Flexible car insurance

If your insurer won't play ball, I would find one that does. I wouldn't feel comfortable with an expensive motor uninsured unless you can afford to take the hit and simply replace it if stolen.

To be honest I sorned the M140i for 7 to 8 months of the year and never notified the insurers or gave it a second thought.

Tim.
 
Folks you can argue all day long on the rights/wrongs/morality of your insurer not covering you if the car is sorned. At the end of the day you can bet your bottom dollar it is in the T&C's you accepted when you took out your policy.
 
Scubaregs said:
Folks you can argue all day long on the rights/wrongs/morality of your insurer not covering you if the car is sorned. At the end of the day you can bet your bottom dollar it is in the T&C's you accepted when you took out your policy.
Click to expand...

The law can over-ride Ts and Cs. I would never assume that you can break the Ts and Cs, but occasionally I am sure you can. This SORN thing might be one.

I simply cannot possibly see how an insurance company can justify charging you more when the risk is lower. And I can't see how they can say the risk is higher (unless the place it is stored SORN is much riskier than the place you claim to park it when on the road.
 
You think a court would override an insurance policy that stated you were not allowed to SORN your car, that was in the T7C's that you accepted when you took out the policy?

Good luck with that.
 
Scubaregs said:
You think a court would override an insurance policy that stated you were not allowed to SORN your car, that was in the T7C's that you accepted when you took out the policy?

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Not courts, but ABI did overrule companies with winter tyres though when that nonsense came around that you would not be insured with those. Made no sense but there are still companies not a member of ABI that could still pull that trick
 
SV8Predator said:
Phoenixboy said:
why would they not, surely if its sorned its less of a risk, but for the same premium.
Click to expand...

It's not me that makes the rules! Check with your insurance company. As we can see from the other thread, a lot of insurance companies will not insure the car if it's SORNed.

Plus, don't SORN the car and then check with your insurance company; ask them first. You don't want them to cancel the policy, because that will be you royally-stuffed for years, when you have to answer the question, when renewing your insurance: Have you every had a policy cancelled?
Click to expand...
I don’t need to, my car is used all year round.
Weekends only, but every weekend 😂
 
Scubaregs said:
You think a court would override an insurance policy that stated you were not allowed to SORN your car, that was in the T7C's that you accepted when you took out the policy?

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that at all did I? Here is what I did say with some key words highlighted.

I said "The law can over-ride Ts and Cs. I would never assume that you can break the Ts and Cs, but occasionally I am sure you can. This SORN thing might be one."
 
I read on another forum when discussing insurance (yes it's a favourite EVERYWHERE) that the insurance companies work on something called 'duty of disclosure' or 'ultimate disclosure'. This means you, as the customer, are duty-bound to give your insurers every single piece of relevant information for them to decide on your risk and, ultimately, premium.

So if you SORNed your car and they haven't covered you for that because you didn't tell them at the proposal stage, you would not be covered and the policy would be 'void'.

The liability is put upon us, the customers, to make sure we give the insurers every single piece of information necessary. The onus is not on them to ask.
If you then took them to court for voiding a policy upon a claim, it would be thrown out, as they could prove you changed the criteria of the policy to which they agreed.

We live in a world where money is absolutely everything and the ONLY thing that matters. Insurance companies don't want to pay out any claims and will try not to if they possibly can. If anybody seriously thinks insurance companies would have 'grey areas' in their contracts, they are deluded IMO.
 
Pondrew said:
If anybody seriously thinks insurance companies would have 'grey areas' in their contracts, they are deluded IMO.
Click to expand...

I think your post might be spot on, but I also think that big companies very often mess up and that assuming every single term is enforceable. I was not talking about grey areas, I was talking about the fact that courts have a right to interpret contracts and that if the contract is deceptive or illegal then it may not be enforceable.

As an aside, what is a modification?

Sticking a turbo in your E86 - obvs.
Eibach lowering kit all round?
M-Sport suspension on an SE?
Square wheel set-up to staggered?
Sticking 19s on a car that came with 18s?
Ditching the run-flats?

If anyone claims to know EXACTLY what counts and what doesn't, or that the insurance companies Ts and Cs are everything, whilst the courts opinion is nothing, is a bit deluded... but probably not as deluded as those who would assume that they can NOT tell the insurance company something and everything will be fine.

The other thing is that in my experience it is impossible to tell the full truth. My recent renewal there was no 100% honest answer to how I use the cars or where I park my cars.

Every option that includes business use insists on including commuter use - I NEVER commute, let alone in a car. Business and social, no commuting was not an option. Also nowhere does "parking bay on a private cul-de-sac" come up as an option - drive or street only. Obviously I can't say it's on a drive when it's not, but the idea that a parking bay on a private cul de sac is the same risk as "on street near house" seems a bit odd.
 
DevonPaul said:
I read it as "they might, but probably wouldn't, and certainly don't bet on it"
Click to expand...

Precisely - I was trying to agree that it would be insane to assume that you can ignore the words in the Ts and Cs... but that not all contract terms are enforcible.

Lots of companies (and the police for that matter) try to make out that x, y or z is the way things are done and need to be done... but when push comes to shove in a court of the law the court tells the company or police that "no, your views / policies / Ts and Cs do not trump the law of the land. You are in the wrong. Joe Public is right".
 
Well, for what it's worth, I have been broken by the insurance industry. After a fair bit of time on price comparison sites, insurance company websites and on the phone I have concluded that I would rather spend £400 a year insuring a Z4, even if it goes unused for months on end, than to waste any more time messing around trying to find an insurer who are reasonably priced and easy to deal with in terms of flexibility.

And if it's insured then I might as well leave the tax on and drive it... but I do plan on doing a lot over the winter. The list of cosmetic, preventative and trivial jobs to do on my car is long long long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom