Modifications - run flats and insurance

B

blowers

Member
 Buckinghamshire
Does anyone have a definitive answer as to whether it is necessary toadvise insurance companies when changing from run flats to either standard or winter tyres? Similarly when do insurers need to be advised of variTions from standard build? I.e if you buy second hand and added park distance controls then that would be mod? If the car had been built with Pdc would that still be a variation from standard build and need to be declared at point of second hand purchase. ? the point I am trying to get to is how do you absolutely ensure insurance companies do not wriggle out of claims through mods? Would there
be an industry standard or does it vary across insurers?
 
I have had some mods that some insurance companies are interested in and others are not - they vary so much I suggest you ask your insurance company.
 
If in doubt check with your insurer, mine didnt care about tyres but they did increase it because it has the OE rear tinted windows (because the standard windows in the rear are so easy to see stuff through)
 
As above, you need to check with you insurer, even factory options need to be disclosed for some insurers.
 
Just renewed insurance with Mor£than.

Told them I had ditched the runflats, and they said no difference at all to premium, and have sent an email covernote stating that I HAVE INFORMED THEM I NO LONGER HAVE RFT FITTED.

Can't say fairer than that :thumbsup:
 
Dr Phibes said:
Just renewed insurance with Mor£than.

Told them I had ditched the runflats, and they said no difference at all to premium, and have sent an email covernote stating that I HAVE INFORMED THEM I NO LONGER HAVE RFT FITTED.

Can't say fairer than that :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

may be a stupid question but why would insurance companies care about not having runflats???? iv taken mine off you see but didnt think to inform them... wonder if i should now!?
 
I guess you could argue a change in handling, blow outs causing a crash etc, but they'd really have to know their stuff to notice
 
I told my insurance company that I had ditched the Runflats and changed the tyres to an alternative, they didn't semed interested and said that it was ok to change the tyres.

I must admit that I did find it difficult to get the sales co-ordinator to understand what I had done. I think it was a call centre out of the country :(

Anyway, I made a note of the date and time of the call just in case, insurance company was admiral
 
If you are spending in excess of £500 on insurance, it's a no brainer to tell them that you have changed to non RF tyres. I'd hate to have them use it as an excuse NOT to pay out in the event of a shunt - just because I hadn't informed them.
 
I told esure that my runflats had gone, they asked what i changed too and i told them that i had 19" CSL, the runflats were not a problem but a non standard fit alloy, bmw or not cost me £80 to change with an admin fee on top of £35.

Pricey !!!

It does look 10 times better though and stopped me from selling the car. Espeacially with the change in run flats which i originally thought was a myth. :D
 
This is a purely personal and clearly irresponsible view, but given the amount of money these bastards screw out of us already, whether in massively increased premiums because of their failure to manage the repair/claims loop effectively, or as a result of the recently much-publicised 'skimming' from car hire, medical claims etc.., I tend to adopt a fairly liberal attitide which goes something like this:

BLOW IT OUT YOUR ARSE!!

I'll happily discuss any disagreements in court if and when theres a problem in the event of a claim. But thats just me. :thumbsup:

Oh and as for factory options, I defy anyone to prove that an insurer could defend a claim that the vehicle was in any way 'modified'. :fuelfire:
 
I take the same view as lacroupade. I would happily take them to court and hire Freeman or so to prosecute them for non payment if they say that I am not covered because I had not informed them of my Intravee fitting or something else completely not relating to the car.

With the drive to one Europe, why is it that the things that I really care about are never implemented - i.e. car based insurance rather than person based, detachment from speeding fines and insurance premiums etc.
 
Just remind me how this car-based insurance thing works? Do I remember you saying that effectively anyone could drive (with permission) but carried their own excess or something?
 
No different excess, but this is how it works:

- Car has a base premium, pretty steep usually. Example is about €3500 for an X5
- A new driver has 0% discount, so pays a lot.
- Maximum no claim is 80% or so, so experienced drivers pay less.
- In case of claim, you lose a part of no claim, usually between 10 - 20%.

If you own the car and have 80% discount, and you let someone else drive it who has an accident, you, as the insurer, lose the no claim discount. You can get a premium above 100% if you have multiple accidents.

It is a no claim discount, so even if you have 10 accidents in other peoples cars, your premium is not affected as you have not claimed on your insurance. No impact of speeding fines on premium either as there is no relation to the insurance risk of the car, which is what it is all about, i.e. it is about actual claims - not inveented risk ones.
 
pvr said:
No different excess, but this is how it works:

- Car has a base premium, pretty steep usually. Example is about €3500 for an X5
- A new driver has 0% discount, so pays a lot.
- Maximum no claim is 80% or so, so experienced drivers pay less.
- In case of claim, you lose a part of no claim, usually between 10 - 20%.

If you own the car and have 80% discount, and you let someone else drive it who has an accident, you, as the insurer, lose the no claim discount. You can get a premium above 100% if you have multiple accidents.

It is a no claim discount, so even if you have 10 accidents in other peoples cars, your premium is not affected as you have not claimed on your insurance. No impact of speeding fines on premium either as there is no relation to the insurance risk of the car, which is what it is all about, i.e. it is about actual claims - not inveented risk ones.
Click to expand...
I like the sound of that, much fairer than the UK's system IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom