Insurance pay out if car has gone up in value?

[Deep]

Hi

Unfortunately my 991 was stolen recently. I bought it second hand from an OPC less than a year ago and looking around now I can't find a similar spec/mileage car for the price I paid for it. They seem to be at least £5k more.

I'm not sure if the prices have actually risen or perhaps I just got a very good deal when I bought.

I didn't have gap or a guaranteed value policy.

How does it work now? Can I argue that they need to pay me what it would cost to replace the car like for like even if that's £5k more than I paid for it?


Thanks

[Twinfan]

Should be market value on your insurance unless you have an agreed value. If it's market value, and it's gone up, then you can argue that's what they need to pay out, surely?

[Deep]

Twinfan said:

Should be market value on your insurance unless you have an agreed value. If it's market value, and it's gone up, then you can argue that's what they need to pay out, surely?

That's the answer I wanted to hear and it seems logical but you never know with insurance/financial companies.

Cheers

[therevday]

The way the insurance should work is you should be put into the same position you were in prior to the theft. If that means more money then so be it. But there is a rule somewhere that states you should not profit from an insurance claim. I think you will need to provide a lot of evidence to support your claim. ie same spec mileage condition. Best of luck, it can be a long and up hill battle! The insurance ombusman can be of great help, and their web site has lots of good info.

[Magic919]

What do they say about value in the policy document and schedule?

[PistonBroker]

As others have said, it's all about market value and the principle of 'indemnity' - that you should be put back in the same position as you were in before the incident.

A good example of this is the Fiesta I owned in 2004 that got hit in the rear;

Loss Adjuster: How much did you pay for it?
Me: £1100
Loss Adjuster: How much do you think it's worth.
Me: £1800
Loss Adjuster: Fair enough.

I'd bought the Fiesta weeks earlier at auction. But the insurance settlement needed to be enough for me to go and buy the car immediately.

As others have said, you may have a bit of a fight, but as long as you can provide them with evidence from Auto Trader, the Classifieds on here, eBay etc. that the car is worth what you say it is, you should get the right result.

[rubystone]

depends who you're insured with. A well known insurer refused to pay me out market value on my C43, despite me providing massive proof. I had to take them to the ombudsman in the end. Did wonder whether they might send Mr White after me....The day after the ombudsman ruled in my favour the cynical sods sent me a cheque. I've never used them since and encourage others not to use them.

[fredt]

rubystone said:

depends who you're insured with. A well known insurer refused to pay me out market value on my C43, despite me providing massive proof. I had to take them to the ombudsman in the end. Did wonder whether they might send Mr White after me....The day after the ombudsman ruled in my favour the cynical sods sent me a cheque. I've never used them since and encourage others not to use them.

So what you mean is actually it does NOT depend on who you are insured with..

They are all bound by the same rules and have to pay you what it would've cost to buy an equivalent car from a reputable dealer just prior to the accident/theft. Only if you have bought any sort of agreed value insurance will you be in trouble. But it would be crazy to that to any fairly normal car that might go up in value.

OP, you will have no problem

[Deep]

Thanks very much for all the replies.

I'm insured via one of the specialist brokers who are well regarded on this site.

The claims handler seemed to be making all the right noises ie that he understands that Porsches can go up in value and that they are familiar with that. He was probably talking about GT and classic Porsches as my model isn't one you usually associate with an increase in value.

And to be honest I think I just got a good deal rather than prices actually increasing.

All I want is to be able to buy an equivalent car without having to spend additional money. I'll be out of pocket anyway as my insurance premium will no doubt rise.

Thanks again, it all sounds very reassuring.

[Deep]

This question might be better of under SPL forum but here goes...

This might be pushing things a bit but do I have any grounds to complain to Porsche?

I have cctv images of the theft and the scrotes have entered and then driven my car away without the keys and without setting the alarm off within about 5 minutes.

My car has keyless entry and drive and the web is littered with stories about how easily this can be hacked.

Even if I get a decent payout from the insurance company I will still have a sizeable excess to pay, increased insurance premiums and all the hassle involved of losing a car.

If they had mugged me of my keys or trailered the car away that would be a different matter. But its Porsche's electronic and security systems that have fallen short.

Do I have a case to ask them to do something to 'help?'

Thanks

[Jim1556]

Deep said:

I have cctv images of the theft and the scrotes have entered and then driven my car away without the keys and without setting the alarm off within about 5 minutes.

This in itself should be reason enough for them to cover your excess!

Sadly, I think they'll not give 2 proverbials and offer you a 'discount' on a new(or used) model...

Perhaps, give keyless entry/start a miss next time?

[anonymous-user]

Jim1556 said:

This in itself should be reason enough for them to cover your excess!

Sadly, I think they'll not give 2 proverbials and offer you a 'discount' on a new(or used) model...

Perhaps, give keyless entry/start a miss next time?

I think keyless entry is the biggest security gaffe in a long time, the only positive is there is no reason for a car thief to break into your house for the keys.

Only way to make the key secure when at home or away from the car is to put them in a shielded box e.g. a Faraday cage, the thieves are just using an amplifier to boost the car signal so the key 'sees' this signal and responds and then amplifying the response enough so the car receives the code and unlocks the car. Add in a bit of recording the signal and they will never need a key to your car ever again.

As Porsche could teach Donald Trump a few things about arrogance, I wouldn't expect anything from Porsche.

[nxi20]

gottans said:

I think keyless entry is the biggest security gaffe in a long time, the only positive is there is no reason for a car thief to break into your house for the keys.

Only way to make the key secure when at home or away from the car is to put them in a shielded box e.g. a Faraday cage, the thieves are just using an amplifier to boost the car signal so the key 'sees' this signal and responds and then amplifying the response enough so the car receives the code and unlocks the car. Add in a bit of recording the signal and they will never need a key to your car ever again.

Absolutely; keyless entry is a completely pointless bit of tinsel! The one saving grace is that virtually every house already has such a Faraday cage box in the kitchen - a microwave

[rubystone]

fredt said:

So what you mean is actually it does NOT depend on who you are insured with..

They are all bound by the same rules and have to pay you what it would've cost to buy an equivalent car from a reputable dealer just prior to the accident/theft. Only if you have bought any sort of agreed value insurance will you be in trouble. But it would be crazy to that to any fairly normal car that might go up in value.

OP, you will have no problem

The only 'rules' here are those that the company imposes on itself. I'm guessing that you're not from the insurance business though. My father was a broker and thus I know all about the machinations of insurance companies.

My advice to the OP is that the company will make him a lowball first offer They will make the offer on a 'without prejudice' basis and he should reject it. They will then make him another offer at a higher level, again 'without prejudice'. They may declare this a 'full and final' offer. If they do that, this is indeed their final offer. This will be accompanied by a leaflet on how to engage the ombudsman. He can bank that cheque and still take them to the ombudsman without prejudicing his claim.

[Deep]

rubystone said:

The only 'rules' here are those that the company imposes on itself. I'm guessing that you're not from the insurance business though. My father was a broker and thus I know all about the machinations of insurance companies.

My advice to the OP is that the company will make him a lowball first offer They will make the offer on a 'without prejudice' basis and he should reject it. They will then make him another offer at a higher level, again 'without prejudice'. They may declare this a 'full and final' offer. If they do that, this is indeed their final offer. This will be accompanied by a leaflet on how to engage the ombudsman. He can bank that cheque and still take them to the ombudsman without prejudicing his claim.

Thanks, very helpful.

To try and get the right payout without having to resort to the ombudsman is there anything I can do?

Is it worth me compiling a file of comparables and perhaps even a letter from a friendly OPC?

Thanks

[fredt]

rubystone said:

The only 'rules' here are those that the company imposes on itself.

I know all about the machinations of insurance companies.

Given the first statement the second statement makes no sense at all.

No they can't go around making their own rules, they are all bound by rules, regulations, law. Even if it's a crappy little insurance company with some obscure conditions I can't see them getting away with paying less then replacement value.

They might try and lowball him initially, but I guess they wont given it's a car that it is fairly easy to value and it is not in their interest to waste time.

[rubystone]

fredt said:

Given the first statement the second statement makes no sense at all.

No they can't go around making their own rules, they are all bound by rules, regulations, law. Even if it's a crappy little insurance company with some obscure conditions I can't see them getting away with paying less then replacement value.

They might try and lowball him initially, but I guess they wont given it's a car that it is fairly easy to value and it is not in their interest to waste time.

They can do what they like. The assessor has the freedom to value the car at any value he likes dependent on many factors. There are zero laws governing this element of what they do - if you so desire, call up the ABI and they'll tell you this is so. The role of the ombudsman in situations where they are brought into play is to examine the evidence on both sides, always assuming that the company puts up any sort of evidence - which they quite often don't bother to do. They rely on the insuree essentially being browbeaten into accepting an offer.

Which is why I ALWAYS insist on agreed value on all my cars, not 'market value'.

To the OP - yes make sure you get as many independent valuations of your car as you possilby can to support your case. Of course you might be lucky and find that the first offer matches your valuation. Please do let us know whether this is the case though - then I'll pm you for the insurer's details and consider them when my policy comes up for renewal.

[Deep]

rubystone said:

They can do what they like. The assessor has the freedom to value the car at any value he likes dependent on many factors. There are zero laws governing this element of what they do - if you so desire, call up the ABI and they'll tell you this is so. The role of the ombudsman in situations where they are brought into play is to examine the evidence on both sides, always assuming that the company puts up any sort of evidence - which they quite often don't bother to do. They rely on the insuree essentially being browbeaten into accepting an offer.

Which is why I ALWAYS insist on agreed value on all my cars, not 'market value'.

To the OP - yes make sure you get as many independent valuations of your car as you possilby can to support your case. Of course you might be lucky and find that the first offer matches your valuation. Please do let us know whether this is the case though - then I'll pm you for the insurer's details and consider them when my policy comes up for renewal.

Thanks.

Could an agreed value not have actually worked against me in this situation? I genuinely believe that the car is worth more than I paid for it, not much but about £5k.

[rubystone]

Deep said:

Thanks.

Could an agreed value not have actually worked against me in this situation? I genuinely believe that the car is worth more than I paid for it, not much but about £5k.

Good point. the onus is on you to ensure the insurer changes the agreed value figure if the car rises in price. My SuperAmerica increased in value by 75% over 2 years. In each case I had to send in proof of this from a recognised expert in the field.

[griff7]

rubystone said:

Good point. the onus is on you to ensure the insurer changes the agreed value figure if the car rises in price. My SuperAmerica increased in value by 75% over 2 years. In each case I had to send in proof of this from a recognised expert in the field.

The top Private clients policies cover up to 150% price increase per year without calling them.