Removal of runflats voided insurance............
Discussion
........According to local garage/trader I spoke with today.
Assessor has refused to pay up as customers car had accident/collision & OE run flats removed & replaced with non-run flats. No idea if this is being challenged or appealed by the car owner.
This means owner has to pay for total claim cost ( not known if other party involved or if injury) which could be costly. On top of that with insurance voided owner could technically be liable for consequences of driving without insurance......................More of an issue if in collsion & police involved.
So there you have it - Not saying I agree with this but it's mentioned here for warning to others.
Yes I know some run cars with different make tyres from when car first registred & I accept many cheap tyres, odd tyres or incompatable tyres can compromise handling/breaking etc. I also accept many report improved handling whe runflats replaced non runflat tyres.
Some would reasonably argue it's just an excuse for insurers to fail to settle / pay out
Personal thoughts aside - Many will not want to invalidate their insurance.
If I ever buy a car in future that had RF tyres as OE I will check with insurance before changing.
Apologies if folk already know of this issue but felt need to warn others re this so informed of potential consequences.
Assessor has refused to pay up as customers car had accident/collision & OE run flats removed & replaced with non-run flats. No idea if this is being challenged or appealed by the car owner.
This means owner has to pay for total claim cost ( not known if other party involved or if injury) which could be costly. On top of that with insurance voided owner could technically be liable for consequences of driving without insurance......................More of an issue if in collsion & police involved.
So there you have it - Not saying I agree with this but it's mentioned here for warning to others.
Yes I know some run cars with different make tyres from when car first registred & I accept many cheap tyres, odd tyres or incompatable tyres can compromise handling/breaking etc. I also accept many report improved handling whe runflats replaced non runflat tyres.
Some would reasonably argue it's just an excuse for insurers to fail to settle / pay out
Personal thoughts aside - Many will not want to invalidate their insurance.
If I ever buy a car in future that had RF tyres as OE I will check with insurance before changing.
Apologies if folk already know of this issue but felt need to warn others re this so informed of potential consequences.
Smells a bit of BS to me.
A tyre is a tyre is a tyres. Yes, some are worse than others, but they all meet the specs to be fitted to road worthy cars (just in some cases) so how can an insurer void an insurance policy based on the tyres fitted.
If the tyres were dangerous or below legal limit then there is another situation.
A tyre is a tyre is a tyres. Yes, some are worse than others, but they all meet the specs to be fitted to road worthy cars (just in some cases) so how can an insurer void an insurance policy based on the tyres fitted.
If the tyres were dangerous or below legal limit then there is another situation.
AW8 said:
........According to local garage/trader I spoke with today.
Assessor has refused to pay up as customers car had accident/collision & OE run flats removed & replaced with non-run flats. No idea if this is being challenged or appealed by the car owner.
This means owner has to pay for total claim cost ( not known if other party involved or if injury) which could be costly. On top of that with insurance voided owner could technically be liable for consequences of driving without insurance......................More of an issue if in collsion & police involved.
So there you have it - Not saying I agree with this but it's mentioned here for warning to others.
Yes I know some run cars with different make tyres from when car first registred & I accept many cheap tyres, odd tyres or incompatable tyres can compromise handling/breaking etc. I also accept many report improved handling whe runflats replaced non runflat tyres.
Some would reasonably argue it's just an excuse for insurers to fail to settle / pay out
Personal thoughts aside - Many will not want to invalidate their insurance.
If I ever buy a car in future that had RF tyres as OE I will check with insurance before changing.
Apologies if folk already know of this issue but felt need to warn others re this so informed of potential consequences.
Rubbish!Assessor has refused to pay up as customers car had accident/collision & OE run flats removed & replaced with non-run flats. No idea if this is being challenged or appealed by the car owner.
This means owner has to pay for total claim cost ( not known if other party involved or if injury) which could be costly. On top of that with insurance voided owner could technically be liable for consequences of driving without insurance......................More of an issue if in collsion & police involved.
So there you have it - Not saying I agree with this but it's mentioned here for warning to others.
Yes I know some run cars with different make tyres from when car first registred & I accept many cheap tyres, odd tyres or incompatable tyres can compromise handling/breaking etc. I also accept many report improved handling whe runflats replaced non runflat tyres.
Some would reasonably argue it's just an excuse for insurers to fail to settle / pay out
Personal thoughts aside - Many will not want to invalidate their insurance.
If I ever buy a car in future that had RF tyres as OE I will check with insurance before changing.
Apologies if folk already know of this issue but felt need to warn others re this so informed of potential consequences.
AW8 said:
........According to local garage/trader I spoke with today.
Assessor has refused to pay up as customers car had accident/collision & OE run flats removed & replaced with non-run flats. No idea if this is being challenged or appealed by the car owner.
This means owner has to pay for total claim cost ( not known if other party involved or if injury) which could be costly. On top of that with insurance voided owner could technically be liable for consequences of driving without insurance......................More of an issue if in collsion & police involved.
So there you have it - Not saying I agree with this but it's mentioned here for warning to others.
Yes I know some run cars with different make tyres from when car first registred & I accept many cheap tyres, odd tyres or incompatable tyres can compromise handling/breaking etc. I also accept many report improved handling whe runflats replaced non runflat tyres.
Some would reasonably argue it's just an excuse for insurers to fail to settle / pay out
Personal thoughts aside - Many will not want to invalidate their insurance.
If I ever buy a car in future that had RF tyres as OE I will check with insurance before changing.
Apologies if folk already know of this issue but felt need to warn others re this so informed of potential consequences.
The insurance company have to pay out to third parties if there is a policy, it's the law. That also covers the "driving without insurance" angle. The insurance company may come after him for those third party costs but that's a very different thing.Assessor has refused to pay up as customers car had accident/collision & OE run flats removed & replaced with non-run flats. No idea if this is being challenged or appealed by the car owner.
This means owner has to pay for total claim cost ( not known if other party involved or if injury) which could be costly. On top of that with insurance voided owner could technically be liable for consequences of driving without insurance......................More of an issue if in collsion & police involved.
So there you have it - Not saying I agree with this but it's mentioned here for warning to others.
Yes I know some run cars with different make tyres from when car first registred & I accept many cheap tyres, odd tyres or incompatable tyres can compromise handling/breaking etc. I also accept many report improved handling whe runflats replaced non runflat tyres.
Some would reasonably argue it's just an excuse for insurers to fail to settle / pay out
Personal thoughts aside - Many will not want to invalidate their insurance.
If I ever buy a car in future that had RF tyres as OE I will check with insurance before changing.
Apologies if folk already know of this issue but felt need to warn others re this so informed of potential consequences.
As to the run-flats vs. non run-flats, there's more to it than the garage owner, or his customer, are letting on. I should think it's actually due to the massive rims that the owner put on.
Not saying I agree & not saying it is gospel - just repeating what was said to me by a local garage proprietor.
No reason to think he would lie re insurance not paying out on a customers car!
Wasn't aware that 3rd parties would still be covered in such an event - if thats fact then it's useful to know.
Just to add I was not buying tyres or a car from him when he said this.
If anyone in any doubt I suggest you still check with insurers though.
Only posted it with others in mind.
No reason to think he would lie re insurance not paying out on a customers car!
Wasn't aware that 3rd parties would still be covered in such an event - if thats fact then it's useful to know.
Just to add I was not buying tyres or a car from him when he said this.
If anyone in any doubt I suggest you still check with insurers though.
Only posted it with others in mind.
Edited by AW8 on Thursday 21st February 21:16
No he is an independent garage with MOT test facility & a few cars on forecourt. He does not sell tyres generally .
I own 2 BMW's & niether have or have ever had runflats from new.
To be fair the guy only said that the customers insurance company had refused to pay out -the voiding insurance aspect of my post was my assumption........Still not much consolation for owner(s) if insurer(s) wont pay to repair car or settle cost of damage to same.
I own 2 BMW's & niether have or have ever had runflats from new.
To be fair the guy only said that the customers insurance company had refused to pay out -the voiding insurance aspect of my post was my assumption........Still not much consolation for owner(s) if insurer(s) wont pay to repair car or settle cost of damage to same.
Edited by AW8 on Thursday 21st February 21:24
Geekman said:
Sounds like bulls
t to me. As far as I'm aware (please someone correct me if I'm wrong!) if you make a claim and are found to have undeclared modifications on your vehicle, you have to pay the difference in premium for if the mods were declared, then they pay out.
That sounds like bullst to me. As far as I'm aware (please someone correct me if I'm wrong!) if you make a claim and are found to have undeclared modifications on your vehicle, you have to pay the difference in premium for if the mods were declared, then they pay out. t too. Why would anyone bother declaring anything if that was the case? It's a bit like saying that if you get caught stealing, the only penalty is handing back what you took.davepoth said:
I should think it's actually due to the massive rims that the owner put on.
Nail, head I'd imagine.slippery said:
Geekman said:
Sounds like bullst to me. As far as I'm aware (please someone correct me if I'm wrong!) if you make a claim and are found to have undeclared modifications on your vehicle, you have to pay the difference in premium for if the mods were declared, then they pay out.
That sounds like bullst to me. As far as I'm aware (please someone correct me if I'm wrong!) if you make a claim and are found to have undeclared modifications on your vehicle, you have to pay the difference in premium for if the mods were declared, then they pay out. t too. Why would anyone bother declaring anything if that was the case? It's a bit like saying that if you get caught stealing, the only penalty is handing back what you took.
. 
.JohnRS4 said:
As BMW offer non-runflats as an option dont see why insurance company would have a problem with them.
Exactly just as mine is and I still have the original order in the history. I do recall a challenge at Costco when I wanted new tyres they kept quoting run flats and I told them no thanks standard tyres please to which IIRC they challenged it would ruin the handling etc. for some reason I got all pig headed about it and when tey come to fit the new tyres (they had to order them in ) I'd dug out the original order and a brochure of the equivalent current model highlighting the option to spec non run flats (at a cost!!!!). Luckily it was the same chap he was surprised as his computer says no was telling him he'd be fitting the wrong tyres to it etc.
So its not a modification - unless you categorise any optional extra from ordering when new is a modification.
jon- said:
This is crap. If they're feeling particularly nasty about undeclared modifications they can invalidate your insurance back to inception, meaning you were technically uninsured at the time of the accident. Don't ask me how I know this, it's a painful story.
But they still have to pay out to the 3rd party if it's your fault, yes?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff