e.g. crashing into a ditch being unaffected by having tinted rear windows) but I can't find where it was mentioned now.
That'll be the good ol' Insurance Act 2015. Gulf7 said:
How many people don't have OEM brake pads and discs, or tyres anymore and don't even realise?
I would have thought consumables and service items don't have to be declared. As for looking up what a car had when it left the factory, if I look on Ford ETIS about my Fiesta ST, there are plenty of inaccuracies, and mine's not modified at all.
What about my new 310R - it'll come out of the factory with over £7k of options specified, all of which could be bought later and put on an existing 310R that left the factory without them, thus modifying it.
There has to be some common sense applied.
Common sense and insurance ... you’re having a laugh ?? I would have thought consumables and service items don't have to be declared. As for looking up what a car had when it left the factory, if I look on Ford ETIS about my Fiesta ST, there are plenty of inaccuracies, and mine's not modified at all.
What about my new 310R - it'll come out of the factory with over £7k of options specified, all of which could be bought later and put on an existing 310R that left the factory without them, thus modifying it.
There has to be some common sense applied.
Edited by Gulf7 on Tuesday 13th August 14:29
wrencho said:
RSTurboPaul said:
I am sure I read on here recently that insurance companies now cannot refuse to payout on a technicality that has nothing to do with the claim being made (e.g. crashing into a ditch being unaffected by having tinted rear windows) but I can't find where it was mentioned now.
That'll be the good ol' Insurance Act 2015. No insurance = no claim.
Lindun said:
Some Guy said:
Are manufacturers "optional extras" classed as modifications if they were fitted to the car when originally ordered, or classed as modifications as it differs from "base spec".
That’s already been answeredFoss62 said:
I’m not sure it has. With some manufacturers, cars come in fairly wide specification bands, but my Skoda had a vast list of mundane things that can be ordered as ‘extras’. Once the car got to it’s second owner would anyone know what the true original spec was?
It’s fairly simple though. As it left the factory, standard. Anything you add after, modification. Used car, apply reasonableness test, as described up the page. Maintenance stuff, replacing OEM with pattern, not an issue. Replacing OEM with performance enhancing, modification. Obviously this assumes you’re doing it. If the previous owner did it, is it reasonable for a reasonable person to reasonably know it? internal mods, probably not unless the car goes like stink as a result. External mods, then more than likely. Things like alloys are always going to be more tricky, but if they are the same size and not too gaudy then it’s not reasonable for people to know. Shiny chrome, 19” spinners on a Corsa are likely to be reasonably (there’s that word again) obvious.
The thing is that insurers don’t look to cancel policies at every instance. They will check stuff for fraud, but I bet they payout on nearly all claims and none of us will get upset a them not paying the fraudsters.
Lindun said:
Foss62 said:
I’m not sure it has. With some manufacturers, cars come in fairly wide specification bands, but my Skoda had a vast list of mundane things that can be ordered as ‘extras’. Once the car got to it’s second owner would anyone know what the true original spec was?
It’s fairly simple though. As it left the factory, standard. Anything you add after, modification. Used car, apply reasonableness test, as described up the page. Maintenance stuff, replacing OEM with pattern, not an issue. Replacing OEM with performance enhancing, modification. Obviously this assumes you’re doing it. If the previous owner did it, is it reasonable for a reasonable person to reasonably know it? internal mods, probably not unless the car goes like stink as a result. External mods, then more than likely. Things like alloys are always going to be more tricky, but if they are the same size and not too gaudy then it’s not reasonable for people to know. Shiny chrome, 19” spinners on a Corsa are likely to be reasonably (there’s that word again) obvious.
The thing is that insurers don’t look to cancel policies at every instance. They will check stuff for fraud, but I bet they payout on nearly all claims and none of us will get upset a them not paying the fraudsters.
Insurer: Has it had any modifications?
Me: What constitutes a modification?
Insurer: Anything that is not in the manufacturer's standard specification
Me: What about factory fitted options?
Insurer: Er .. don't know. Better list them just in case
Me: Metallic paint, heated seats, adaptive suspension
Insurer: It's got modified suspension?
Me: No it's a factory fitted option
Insurer: Sorry we can't cover it if you've modified the suspension
Me: I haven't modified it. It's a factory fitted option. The vehicle was fitted with adaptive suspension when it was built
Insurer: Sorry we can't cover a vehicle with modified suspension
Me: It's not modified. It was built with it at the factory
Insurer: If it's not the standard suspension then we can't provide cover
Me: It's a factory fit... Never mind. Goodbye.
Slightly exaggerated to make the point but I've had numerous exchanges along those lines. Some insurers explicitly state that modifications do not include anything fitted at the factory during assembly however others (including one of the biggest in the country) do not. Then it appears to be pot luck as to whether the person you are dealing with understands that factory fitted options are common on new vehicles and don't constitute a modification for insurance purposes. I have no idea whether the insurers that don't explicitly exclude factory fitted options are being deliberately vague to give them more wriggle options or are still under the impression that all cars of a given model are identical when they come off the line. I suspect the former.
siremoon said:
I wish it were that simple. Maybe it's me but it always turns out to be anything but:
Insurer: Has it had any modifications?
Me: What constitutes a modification?
Insurer: Anything that is not in the manufacturer's standard specification
Me: What about factory fitted options?
Insurer: Er .. don't know. Better list them just in case
Me: Metallic paint, heated seats, adaptive suspension
Insurer: It's got modified suspension?
Me: No it's a factory fitted option
Insurer: Sorry we can't cover it if you've modified the suspension
Me: I haven't modified it. It's a factory fitted option. The vehicle was fitted with adaptive suspension when it was built
Insurer: Sorry we can't cover a vehicle with modified suspension
Me: It's not modified. It was built with it at the factory
Insurer: If it's not the standard suspension then we can't provide cover
Me: It's a factory fit... Never mind. Goodbye.
Slightly exaggerated to make the point but I've had numerous exchanges along those lines. Some insurers explicitly state that modifications do not include anything fitted at the factory during assembly however others (including one of the biggest in the country) do not. Then it appears to be pot luck as to whether the person you are dealing with understands that factory fitted options are common on new vehicles and don't constitute a modification for insurance purposes. I have no idea whether the insurers that don't explicitly exclude factory fitted options are being deliberately vague to give them more wriggle options or are still under the impression that all cars of a given model are identical when they come off the line. I suspect the former.
How about this for simpleInsurer: Has it had any modifications?
Me: What constitutes a modification?
Insurer: Anything that is not in the manufacturer's standard specification
Me: What about factory fitted options?
Insurer: Er .. don't know. Better list them just in case
Me: Metallic paint, heated seats, adaptive suspension
Insurer: It's got modified suspension?
Me: No it's a factory fitted option
Insurer: Sorry we can't cover it if you've modified the suspension
Me: I haven't modified it. It's a factory fitted option. The vehicle was fitted with adaptive suspension when it was built
Insurer: Sorry we can't cover a vehicle with modified suspension
Me: It's not modified. It was built with it at the factory
Insurer: If it's not the standard suspension then we can't provide cover
Me: It's a factory fit... Never mind. Goodbye.
Slightly exaggerated to make the point but I've had numerous exchanges along those lines. Some insurers explicitly state that modifications do not include anything fitted at the factory during assembly however others (including one of the biggest in the country) do not. Then it appears to be pot luck as to whether the person you are dealing with understands that factory fitted options are common on new vehicles and don't constitute a modification for insurance purposes. I have no idea whether the insurers that don't explicitly exclude factory fitted options are being deliberately vague to give them more wriggle options or are still under the impression that all cars of a given model are identical when they come off the line. I suspect the former.
You: I don’t agree with your point, so I’m going to make up a situation to prove my point. I’ll then admit I’ve made it up. How’s that for proving a point
Me: Eh?
wrencho said:
RSTurboPaul said:
I am sure I read on here recently that insurance companies now cannot refuse to payout on a technicality that has nothing to do with the claim being made (e.g. crashing into a ditch being unaffected by having tinted rear windows) but I can't find where it was mentioned now.
That'll be the good ol' Insurance Act 2015. They can refuse a claim if, had they known the truth, they wouldn't have covered you at all. Doesn't matter if the cause of the claim had nothing to do with the non disclosure. Doesn't matter if the non disclosure was accidental or deliberate.
If they would have covered you, but at a higher premium, they have to pay, and can deduct the extra premium from the payout, providing the non disclosure wasn't deliberate. If they think or know the non disclosure was deliberate, to get a lower premium, they can refuse to pay out.
A recently reported case of a bedrooms based house buildings policy, bloke declared 5 bedrooms, but had 7. The premium is based on number of bedrooms. House burnt down after fire in kitchen. They refused to pay, because 5 is their maximum. Had they known 7, they never would have covered the house. The fire was nothing to do with the number of bedrooms, and the non disclosure was innocent, as 2 of the bedrooms were being used for other stuff (study and home gym). Went to court, insurance company won.
Had the insurance co covered 7 bedroom properties, they would have had to pay, deducting the extra premium from the payout. Unless they could prove that the non disclosure was a deliberate attempt to withhold the truth.
They can pay proportionately too, rather than just deduct the extra premium. For example, if you underpaid by 30% they can reduce your payout by that amount, rather than just charge the extra premium, as there doesn’t seem to be much of a penalty in only paying the right amount if caught after a claim.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff