Insurance Confusion on behalf of a member

E-typeClub · Post by **E-typeClub** » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:18 pm

A member has come to us regarding an query to do with his E-type 71 2+2.

He's insured it with one insurer for 7 years and now is insuring it with another. He gave the same details to both insurers but the second made him fill out a modified vehicle report.

He has never done anything to enhance his car and has only made replacements such as a new battery. Even so the second insurers said that these replacements came under as it being modified and the insurance premium was higher.

Can anyone shed any understanding on this, as he always thought modifications were to enhance performance not to replace things in the car.

Much appreciated,

The E-type Club.

Post by **Heuer** » Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:07 pm

I always declare the 'modifications' made to my car (5 speed box, 2.88 diff, Zeus brakes, MX5 seats etc etc) and it never altered the premium. You must declare any changes from standard but that would not include like for like maintenance parts (e.g. battery). Practically every insurer asks the question. Modifications to bodywork (spoilers), wheels (wide and big) and interior (Recaro seats, hi-fi) are not liked by insurers because they feel it makes the car more of a theft risk - at least in the world of modern cars.

There is a thread here on insurance premiums: http://etypeuk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3411

You will see one Forum member had these quotes for a 2+2:

"S2 2+2, 3,000 miles, agreed value, garaged

Adrian Flux ?145
Footman James ?248
Heritage Motor from Norton Insurance ?162
Lancaster ?195"

Pays to shop around!

steve3.8 · Post by **steve3.8** » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:17 pm

Last May I had my renewal notice (?198 ) , when I phoned to accept the offer the question of any modifications came up , i answered - only the front calipers which you know about , a ?25 module in the original distributor and the standard stainless exhaust which I didn?t previously mention .

I was then told a stainless exhaust even in stardard form is classed as a performance modification as was the points module and your revised premium is now ?240 .

I asked them to justify the 20% hike in premium for what I considered replacement parts for reliability not performance , to which they said sorry Sir but the underwriters apply the policy rules and not the brokers .

My policy schedule now has these mods listed with a number code alongside each modification .
Maybe it?s a ploy to increase premiums or refuse payouts for total losses if you haven?t declared absolutely everything I don?t know ,

Does anyone else have a standard stainless exhaust they haven?t declared to their insurer ?

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:26 am

Rearrange the following into a well-known phrase or saying:

Ripped you off being are. Feet with your vote.

Post by **Heuer** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:00 pm

steve3.8 wrote: Does anyone else have a standard stainless exhaust they haven?t declared to their insurer ?

+1 If we get to that level of detail my car will cost more than a Zonda to insure although my insurance company don't seem to have a problem with all my other mods. Watch out for modern radios though as they regard them as more nickable than an AM only one.

Name and shame

MarekH · Post by **MarekH** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:51 pm

Dear David,

If you have agreed value cover, why not just say "no modifications"? Under a total loss scenario, they pay the agreed amount, no? There is no need to let them have any excuse to somehow justify their perception that your etype is more likely to be stolen than AN Other's etype.

kind regards
Marek

Post by **Heuer** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:36 pm

No Marek, the onus is on the owner to declare any modifications and in the event of a claim the insurer could refuse a payout or significantly reduce it. One of the reasons I always tell people who fit wide wheels or low profile tyres to declare it as soon as the 'modification' is made. Arguably this would apply to tyres, wheels, LED lights, 5 speed gearbox, 2.88 diff, non standard steering wheel, modern radio, electronic ignition, MX5 seats, tubular manifolds, straight through exhaust, brakes, air filter etc etc. Basically anything that Jaguar did not fit that is not a like for like maintenance replacement. This probably stems from the proposed EU regulations which would refuse an MOT to any classic vehicle that was modified from standard. That has been shelved so maybe this is aimed at getting a similar result through a back door. :?

Dave K · Post by **Dave K** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:57 pm

When I had the JEC do a valuation on my car I included a sheet with all upgrades. This was then passed onto the insurance Co.

Dave

steve3.8 · Post by **steve3.8** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:59 pm

Pete,

? Pinstripe the pay a Rolex for and suit Somebody has to ? :)

No - initially my thoughts were exactly he same as yours so I rang another broker [ FJ ] who I had used the previous year and they confirmed the same .
I am insured with Heritage which is underwritten by Chaucer .

On the surface it does seem petty but the insurers have to draw a line somewhere and as David said it is ANY mods away from factory spec , so if someone has led strips in their gauges undeclared and the car has a major electrical fire it could all end in tears .
I did feel the need to argue over the stainless exhaust and the first replies were ? the car is more appealing to steal ? and ? more Performance ? to which I answered ? I don?t even know anyone that sells a standard mild steel system off the shelf ? , ?same performance ? and ? who is going to be swayed into stealing a ?45k car just because of a stainless exhaust that?s worth ?200 max second-hand?

Incidentally the mgb gt I had was due for renewal at the same time and that also increased when i said ?stainless steel exhaust?

Anyway I would rather wince over ?40 than ?45k , but above all make sure you?re covered .

ps - David , is the forum clock 1 hour behind GMT ?

Steve

Post by **Heuer** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:43 pm

Regarding the clock - certainly looks that way. Not a clue how to change it but I will have a dig around. At least it is correct fo half the year :D

Dave K · Post by **Dave K** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:45 pm

Reminds me a few years back I insured my new Kawaski GPZ900 and while cleaning it I saw it had 901cc cast into the bottom of the head.
I thought I would check with the insurers just to be sure and they said I would have to pay an extra ?60 and be insured as unlimited.
I was a bit cheesed off at the time but a month later it was stolen never to be seen again.
I was pretty smug when I made my claim though.

Dave

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

The 'E' Type Forum

Insurance Confusion on behalf of a member

#1 Insurance Confusion on behalf of a member

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11