Insurance provider porky pies ?

[mobile chicane22]

I'm geting insurance quoted for my 996 at the moment and admiral seem to be coming out on top however upon phoning one of the specalist providers ( I wont name them yet ) who wouldnt drop there quote to admirals level informed me that admiral use second hand or non aproved parts to repair a car.

I do have a bit of knolege of the car repair industry having repaired car spray booths for the last 5 years and I thought using 2nd hand parts or non approved recon parts without the customers explicit consent was a big no no.

Also if you are hit by an admiral insured driver but your policy is with somone else then what you pay for your insurance is of no matter as your car is either written off or repaired to a proper standard.

I am not in any way acusing admiral of the practices detailed above and I suspect the specalist provider may be bending the truth a bit to far.

I have had policys with admiral before ( bike and car ) with no issue although I have never made a claim through them.

[hoppo4.2]

its your right to decide where you car it repaired in the event of an accident. however if you want it to go to an expencive place there is nothing to stop them making it a total loss.

[ohtari]

Is that bull st I smell?

Bloody insurance tell tales!

[ZOLLAR]

mobile chicane22 said:

I'm geting insurance quoted for my 996 at the moment and admiral seem to be coming out on top however upon phoning one of the specalist providers ( I wont name them yet ) who wouldnt drop there quote to admirals level informed me that admiral use second hand or non aproved parts to repair a car.

I do have a bit of knolege of the car repair industry having repaired car spray booths for the last 5 years and I thought using 2nd hand parts or non approved recon parts without the customers explicit consent was a big no no.

Also if you are hit by an admiral insured driver but your policy is with somone else then what you pay for your insurance is of no matter as your car is either written off or repaired to a proper standard.

I am not in any way acusing admiral of the practices detailed above and I suspect the specalist provider may be bending the truth a bit to far.

I have had policys with admiral before ( bike and car ) with no issue although I have never made a claim through them.

Page 9

http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AD116%200512%20A...

2 What we will pay
We will decide how to settle your claim.
We will either:
n pay to repair your car, or
n pay a cash sum to replace the damaged car or item. We may reduce the settlement or ask you to contribute towards the repair costs if the parts replaced were already worn or damaged or for removable audio/visual equipment that was not covered.
If we give you a cash sum, the most we will pay is the market value of the car or items claimed for. If your car cannot be repaired economically, we will get it moved to a place of free and safe storage as soon as possible.
If any lost or damaged parts are no longer available, we will only pay the cost shown in the manufacturer’s latest price guide, together with reasonable fitting costs. If your car is three years old or more, we may decide to repair it with recycled parts or with parts which have not been made by the car’s manufacturer but are of a similar standard.


If you're non fault then it depends on if you use Albany who deal with most of the straight non fault claims they use their own garages and have their own agreements on repair of which they'll discuss at point of call

If you use admiral in the event of a claim you would use the exact same garages as people at fault with the same agreed costs and replacements.
You could of course use you're own garage as you don't have to use an Auth Garage from your insurer.
What is the agreement with the specialist insurer? surely if the replacement part isn't available any more they would have to use recycled or non approved parts too? so the same situation.
The only difference is that admiral as a main stream insurer looks to keep costs low as the general public wish to have low premiums, however if you have a specialist car you'd expect a specialist insurer to use new and approved parts but clearly you may pay more for the cover.
Not sure where the telling porkies comes into it?



EDIT PLEASE SEE MY POST BELOW OP's NEXT REPLY FOR ANSWER TO INNOCENT THIRD PARTY REPAIRS

Edited by ZOLLAR on Tuesday 31st July 10:54

[NateWM]

hoppo4.2 said:

its your right to decide where you car it repaired in the event of an accident. however if you want it to go to an expencive place there is nothing to stop them making it a total loss.

FFS....Did you even read the post? OP is talking about whether they are allowed to use secondhand or non-approved parts, not about where it can be repaired!

[philmots]

So from that.. If your car is over 3 years old they may use non genuine or refurbished parts for the repair.

I'd could cope with a refurbished radiator on a car but I'd certainly not want a lower arm or similar made by a 3rd party. Most look like they're made from cheese and are priced accordingly.

Who decided weather they're of a similar standard or not?

Also, if you had a trusted garage would this be a way round this as you could be assured genuine parts are used? As from another post arent you able to use a garage of your own choice?

[hoppo4.2]

NateWM said:

FFS....Did you even read the post? OP is talking about whether they are allowed to use secondhand or non-approved parts, not about where it can be repaired!

if he demanded it was only repaired at porsche can you see them using second hand parts? i dont think so.

they dont have the right to demand it gets done at there aproved ie cheap second hand part using sty repair centre. #

in other words they can and will get away with it if you let them.

[ZOLLAR]

philmots said:

So from that.. If your car is over 3 years old they may use non genuine or refurbished parts for the repair.

I'd could cope with a refurbished radiator on a car but I'd certainly not want a lower arm or similar made by a 3rd party. Most look like they're made from cheese and are priced accordingly.

Who decided weather they're of a similar standard or not?

Also, if you had a trusted garage would this be a way round this as you could be assured genuine parts are used? As from another post arent you able to use a garage of your own choice?

The garage would send an estimate to the insurers Engineers who decide on whether costs are agreeable and whether they are repairable or replaceable.
As said you can use your own garage as long as their repair costs are agreed with by the engineer but as you say you may not know if that garage is using recycled or non approved parts either.
However if there is a problem with your own garages repair there is little the insurer can to help rectify where as with there own garages they have a lot more ability to get any rectification work done.

[ZOLLAR]

hoppo4.2 said:

NateWM said:

FFS....Did you even read the post? OP is talking about whether they are allowed to use secondhand or non-approved parts, not about where it can be repaired!

if he demanded it was only repaired at porsche can you see them using second hand parts? i dont think so.

they dont have the right to demand it gets done at there aproved ie cheap second hand part using sty repair centre. #

in other words they can and will get away with it if you let them.

You'd be surprised, If the repair costs aren't agreeable you may end up the car being a Total loss or the insurer paying you the value for replacement parts and allowing you to keep the car so you can sort the repairs yourself, but the options vary per insurer.

Edited by ZOLLAR on Tuesday 31st July 10:40

[mobile chicane22]

cheers for the link zollar looks like they were telling the truth after all.

However if I was hit my an admiral insured driver and it was deemed there fault I should be able to demand new original manafacturer parts.

Also reading it in detail if the car still has original ( non patern ) parts in production and the pre acident condition of the parts was ok e.g an oem wing with unblemished original paint then there should be no reason why original new should not be fitted long term wear items however:

should my car suffer suspension damage the shocks are 90k miles old so not new then replacing them with brand new oem is not like for like, I would pay the extra out of my pocket for oem if it was my insurer paying if it was the third partys then I would try to get them to pay as refurb suspension on a 150+mph car is a bad idea IMO

I can see why they do it but I'd like to hear from somone with experiance of a claim.

I suspect other companys may have this policy as well but life is to short for me to investigate the small print.

I way up the odds pay £550 ish and get insured legaly fully comp with the posibility of having to pay more for oem parts if the damage is my fault or pay whatever the specalist comes up with ( still waiting for the call back ).

[ZOLLAR]

mobile chicane22 said:

cheers for the link zollar looks like they were telling the truth after all.

However if I was hit my an admiral insured driver and it was deemed there fault I should be able to demand new original manafacturer parts.

Also reading it in detail if the car still has original ( non patern ) parts in production and the pre acident condition of the parts was ok e.g an oem wing with unblemished original paint then there should be no reason why original new should not be fitted long term wear items however:

should my car suffer suspension damage the shocks are 90k miles old so not new then replacing them with brand new oem is not like for like, I would pay the extra out of my pocket for oem if it was my insurer paying if it was the third partys then I would try to get them to pay as refurb suspension on a 150+mph car is a bad idea IMO

I can see why they do it but I'd like to hear from somone with experiance of a claim.

I suspect other companys may have this policy as well but life is to short for me to investigate the small print.

I way up the odds pay £550 ish and get insured legaly fully comp with the posibility of having to pay more for oem parts if the damage is my fault or pay whatever the specalist comes up with ( still waiting for the call back ).

Apologies I must have read your post wrong I thought you meant if you were an admiral customer whether you were fault or non fault what parts were used.

If you are hit by an admiral driver and you are insured elsewhere you would have the vehicle repaired with new parts (if and where possible) the main reason being is that you aren't bound by the contract with admiral as your policy isn't with them.

The only time recycled or replacement parts are used are if you are an admiral customer but if you are innocent TP then then you have more rights to request like for like parts (unless of course the costs are unreasonable the car then may be deemed a TL)

Hope that helps

Just to clarify did this specialist insurer say that if you were hit by our insured you would have your vehicle repaired with recycled parts?

[Mr2Mike]

On a related note, a woman in an insurance call center recently insisted it was illegal to have a vehicle insured under more than one policy. I am not talking about making claims from more than one company (which would clearly be fraudulent), but simply the situation of two separate policies co-existing. She was unable to tell me which law prohibited this, and I am dubious such a law exists. Obviously an insurance company may forbid this under their own terms and conditions, but that is not law.

Anyone know for sure and can point to the legislation if it actually exists?

[Durzel]

Admiral is typically one of the cheapest of the high street insurers.

Perhaps this is a case of "you get what you pay for". A fools economy perhaps, not unlike very high voluntary excess. It's great if you never actually have to claim....

The group of insurance companies of which Admiral is a member (Bell Direct, Elephant, perhaps others) also have a policy of replacing aftermarket parts with OEM regardless of whether they are declared. So, if you don't declare your new shiny alloy wheels you're not complying with your insurance contract, but if you do declare them you'll probably be charged an additional premium AND in the event they get stolen you won't even get them replaced anyway.

[ZOLLAR]

Durzel said:

Admiral is typically one of the cheapest of the high street insurers.

Perhaps this is a case of "you get what you pay for". A fools economy perhaps, not unlike very high voluntary excess. It's great if you never actually have to claim....

The group of insurance companies of which Admiral is a member (Bell Direct, Elephant, perhaps others) also have a policy of replacing aftermarket parts with OEM regardless of whether they are declared. So, if you don't declare your new shiny alloy wheels you're not complying with your insurance contract, but if you do declare them you'll probably be charged an additional premium AND in the event they get stolen you won't even get them replaced anyway.

If they're after market mods from the manufacturer i.e. you have chosen a spec of alloy from a higher spec car and you have declared you'll get the same replacement or cost of replacement
If they're non standard mods you have an option of purchasing additional cover to have them paid out for,
It's all down to the type of cover you want, if an insurer offered all the cover as standard many people may have cover they don't want and premiums would be higher, it's the insureds responsibility to make sure the cover they purchase is the cover they want not the insurers.

[Durzel]

Apologies, I should've been more specific. You're right that optioned upgrades would be replaced (as they'd still be OEM).

My broader point was that I'd wager that a lot of people who look at the cost of these policies just figure the cheapest one is automatically the best one to get without regard for what this actually means for them.

[ZOLLAR]

Durzel said:

Apologies, I should've been more specific. You're right that optioned upgrades would be replaced (as they'd still be OEM). I'd wager that a lot of people who look at the cost of these policies just figure the cheapest one is automatically the best one to get without regard for their own personal circumstances.

Agreed, this in part causes the most problems with regards to claims.
People choose the cheapest option thinking that it covers all risks under the sun but in many cases they don't.
The options for higher cover are there but people are unwilling to pay for additional cover and prefer to simply complain when they don't get what they want, this in some circumstances means the insurer deals with the loss any resulting in additional loss which is passed back to customers via higher premiums.

[Devil2575]

Durzel said:

Admiral is typically one of the cheapest of the high street insurers.

Perhaps this is a case of "you get what you pay for". A fools economy perhaps, not unlike very high voluntary excess. It's great if you never actually have to claim....

Maybe but how many of us when fixing our own cars would use recycled parts and or pattern parts?

I know I would and as long as the car is safe once repaired would be happy for my insurer to do so.

I would may differently if I owned a high value car, but I dont...

[Captain Muppet]

Durzel said:

Perhaps this is a case of "you get what you pay for". A fools economy perhaps, not unlike very high voluntary excess. It's great if you never actually have to claim....

I always go for the highest voluntary excess if it makes the premium cheaper. I've done this for 20 years on up to 4 policies at a time without claiming once, so I'm pretty sure I'm ahead.

But then I've paid for a lot of insurance without any benefit, so it's all basically wasted money.

[Debaser]

Can anyone name some good insurance companies that won't use second hand parts when repairing my car? I'm not insuring a high value/performance car so I'm not going to go with Chubb, I just want good quality insurance for my daily driver Passat.

[ZOLLAR]

Captain Muppet said:

Durzel said:

Perhaps this is a case of "you get what you pay for". A fools economy perhaps, not unlike very high voluntary excess. It's great if you never actually have to claim....

I always go for the highest voluntary excess if it makes the premium cheaper. I've done this for 20 years on up to 4 policies at a time without claiming once, so I'm pretty sure I'm ahead.

But then I've paid for a lot of insurance without any benefit, so it's all basically wasted money.

Perhaps, but that's the point in insurance to try and put you back in the same financial situation you were prior to an unforeseen accident.
If only we were able to tell the future! you'd have more money to spend on cars and I'd be sitting at home watching Jeremy Vile without a job