Posted By: Anonymous
Not declaring mods - 01/08/2006 20:48
Anyone who hadn't declared mods ever been in a claims situation? Any trouble? 
Not declaring mods
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 01/08/2006 21:15
Strictly speaking any change from standard is a notifiable modification even a gear knob or stereo. (I was an car insurance advisor for 6ys). You may get away with some mods (like a chip) but if you injured someone and got caught out you may end up paying very large amounts out of your own pocket. And you may find that the insurance isn't as bad as you thought - I modified my Mini and it was actually cheaper with a specialist insurer than it was unmodified with a "high street" company.
Posted By: Tartandude
Re: Not declaring mods - 01/08/2006 21:15
Quote:
Anyone who hadn't declared mods ever been in a claims situation? Any trouble?
Slightly leading question there
Im sure all the good people here declare their mods ( I certainly do
) but if they didn't I guess it would all depend on what wasn't declared.Something small or something big? Something performance enhancing etc
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 01/08/2006 21:30
No, I was just wondering from an insurance point of view. I work for a large insurer myself, and my girlfriend was insured by them at the time. The car got written off, and as it turned out there were mods which hadn't been declared as she had bought the car from someone who had played with it but thought she only had aftermarket alloys. She had changed the wheels back to standard Golf wheels but afterwards I realised that there were other mods (zorst, shocks etc) that weren't standard either but the co just paid out regardless.
I wonder whether this is just because the company was much larger and wasn't so fussy, and if smaller companies give you loads more hassle if you have to claim? (Close vehicle inspections, under the bonnet etc)
I wonder whether this is just because the company was much larger and wasn't so fussy, and if smaller companies give you loads more hassle if you have to claim? (Close vehicle inspections, under the bonnet etc)
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 01/08/2006 21:32
Sorry - I realise I sound like I'm trying to get people to admit to not declaring mods! No, I was just curious
Posted By: Cappo
Re: Not declaring mods - 01/08/2006 21:35
I'm not in any way advocating non-declaration - I'd argue that if you don't declare, you may as not insure at all - but I do wonder, if you bought a car, were completely non-technical, and therefore didn't know it was modded (maybe even didn't know what a mod was!), what would happen if you had an accident and they discovered the mods on it?
I suppose ignorance is no defence - but then again, are you supposed to take ANY used vehicle to a specialist for him to check it thoroughly for mods? On a bike, for example, you could have a Dynojet kit fitted (on a bike with carbs) and you'd never know unless you took the top off the carbs - and how many people could/would do that?
I suppose ignorance is no defence - but then again, are you supposed to take ANY used vehicle to a specialist for him to check it thoroughly for mods? On a bike, for example, you could have a Dynojet kit fitted (on a bike with carbs) and you'd never know unless you took the top off the carbs - and how many people could/would do that?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods *DELETED* - 01/08/2006 21:48
Post deleted by Skodaman
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 01/08/2006 21:55
Is ignorance exception from exclusion?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 01/08/2006 22:04
The legal principle is that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. I have minor mods as above (declared) and I wonder if the examiner would have found them if I'd not declared them and pranged the car..strut brace is obvios I suppose.
Posted By: AndrewR
Re: Not declaring mods - 02/08/2006 00:47
Quote:
I'd wonder how deep they would look if you did have an accident?
Depends how big the accident was.
Try mowing down a bus queue and then smashing through the window of a Ferrari dealership - there'll be blokes in white coats hammering your car through a seive to find non-standard molecules
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 02/08/2006 01:13
And if its anything like the last train crash there would be 20 different health & safety / incident reports on the one accident by the 20 different safety agencies involved..oh yes and this would be followed by a major tabloid running a 'ban all Fiat Coupes now campaign'.
Posted By: Trappy
Re: Not declaring mods - 02/08/2006 14:31
Anyone know of examples when someone has been caught out for not declaring mods? In the press or anything...
As was said, wheels and such (or boost gauges) are obvious, but how would they know if you had a chip, uprated turbo, panel filter K&N etc??
I guess if they found a single mod they'd start sniffing further...
I've noticed that mods don't seem to add much to a policy... I'd love to see some of the heavily modded guys informing them, do you send a list in lol?
As was said, wheels and such (or boost gauges) are obvious, but how would they know if you had a chip, uprated turbo, panel filter K&N etc??
I guess if they found a single mod they'd start sniffing further...
I've noticed that mods don't seem to add much to a policy... I'd love to see some of the heavily modded guys informing them, do you send a list in lol?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 02/08/2006 18:07
Quote:
I've noticed that mods don't seem to add much to a policy...
To add non-std alloys to a Norwich Union Direct policy (around £500 premium) is about £100 extra, to add something more performance enhancing such as an intercooler, zorst or chip would be more like about £200 per item each. If you have more than three modifications, it goes to the mercy of the underwriters who can load or cancel your policy as they see fit.
They really don't like anything non-std, which is why I am no longer insured with my own company!
Posted By: AndrewR
Re: Not declaring mods - 02/08/2006 18:21
Think about how insurance companies work. If you were running an insurance company your dream would be to only insure people who never crashed, because they you could take in their premiums every year and never pay out a penny.
Unfortunately picking out the people who are never going to crash is surprisingly tricky, but the safest bets are people aged 30-65 who have 4+ years of NCB, who drive a standard, middle of the road car, travel less than 30k miles PA, have a detached house in a nice area, wash their car every Sunday, play golf, etc., etc.
The big companies go after those people and offer them low quotes.
The flip side of this is that they assume that anybody under 30 drives flat out everywhere, anybody with less than 5 years driving experience only got their licence by performing sexual services for their driving examiner, anybody over 70 is unable to see as far as the end of their bonnet and that anybody who modifies their car probably spends their whole weekend doing hand-brake turns in McDonald's car-park.
They price their policies accordingly, because what they're really saying is "P*ss off and let us get on with insuring somebody who isn't going to cost us millions in claims every year".
Smaller brokers, who can't compete as well on price for the ultra-safe drivers make their money by picking up on areas where the big companies have probably over-estimated the risk represented by some sectors.
So, basically, if you're anything other than a 37.5 year old, living in Surbiton and driving a silver Mondeo you'll be better off with a small company than a big one.
For example, every year I shop around for insurance on my wife's Honda Civic and, every year, Direct Line are the cheapest by miles. However, for my car, still with my wife and I driving, Direct Line are somewhere in the region of twice as expensive as Noel Dazley.
Unfortunately picking out the people who are never going to crash is surprisingly tricky, but the safest bets are people aged 30-65 who have 4+ years of NCB, who drive a standard, middle of the road car, travel less than 30k miles PA, have a detached house in a nice area, wash their car every Sunday, play golf, etc., etc.
The big companies go after those people and offer them low quotes.
The flip side of this is that they assume that anybody under 30 drives flat out everywhere, anybody with less than 5 years driving experience only got their licence by performing sexual services for their driving examiner, anybody over 70 is unable to see as far as the end of their bonnet and that anybody who modifies their car probably spends their whole weekend doing hand-brake turns in McDonald's car-park.
They price their policies accordingly, because what they're really saying is "P*ss off and let us get on with insuring somebody who isn't going to cost us millions in claims every year".
Smaller brokers, who can't compete as well on price for the ultra-safe drivers make their money by picking up on areas where the big companies have probably over-estimated the risk represented by some sectors.
So, basically, if you're anything other than a 37.5 year old, living in Surbiton and driving a silver Mondeo you'll be better off with a small company than a big one.
For example, every year I shop around for insurance on my wife's Honda Civic and, every year, Direct Line are the cheapest by miles. However, for my car, still with my wife and I driving, Direct Line are somewhere in the region of twice as expensive as Noel Dazley.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 02/08/2006 18:25
You should answer all questions on the proposal form to the best of your knowledge and belief.
You can't disclose information you are not aware of, especially when it would take someone who has a fair amount of knowledge to determine what mods you may have. If, for example, the car is chipped when you buy it and the seller tells you it is standard how is a normal person supposed to know?? Obviously, if you have a fiesta 1.0 ltr with 17" alloys then you may have difficulties running this argument.
If I was not aware I had a mod and therefore did not disclose it and then my insurance co relied on that non disclosure to decline a claim then I would feel fairly comfortable arguing the issue to Court - I say that as an insurance lawyer (for my sins).
You can't disclose information you are not aware of, especially when it would take someone who has a fair amount of knowledge to determine what mods you may have. If, for example, the car is chipped when you buy it and the seller tells you it is standard how is a normal person supposed to know?? Obviously, if you have a fiesta 1.0 ltr with 17" alloys then you may have difficulties running this argument.
If I was not aware I had a mod and therefore did not disclose it and then my insurance co relied on that non disclosure to decline a claim then I would feel fairly comfortable arguing the issue to Court - I say that as an insurance lawyer (for my sins).
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 02/08/2006 19:40
Which company do you work for Andrew?
Posted By: AndrewR
Re: Not declaring mods - 02/08/2006 21:00
Not an insurance one, why?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 02/08/2006 21:21
Cos having read a few of your responses round and about I think you're on the button when it comes to marketing, legal etc. I reckon you'd go a long way as a consultant here
(You just have to sign a contract handing your soul over to eternal purgatory and you're in)
(You just have to sign a contract handing your soul over to eternal purgatory and you're in)
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 03/08/2006 02:15
On a related note though, what level of "non-standard" is deemed acceptable? Putting any oil other than Selenia 20k is surely a modification? Running any other tyre than P-Zero etc?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 03/08/2006 03:17
I think we would have to put your excess up by £150 if you had anything other than Eagle F1's 
Posted By: AndrewR
Re: Not declaring mods - 03/08/2006 05:30
Quote:
Cos having read a few of your responses round and about I think you're on the button when it comes to marketing, legal etc. I reckon you'd go a long way as a consultant here
Thank you, but I very much doubt they'd pay me as much for as little work as the people I currently consult for
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 03/08/2006 19:49
Quote:
The legal principle is that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
The problem is that we aren't in a Criminal Law situation here. When you answer the questions on an insurance proposal form you do so 'to the best of your knowldge'. If an insurer turns down a claim on the basis of an undeclared modification and you think the decision is unreasonable then you can ask the Insurance Ombudsman to look at the case. If the Ombudsman decides that it isn't reasonable to expect you to have been aware of a modification (depends on who you are and what the mod is) and that consequently you have acted in good faith when filling in the proposal form then they normally advise the insurer to settle the claim.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 03/08/2006 20:12
Just for reference, here's the Ombudsman's current thinking on the treatment of 'Innocent non-disclosure' .....
"We occasionally receive cases where a policyholder has failed to disclose a material fact. Previously in such cases, where we were satisfied the policyholder did not intend to mislead the insurer, we have often adopted a ‘proportional’ approach. This has involved performing a calculation to compare the premium the policyholder actually paid with the correct premium (that is, the premium they would have paid had the insurer known the full facts), in order to ascertain what proportion of cover the customer should now receive. However, we are not entirely satisfied that this is an appropriate approach to take as a general rule.
The ABI (Association of British Insurers) Statement of General Insurance Practice requires firms not to repudiate a claim on the grounds:
1. of the customer’s failure to disclose a material fact, if that fact was one that a customer could not reasonably be expected to disclose; or
2. of misrepresentation, unless it is a deliberate or negligent misrepresentation of a material fact.
The same Statement also requires insurers:
1. to include clear questions on application forms about matters insurers have commonly found to be material; and
2. not to ask questions requiring knowledge which the signatory could not reasonably be expected to possess.
In accordance with these principles, if the customer’s non-disclosure has been totally innocent, we may, in some circumstances, expect an insurer to pay the full amount of cover, rather than a proportionate sum."
"We occasionally receive cases where a policyholder has failed to disclose a material fact. Previously in such cases, where we were satisfied the policyholder did not intend to mislead the insurer, we have often adopted a ‘proportional’ approach. This has involved performing a calculation to compare the premium the policyholder actually paid with the correct premium (that is, the premium they would have paid had the insurer known the full facts), in order to ascertain what proportion of cover the customer should now receive. However, we are not entirely satisfied that this is an appropriate approach to take as a general rule.
The ABI (Association of British Insurers) Statement of General Insurance Practice requires firms not to repudiate a claim on the grounds:
1. of the customer’s failure to disclose a material fact, if that fact was one that a customer could not reasonably be expected to disclose; or
2. of misrepresentation, unless it is a deliberate or negligent misrepresentation of a material fact.
The same Statement also requires insurers:
1. to include clear questions on application forms about matters insurers have commonly found to be material; and
2. not to ask questions requiring knowledge which the signatory could not reasonably be expected to possess.
In accordance with these principles, if the customer’s non-disclosure has been totally innocent, we may, in some circumstances, expect an insurer to pay the full amount of cover, rather than a proportionate sum."
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 03/08/2006 20:27
Futher definition of 'Innocent non-disclosure'...
Innocent Customers act in good faith if their non-disclosure is made innocently. This may happen because the question is unclear or ambiguous, or because the relevant information is not something that they should reasonably know. In these cases, the insurer will not be able to ‘avoid’ the contract and (subject to the policy terms and conditions) should pay the claim in full.
Innocent Customers act in good faith if their non-disclosure is made innocently. This may happen because the question is unclear or ambiguous, or because the relevant information is not something that they should reasonably know. In these cases, the insurer will not be able to ‘avoid’ the contract and (subject to the policy terms and conditions) should pay the claim in full.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 03/08/2006 20:38
I was answering Rusper's query about ignorance of the law. Perhaps I should have been pedantic and stated that the general principle in law is that ignorance of the law (criminal or civil) is no defence for breaking it. Just because you are unaware that you dog howls all night when you are on night shift and wakes the neighbours doesn't absolve you from action by the council under nuisance legislation.
My job involves asset recovery for a large insurance brokerage and assigned contract recovery for a number of the main insurance companies. We tend to be rather strict on non-disclosure of material facts regardless of reasons. The policy is cancelled or claims unpaid with the onus on the policy holder to show that the omission was in good faith rather than done with intent. Granted this mostly occurs in the haulage, building, industrial sector which has a higher 'chancer/fraud' factor than Joe Public's Mondeo
but I can think of 2 current cases with private motor vehicles where the policy is frozen pending some explanations by the policy holder.
In this instance the insurance company pays its liability to the third party and my boys then have the job of recovering the settlement from the 'uninsured' policy holder.
We have an Insurance Ombudsman on this side of the water , same as you. However here he only becomes involved in matters of insurance cover and wording of the policy. For disputes and 'disclosures' etc he will decline to become involved and refer both parties to arbitration or the Courts. Either way its time consuming and expensive.
My job involves asset recovery for a large insurance brokerage and assigned contract recovery for a number of the main insurance companies. We tend to be rather strict on non-disclosure of material facts regardless of reasons. The policy is cancelled or claims unpaid with the onus on the policy holder to show that the omission was in good faith rather than done with intent. Granted this mostly occurs in the haulage, building, industrial sector which has a higher 'chancer/fraud' factor than Joe Public's Mondeo
but I can think of 2 current cases with private motor vehicles where the policy is frozen pending some explanations by the policy holder.
In this instance the insurance company pays its liability to the third party and my boys then have the job of recovering the settlement from the 'uninsured' policy holder.
We have an Insurance Ombudsman on this side of the water , same as you. However here he only becomes involved in matters of insurance cover and wording of the policy. For disputes and 'disclosures' etc he will decline to become involved and refer both parties to arbitration or the Courts. Either way its time consuming and expensive.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 17:05
Fair enough.
The main part of my job is to analyse policy response for Insurers. Material non-disclosure can be difficult to establish and, as Ash points out, the Ombudsman is a useful tool. For example, the Ombudsman routinely forces insurers to pay claims where policy conditions have been breached but were not causative of the loss (e.g. door not locked - breach of condition - but burglar gains entrance through a window etc.).
If I can make a couple of practical suggestions to avoid any dispute occuring:
1) If you by a coop i'd suggest keeping a copy of the advert (or post) which details its specifications or any modifications made.
2) Don't be afraid to caveat some of your answers in the proposal form. e.g. where they ask about modifications you could say "I am aware of the following modifications .....)
The broker/insurer reviewing this is unlikely to call you up on this and it can be a valuable tool in the event there is a dispute about whether you knew about certain modifications... Also keep a copy of your proposal form.
The main part of my job is to analyse policy response for Insurers. Material non-disclosure can be difficult to establish and, as Ash points out, the Ombudsman is a useful tool. For example, the Ombudsman routinely forces insurers to pay claims where policy conditions have been breached but were not causative of the loss (e.g. door not locked - breach of condition - but burglar gains entrance through a window etc.).
If I can make a couple of practical suggestions to avoid any dispute occuring:
1) If you by a coop i'd suggest keeping a copy of the advert (or post) which details its specifications or any modifications made.
2) Don't be afraid to caveat some of your answers in the proposal form. e.g. where they ask about modifications you could say "I am aware of the following modifications .....)
The broker/insurer reviewing this is unlikely to call you up on this and it can be a valuable tool in the event there is a dispute about whether you knew about certain modifications... Also keep a copy of your proposal form.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 18:07
Got a new one this morning, commercial vehicle repairer with a policy limit to 5 tonne GVW. Seems he does HGV work on the side which isn't covered on his policy. Large (unspecified) truck collapsed the hydraulic lift and injured a guy working underneath it. The lawyers will wallow.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 19:17
Okay - how about this one...
An insurance policy is sold, and at no point in the quote process is it asked, or is it implied that modifications to the vehicle should be disclosed.
A customer takes up the quote and pays for it. At the point at which he receives your policy documentation, he reads the obligatory 'Material Facts' statement which states that you are obliged to disclose any information which may affect the policy (such as modifications).
By rights, is he entitled to call the company and declare his mods at that point, but then not be charged an extra premium as he has already been quoted a sum for the cover and has accepted this quote...?
Basic analogy:
A man walks into a shop, chooses a mobile phone. The assistant tells him the phone is £100. He buys the phone, but when reading the instructions, realises that he has been given a higher specification phone than he had expected. He calls the shop, and they realise their mistake. They ask him to pay an extra £30 as the phone they sold him was not the model they thought it was. However, he was sold the phone at a certain price, and the man argues that the shop does not have the right to charge him any more, which would be within his rights as I understand...
An insurance policy is sold, and at no point in the quote process is it asked, or is it implied that modifications to the vehicle should be disclosed.
A customer takes up the quote and pays for it. At the point at which he receives your policy documentation, he reads the obligatory 'Material Facts' statement which states that you are obliged to disclose any information which may affect the policy (such as modifications).
By rights, is he entitled to call the company and declare his mods at that point, but then not be charged an extra premium as he has already been quoted a sum for the cover and has accepted this quote...?
Basic analogy:
A man walks into a shop, chooses a mobile phone. The assistant tells him the phone is £100. He buys the phone, but when reading the instructions, realises that he has been given a higher specification phone than he had expected. He calls the shop, and they realise their mistake. They ask him to pay an extra £30 as the phone they sold him was not the model they thought it was. However, he was sold the phone at a certain price, and the man argues that the shop does not have the right to charge him any more, which would be within his rights as I understand...
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 19:19
Quote:
Thank you, but I very much doubt they'd pay me as much for as little work as the people I currently consult for
You're probably right, I get pittance - perhaps I should be asking you for a job!
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 19:46
2 different points of law. The shop analogy is flawed in that the sale price offered is called 'an invitation to treat' ie the phone was offered at a price and both parties accepted a contract based on the offer price. Lucky punter. The shop would have a hard time getting more money from him.
The small print of most motor policies states that the car is 'standard and unmodified' usually by ticking the box on the proposal to confirm it is. Again if the punter knew his car was modified but didn't advise the insurance company then we are back to the 'Material Disclosure' issue again. In other words the initial insurance proposal presupposes that the car is 'Manufacturer standard' within a fairly narrow definition.
I checked with our call centre and part of the script for new motor proposals is a question asking whether the car has been modified in any way...I'm sure if dozy Doreen got cover for a Focus STI220 when it was a rotten old 1.8 then she would get a rebate..but not a particularly generous one and subject to 'admin charges..'
The small print of most motor policies states that the car is 'standard and unmodified' usually by ticking the box on the proposal to confirm it is. Again if the punter knew his car was modified but didn't advise the insurance company then we are back to the 'Material Disclosure' issue again. In other words the initial insurance proposal presupposes that the car is 'Manufacturer standard' within a fairly narrow definition.
I checked with our call centre and part of the script for new motor proposals is a question asking whether the car has been modified in any way...I'm sure if dozy Doreen got cover for a Focus STI220 when it was a rotten old 1.8 then she would get a rebate..but not a particularly generous one and subject to 'admin charges..'
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 20:16
Aaah... but if the insurance company completely failed to ask for any other information other than the standard questions, no request to disclose 'any other information', 'material facts', or any other 'tick the box' generic disclaimer that your car is completely standard, then surely you could pull them up on this?
A loophole, surely?
A loophole, surely?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 20:19
The Ombudsman has made it clear to insurers that they must ask very clear questions relating to things they consider important to evaluating the risk. Hiding stuff in small print won't work with the Ombudsman even if at the end of the day it might be 'legally' binding. In cases of material non-disclosure the insurance company will have to show that it asked very specific questions relating to things like convictions, accidents, modifications etc - it is one of the main reasons why insurers record telephone conversations when selling policies.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 20:25
Very unlikely to find a policy that had that. The documents are read carefully by lawyers. Insurance companies are bigger than you and I and their first action would be to refuse your claim, pay the third party and sue you for the settlement. You could involve the Ombudsman, CAB etc but meantime you have no car cover (can't go elswhere without declaring to the new company the problems with the previous one. Having your policy cancelled for any reason is a MAJOR material fact) so you are stuffed...better to be honest.
BTW there is also a little known part of civil law refering to actions in deceit where the court views the conduct and actions of the defendant (you) and would be entitled to take the view that it would have been reasonable of you to declare the mods instead of trying to be smart...
End of law lecture.
BTW there is also a little known part of civil law refering to actions in deceit where the court views the conduct and actions of the defendant (you) and would be entitled to take the view that it would have been reasonable of you to declare the mods instead of trying to be smart...
End of law lecture.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 20:29
But there always is a specific question relating to vehicle modifications - motor insurers aren't that stupid!
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 20:29
Don't think you're following me - say if you got a quote from the internet, and there was no facility to declare your mods, then how can they say that you were being misleading or deceitful?
Posted By: JimO
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 20:31
Every internet site i have used has asked is the car standard.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 20:40
More info from the Financial Ombudsman's website ....
"The insurer must first provide evidence that it asked the customer a clear question when the customer asked to take out or renew a policy. The insurer may ask questions via a traditional proposal form, which records the answers.
In many cases the transaction will have taken place over the telephone. If there is no evidence, such as a call recording and/or a copy of the statement of facts that the insurer has sent the customer, then we will have to decide what is likely to have happened. If the customer gives a credible account of events, we may find it more likely than the insurer’s version.
A similar statement of fact would be required for internet sales; as would some evidence of the questions asked during the website process, as it existed at the time of the application.
In order for non-disclosure to occur, the insurer must show that it asked clear questions."
"The insurer must first provide evidence that it asked the customer a clear question when the customer asked to take out or renew a policy. The insurer may ask questions via a traditional proposal form, which records the answers.
In many cases the transaction will have taken place over the telephone. If there is no evidence, such as a call recording and/or a copy of the statement of facts that the insurer has sent the customer, then we will have to decide what is likely to have happened. If the customer gives a credible account of events, we may find it more likely than the insurer’s version.
A similar statement of fact would be required for internet sales; as would some evidence of the questions asked during the website process, as it existed at the time of the application.
In order for non-disclosure to occur, the insurer must show that it asked clear questions."
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 20:47
Look, if you guys are really hung up on this then go and spend ££ with an insurance lawyer. Also the Ombudsman is not superman. If the matter goes to Court its the Court who decide as in your examples the case would rest on contract law..
This is becoming a Moon is Green Cheese exercise. The insurance companies do ask questions, do record the answers and if you try and pull a fast one (excuse the pun) then you have a very good chance of ending up with no cover or in the worst case a starring role as an uninsured driver in a fraud case...
This is becoming a Moon is Green Cheese exercise. The insurance companies do ask questions, do record the answers and if you try and pull a fast one (excuse the pun) then you have a very good chance of ending up with no cover or in the worst case a starring role as an uninsured driver in a fraud case...
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 21:20
Quote:
This is becoming a Moon is Green Cheese exercise.
Everyone knows the moon's made of blue cheese, silly!
Posted By: JohnS
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 21:58
A mate of mine wrote off his modified sapphire cossie and when the assessor came round he measured the lift on the cams.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 04/08/2006 23:37
Quote:
A mate of mine wrote off his modified sapphire cossie and when the assessor came round he measured the lift on the cams.
holy sheet ...
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 06/08/2006 03:29
if you did have mods and needed to claim for an accident, and had basic mods induction kit zorst etc. what would stop you putting standard parts back on, if accident damage was not too bad it would be a half hour job and no one would know! my dad had an accident and an accesor came to inspect the car he gave a date and time, which gave plenty of time to put everything back to normal.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 06/08/2006 05:05
Depends if there was a third party involved. I suspect the boys in blue would become involved if you were found out..tampering/destroying evidence, that sort of thing. Serious stuff if somebody was hurt and would automatically make the accident your fault even if it wasn't. Even if it was you v a tree I'd still think it would be devious, dishonest and fradulent.
Wouldn't go there myself.
Wouldn't go there myself.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 06/08/2006 16:04
I guess the other problem is that you might not be in a position to reverse your mods if you're badly injured!
On another note, my current insurers have never asked me about mods ... it's not on their form! Pity I don't have any ... although hold on ... Forge DV006, Mintex fast road pads, New CD Head Unit, Goodyears not Pirellis!
On another note, my current insurers have never asked me about mods ... it's not on their form! Pity I don't have any ... although hold on ... Forge DV006, Mintex fast road pads, New CD Head Unit, Goodyears not Pirellis!
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 07/08/2006 02:16
Quote:
my dad had an accident and an accesor came to inspect the car he gave a date and time, which gave plenty of time to put everything back to normal.
I bet it looked quite funny with Cat A damage to the front end but with a pristine bumper slapped back on with duct tape
"No, honest - it's the one which came with the car..."
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 08/08/2006 18:57
Quote:
Pity I don't have any ... although hold on ... Forge DV006, Mintex fast road pads, New CD Head Unit, Goodyears not Pirellis!
Unfortunately, insurance companies do regard replacing the plastic Bosch dump-valve with a Forge equivalent as a modification - indeed some will refuse to insure you with one fitted
Posted By: AndrewR
Re: Not declaring mods - 10/08/2006 13:54
Quote:
Don't think you're following me - say if you got a quote from the internet, and there was no facility to declare your mods, then how can they say that you were being misleading or deceitful?
Most companies that do on-line quotes don't have a specific section asking about mods because they make it difficult to generate a quote automatically.
Instead they will have an initial screen asking you to confirm a list of 20-25 points. In there will be things saying that you don't have any medical conditions or criminal convictions and that the vehicle you are insuring is not modified in any way.
If you accept that list of conditions then you are certifying that your vehicle is not modified, so they do not specifically need to ask about modifications. If your vehicle is modified then you should not accept those conditions and should phone up for a quote.
In any case, they've plainly asked you about modifications and no amount of legal wrangling or complaining to the ombudsman would make it otherwise.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 10/08/2006 16:23
at the risk of sounding legalese , contracts of insurance
have from time immemorial , been deemed contracts
uberimae fides.
ie , contract of utmost good faith.
the reason being that the insurer's quote hinges upon you
declaring everything upon good faith. Not , for eg , upon
them asking you the correct questions.
cheers.
.
have from time immemorial , been deemed contracts
uberimae fides.
ie , contract of utmost good faith.
the reason being that the insurer's quote hinges upon you
declaring everything upon good faith. Not , for eg , upon
them asking you the correct questions.
cheers.
.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 10/08/2006 19:09
If you answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and belief you will be fine.
If you genuinely didn't realise the car had a mod and they call you up on it then you'll be justified in disputing any decision to decline cover. If you are prepared to press it they will probably back down. Obviously, if you didn't realise the car was modded when it has aftermarket alloys, exhaust, FMIC etc etc then it may be hard to persuade people you didn't realise.
If you tell a porky then you may be able to get away with it by pleading ignorance but is it really worth it??? You'll be suprised how they find out things. For example, by looking at the posts people make on the forum... If they can really be bothered they may be able to find out people's real identity by obtaining an order for 3rd party disclosure from the club or whoever hosts the forum.....
If you genuinely didn't realise the car had a mod and they call you up on it then you'll be justified in disputing any decision to decline cover. If you are prepared to press it they will probably back down. Obviously, if you didn't realise the car was modded when it has aftermarket alloys, exhaust, FMIC etc etc then it may be hard to persuade people you didn't realise.
If you tell a porky then you may be able to get away with it by pleading ignorance but is it really worth it??? You'll be suprised how they find out things. For example, by looking at the posts people make on the forum... If they can really be bothered they may be able to find out people's real identity by obtaining an order for 3rd party disclosure from the club or whoever hosts the forum.....
Posted By: JohnS
Re: Not declaring mods - 10/08/2006 19:34
You also risk them recording insurance fraud against your name - there is good reason why they ask if you've ever had cover cancelled, declined or special restrictions attached to you.
Posted By: AndrewR
Re: Not declaring mods - 10/08/2006 19:53
Quote:
You also risk them recording insurance fraud against your name - there is good reason why they ask if you've ever had cover cancelled, declined or special restrictions attached to you.
Yes, it's so much more polite than asking, "Have we caught you trying to rip us off before?"
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 10/08/2006 20:25
Quote:
A mate of mine wrote off his modified sapphire cossie and when the assessor came round he measured the lift on the cams.
Things have changed in the many years since I organised the motor claims assessors for a large insurance co. Back then they only knew bodywork (remember their main job is to check the repairing bodyshop isn't ripping 'em off). I remember a claim for a 1.6 sierra or something which had a Cosworth bodykit (or a crap looking version of one). They honestly couldn't tell whether it also had a Cosworth engine sneaked in under the bonnet too
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 11/08/2006 18:35
I think this all depends upon the company that you are insured with. It seems that the smaller companies are much more fastidious in their inspections (I think that measuring the lift on the cams is the most extreme example I have come across) as they have the most to lose by paying out for larger claims.
The larger companies (take for example a certain eastern county city based provider), are far less stringent in their assessing of the vehicle, in favour of maintaining their reputation of having a 'niggle-free' claims process. The outsourcing of the claims dept has meant that the claims process however has become 'nigglesome' in other ways, which also lends to the company wanting a quick resolution of the claim.
Don't misinterpret this as my endorsement of going with the larger companies because, in my opinion they are more likely to be ignorant of undeclared modifications. This is not the case. I am sure that were someone to launch themselves from a speed bump and plough through the lunchtime queue in McDonalds (no great loss, I hear you cry) there would no doubt be a lengthy investigation which would involve a thorough dissection of the ill-fated car, with checks for after-market chips and measurement of cam-lift de rigeur. (Apologies for the w@nky turn of phrase)
The whole thread came from my experience when shopping around for my motor renewal. I was quoted via MoneySuperMarket, and then completed further questions for Bedford via Highway Insurance. Having written policy booklets myself, I was surprised when at no point during the quote process was I asked whether I had any modifications fitted to the vehicle, or asked to tick a box or agree to a disclaimer stating that my car was standard and unmodified in any way.
It was only when I received my policy documentation through the post that I read in the wording that it was agreed that my car was unmodified. I was wondering where this left me from an insurance point of view, and if I then had the right when calling to declare my modifications to state that I hadn't initially been asked, nor had the facility to disclose such information whether the vehicle was modified, and therefore should not be subject to a loading because of this.
However, following a revisit to the quote process from MoneySuperMarket, it appears that in pressing the 'proceed' button to accept the quote, I was also agreeing to their Terms and Conditions. A little root through these, and there it was.
I shall draw my breathy post and my at times controversial thread to a close then. A textbook exercise in futility, I'm sure you will agree.
The larger companies (take for example a certain eastern county city based provider), are far less stringent in their assessing of the vehicle, in favour of maintaining their reputation of having a 'niggle-free' claims process. The outsourcing of the claims dept has meant that the claims process however has become 'nigglesome' in other ways, which also lends to the company wanting a quick resolution of the claim.
Don't misinterpret this as my endorsement of going with the larger companies because, in my opinion they are more likely to be ignorant of undeclared modifications. This is not the case. I am sure that were someone to launch themselves from a speed bump and plough through the lunchtime queue in McDonalds (no great loss, I hear you cry) there would no doubt be a lengthy investigation which would involve a thorough dissection of the ill-fated car, with checks for after-market chips and measurement of cam-lift de rigeur. (Apologies for the w@nky turn of phrase)
The whole thread came from my experience when shopping around for my motor renewal. I was quoted via MoneySuperMarket, and then completed further questions for Bedford via Highway Insurance. Having written policy booklets myself, I was surprised when at no point during the quote process was I asked whether I had any modifications fitted to the vehicle, or asked to tick a box or agree to a disclaimer stating that my car was standard and unmodified in any way.
It was only when I received my policy documentation through the post that I read in the wording that it was agreed that my car was unmodified. I was wondering where this left me from an insurance point of view, and if I then had the right when calling to declare my modifications to state that I hadn't initially been asked, nor had the facility to disclose such information whether the vehicle was modified, and therefore should not be subject to a loading because of this.
However, following a revisit to the quote process from MoneySuperMarket, it appears that in pressing the 'proceed' button to accept the quote, I was also agreeing to their Terms and Conditions. A little root through these, and there it was.
I shall draw my breathy post and my at times controversial thread to a close then. A textbook exercise in futility, I'm sure you will agree.
Posted By: AndrewR
Re: Not declaring mods - 11/08/2006 19:32
Quote:
I shall draw my breathy post and my at times controversial thread to a close then. A textbook exercise in futility, I'm sure you will agree.
Not at all - I think it has been an interesting thread, raising some useful and valid points.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 11/08/2006 21:58
I was just kidding Andrew, I have appreciated your thoughts!
Posted By: S1MMA
Re: Not declaring mods - 12/08/2006 00:08
Quote:
The larger companies (take for example a certain eastern county city based provider), are far less stringent in their assessing of the vehicle, in favour of maintaining their reputation of having a 'niggle-free' claims process. The outsourcing of the claims dept has meant that the claims process however has become 'nigglesome' in other ways, which also lends to the company wanting a quick resolution of the claim.
Not sure if I agree with this. As a London market Commercial Underwriter, I'm not a complete expert on Motor (or any personal lines), although the company I work for is the market leader (highest market share) in my specialist market, and we are probably also the most anal when it comes to disclosure. We are also the most selective when choosing risks, so I think it's more to do with whoever is underwriting the risk, and in the event of a claim, who is dealing with the claim (can come down to an individual or a company policy).
You may not get the same treatment even with 2 similar claims when insured with the same company, so you're taking a risk if you don't disclose. I was involved with an accident with a marked police car 3 years ago, and the coppers told me to drive home (at 1am) with only 1 light on my car working. No checks of my car (got breathalised), insurance co didnt check my car, just got it repaired and off I went. On that note, you could have a minor accident hitting a fence, and the insurance co could go to town checking your car, you just don't know.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods *DELETED* - 13/08/2006 17:16
Post deleted by Skodaman
Posted By: Nigel
Re: Not declaring mods - 13/08/2006 18:27
My experiences......
I crashed a lightly modified Coupe in May 2002 and wrote it off. It had plus wheels, Zender bodykit, SuperSprint exhaust, K&N panel, strut brace, replacement turbo. All had been declared, and I was paying about £150 extra for the mods.
When the insurance company inspector came to view the car, he didn't look at the mods - he went straight to the tyres and brakes to see if I'd been driving a defective car. Clearly, he was looking for a way to refuse the claim. their first offer was £3250. They ended up paying me £6000
My current experience of mods is far better. I called Liverpool Victoria after they mailshotted me at renewal time. I told them I was heaviliy modded, and they asked me for an exhaustive list.
GT28R turbo
Chip
intercooler
chargecooler
air filter
boost controller
Exhaust
dump valve
strut brace
17" wheels
lowered springs
uprated shocks
uprated brakes
and a few more things I can't remember off the top of my head
Total extra charge?
Zero
Nothing
Nada
Zip
Apparently, drivers of "more mature years" who tend to modify their cars will do so properly and not cut any corners. Their claims experience suggests that true car enthusiasts have a far better claims record than "ordinary" drivers, so they don't load at all.
what a result!
I crashed a lightly modified Coupe in May 2002 and wrote it off. It had plus wheels, Zender bodykit, SuperSprint exhaust, K&N panel, strut brace, replacement turbo. All had been declared, and I was paying about £150 extra for the mods.
When the insurance company inspector came to view the car, he didn't look at the mods - he went straight to the tyres and brakes to see if I'd been driving a defective car. Clearly, he was looking for a way to refuse the claim. their first offer was £3250. They ended up paying me £6000
My current experience of mods is far better. I called Liverpool Victoria after they mailshotted me at renewal time. I told them I was heaviliy modded, and they asked me for an exhaustive list.
GT28R turbo
Chip
intercooler
chargecooler
air filter
boost controller
Exhaust
dump valve
strut brace
17" wheels
lowered springs
uprated shocks
uprated brakes
and a few more things I can't remember off the top of my head
Total extra charge?
Zero
Nothing
Nada
Zip
Apparently, drivers of "more mature years" who tend to modify their cars will do so properly and not cut any corners. Their claims experience suggests that true car enthusiasts have a far better claims record than "ordinary" drivers, so they don't load at all.
what a result!
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods *DELETED* *DELETED* - 13/08/2006 19:38
Post deleted by Skodaman
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 14/08/2006 05:53
that definately seems a lot more sensible , modifications are not covered after an accident so only a theft risk and an accident risk should be taken into account . obviously insurance companies are trying to make profit and most usually do but its high time they looked upon modifications sensibly .
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 14/08/2006 22:21
When I called the company to point out that I had mods, I went through the whole list with the broker, and she sounded a bit dubious, which I wasn't to chuffed about as they had a 25% cancellation charge. She said she'd call me back the next day after speaking with the underwriters.
When she came back it was just a 10% loading, which was fine with me! I think you're right, the older you are, the more modifications are considered a risk.
When she came back it was just a 10% loading, which was fine with me! I think you're right, the older you are, the more modifications are considered a risk.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 15/08/2006 19:53
Just talked to my broker about some potential mods. She spoke to the underwriter and just called me back. According to her the underwriter doesn't care once I have an engineers report from the mechanic saying the car is OK as a result of the mods. They're only interested if the value of the car goes up!! Sounds too good to be true?
Posted By: Emjay
Re: Not declaring mods - 17/08/2006 21:55
Quote:
Always a problem trying to be smarter than the insurance company..anyone in 'the business' see the case of the man with his Cuban Cigars?
Guy bought and insured a box of cigars. Read the policy and consulted a lawyer as the policy had a section on fire cover...
3 months later the guy makes a claim for the total loss of the cigars due to a series of 24 small fires. Insurance company refuse to pay. Guy goes to law and wins and gets compensation. Insurance company pay and promply have the guy arrested for arson. He gets 6 months and $10,000 fine.
Insurers always have better lawyers than Joe Public.
Some lawyers know better than to take Joe Public at face value cigar myth
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods *DELETED* - 17/08/2006 22:09
Post deleted by Skodaman
Posted By: Emjay
Re: Not declaring mods - 17/08/2006 22:31
Ah go on then, sounds interesting
You can't be convicted of stealing your own property - at least not in this country. The statutory definition of theft means that it must be "property belonging to another", but you may be convicted of obtaining the money from the insurer by deception.
A finding of fact in one court can bind another court. For example, if I was convicted in a criminal court of a theft that I did not commit, I would not be able to argue in a civil court that I did not commit the theft.
You can't be convicted of stealing your own property - at least not in this country. The statutory definition of theft means that it must be "property belonging to another", but you may be convicted of obtaining the money from the insurer by deception.
A finding of fact in one court can bind another court. For example, if I was convicted in a criminal court of a theft that I did not commit, I would not be able to argue in a civil court that I did not commit the theft.
Posted By: AndrewR
Re: Not declaring mods - 18/08/2006 00:36
Quote:
A finding of fact in one court can bind another court. For example, if I was convicted in a criminal court of a theft that I did not commit, I would not be able to argue in a civil court that I did not commit the theft.
IIRC in America they have a plea of "no contest" for this reason, so that somebody can chose not to contest a criminal charge (say dangerous driving), but could then still claim in a related civil case (i.e. a claim for compensation brought by the person they'd knocked over) that their driving wasn't dangerous. Do we have anything similar?
Although, thinking about it, the Americans must have a slightly different system, because I recall a case in the 60s were a number of members of the KKK were found not guilty of murdering 4 black men in a car that they'd stopped, but, in a civil case, were found guilty of violating the civil rights of the 4 men by unlawfully killing them.
On topic: I don't know where the 4 black men got their car insurance or if they liked Coupes.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods *DELETED* - 18/08/2006 01:01
Post deleted by Skodaman
Posted By: Emjay
Re: Not declaring mods - 18/08/2006 23:00
@ Andrew - no such option in England and Wales. In Scotland whilst it canot be pleaded, there is the available finding of "not proven" which may have the same effect.
@ Skodaman - I think we are getting bogged down in semantics. The case you are trying to recall involved "property belonging to another", it has to in order to be theft. In that case, if we are thinking about the same one, IIRC it was a lien the garage had over the vehicle. That meant although it was someone else's car the property belonged to the garage at the time it was taken.
Perhaps I should have put in lengthy caveats, definitions of and distinctions between ownership, control, possession, belonging to etc. but the law is doing well enough to be dull without my further assistance
!
Oh, okay then - "You can't steal your own property... if it still belongs to you and not to another (legal) person at the time you appropriate it." - that'll do
I am still very interested in that case if you could PM it
BTW I am not sure I could do my day job without giving legal advice
@ Skodaman - I think we are getting bogged down in semantics. The case you are trying to recall involved "property belonging to another", it has to in order to be theft. In that case, if we are thinking about the same one, IIRC it was a lien the garage had over the vehicle. That meant although it was someone else's car the property belonged to the garage at the time it was taken.
Perhaps I should have put in lengthy caveats, definitions of and distinctions between ownership, control, possession, belonging to etc. but the law is doing well enough to be dull without my further assistance
!Oh, okay then - "You can't steal your own property... if it still belongs to you and not to another (legal) person at the time you appropriate it." - that'll do
I am still very interested in that case if you could PM it
BTW I am not sure I could do my day job without giving legal advice
Posted By: Sedicivalvole
Re: Not declaring mods - 15/09/2006 20:52
Well nice topic but lets face it to some people insurance is a legalised method of theft...
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 16/09/2006 00:22
Quote:
The legal principle is that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
To knowingly withold information (i.e. your mods) from your insurance company is a criminal offence. You can be arrested, photographed, fingerprinted, DNA taken and all this information will be on your criminal record for the rest of your life.
Section 16 Theft Act 1968. Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception:-
(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any
pecuniary advantage shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding five years.
(2) All cases in which a pecuniary advantage within the meaning of this section is to
be regarded as obtained for a person are cases where-
(a) [repealed];
(b) he is allowed to borrow by way of overdraft, or to take out any policy of
insurance or annuity contract, or obtains an improvement of the terms on which he
is allowed to do so; or
(c) he is given the opportunity to earn remuneration or greater remuneration
in an office or employment, or to win money by betting.
(3) For purposes of this section ‘deception’ has the same meaning as in section 15 of
this Act.
Hope this info helps.
Hamster
Posted By: S1MMA
Re: Not declaring mods - 16/09/2006 15:22
interesting info there hampster, thanks for that.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Not declaring mods - 18/09/2006 22:22
(Rusper picks up phone and dials 0800 number...)
Quote:
"Ah hello... Is that X-brand Insurance? Great. I'd like to declare some modifications to my car please - I'm sorry? No, I've just had them done...")