- Apr 21, 2017
- 62
- 0
- 0
Been told by the dealer to just go for market value rather than new for old.he said insurers never pay out fully on new for old policies.what is everyone else doing ? buying van for about 13k.
First Insurance
- Thread starter Marbles007
- Start date
- Oct 12, 2013
- 3,037
- 4
- 0
Hi .
Go new for old, we have just bought a new one & that's what we have done . Phone Adrian Flux, that's who we have gone through and at quite a good price.
Craig
Go new for old, we have just bought a new one & that's what we have done . Phone Adrian Flux, that's who we have gone through and at quite a good price.
Craig
- Apr 21, 2017
- 62
- 0
- 0
- May 7, 2012
- 8,596
- 1,818
- 30,935
I did check the Adrian Flux website and could not find a copy nor the policy wording, the name of the insurer or that it had DEFAQTO five star rating. I would want confirmation of all three before I would take out the policy. Always remember cheaper is not better in most cases. Personally I would pay a little more for the peace of mind. As someone who has worked in insurance all y like I do understand the various points and for me the C&CC policy looks the best bet at the moment.
- Apr 21, 2017
- 62
- 0
- 0
Off to look at a second hand Swift Challenger sport 514 tomorrow a 2012 model value about 11k would its still be better to have new for old or just stick to market value ?
market value is about £150 a year
new for old is £250 a year.
Best quotes have always been from Coast Insurance. policy is with Aviva.
market value is about £150 a year
new for old is £250 a year.
Best quotes have always been from Coast Insurance. policy is with Aviva.
- May 7, 2012
- 8,596
- 1,818
- 30,935
There is no right or wrong answer to the question of whether new for old is best or not. Basically you need to look at the premiums for both and decide if you feel the extra for new for old is worth it. Remember you need to check the current price for the replacement caravan and use that which will inevitably be far more than the current replacement value. With replacement as new I would want to know if they have a model they regard as the correct current equivalent of yours and if not tell them what you regard as that and ask them to agree that to avoid a common problem if the worst happens. If they will not do that then I would be reluctant to use them.
The web site does not show the policy as having DEFAQTO five star rating, and if it has not got that then I would suspect the cover has been cut somewhere, although Aviva are a decent company. The rating looks at the cover and five stars are awarded to the best policies. It does not show the way the company deals with customers or claims though but you should be safe with Aviva.
The web site does not show the policy as having DEFAQTO five star rating, and if it has not got that then I would suspect the cover has been cut somewhere, although Aviva are a decent company. The rating looks at the cover and five stars are awarded to the best policies. It does not show the way the company deals with customers or claims though but you should be safe with Aviva.
I can confirm insurers do pay out more than original price on new for old policies
The 5cs policy of the CAMC nee Caravan Club is that in the event of a write off of an insured caravan you are offered a direct new replacement if one is available. However since caravan models change so often this may not be possible. If an exact replacement is not available you are offered an 'equivalent' (i.e. to the same layout and size etc.) as the old. The loss adjusters go out to tender and you are offered a specific caravan or the cash equivalent. Fortunately, I did not need to get into a 'discussion' on what exactly constituted an 'equivalent' caravan. The sum offered was actually more than we had paid for the caravan ( not allowing for inflation) and took into account the excess included in the original insurance. From claim to payment was exactly four weeks.
It was also worth paying the extra to protect the no-claims discount. The new caravan was insured without any trouble and actually at a lower premium than the old as I choose to increase the voluntary excess slightly. Cheapest is not always best.
The 5cs policy of the CAMC nee Caravan Club is that in the event of a write off of an insured caravan you are offered a direct new replacement if one is available. However since caravan models change so often this may not be possible. If an exact replacement is not available you are offered an 'equivalent' (i.e. to the same layout and size etc.) as the old. The loss adjusters go out to tender and you are offered a specific caravan or the cash equivalent. Fortunately, I did not need to get into a 'discussion' on what exactly constituted an 'equivalent' caravan. The sum offered was actually more than we had paid for the caravan ( not allowing for inflation) and took into account the excess included in the original insurance. From claim to payment was exactly four weeks.
It was also worth paying the extra to protect the no-claims discount. The new caravan was insured without any trouble and actually at a lower premium than the old as I choose to increase the voluntary excess slightly. Cheapest is not always best.
I am intrigued by the concept of 'new-for-old' insurance on older caravans...and especially second-hand 'vans. (I can understand it for brand-new caravans for 1 or 2 years years, as is common with car insurance).
Surely this goes against the basic idea that you should be no better off after an insured event than before? Does it not lead to a temptation to the unscrupulous to 'fabricate' a total loss?
I am more familiar with boat insurance, where AFAIK 'new-for-old' is unknown. You insure the boat for a specific amount. The insurer will need to be satisfied that the boat is worth that much, and may ask for a survey and/or valuation. In the event of a total loss the insured figure is what you will get.
Surely this goes against the basic idea that you should be no better off after an insured event than before? Does it not lead to a temptation to the unscrupulous to 'fabricate' a total loss?
I am more familiar with boat insurance, where AFAIK 'new-for-old' is unknown. You insure the boat for a specific amount. The insurer will need to be satisfied that the boat is worth that much, and may ask for a survey and/or valuation. In the event of a total loss the insured figure is what you will get.
- May 7, 2012
- 8,596
- 1,818
- 30,935
VicMallows said:
I have to agree that this is a very odd idea. Basically you can pay £10,000 for a second hand caravan and if anything serious happens to it you get a new one worth £20,000. Looks like a perfect arrangement for fraudsters. Still if people can take the cover than all we can do is give our take on the pros and cons.
You do also have to realise the limitations of the cover on an older caravan. If it is damaged and would be repairable economically if the parts were available, but the parts are not available, you get a settlement based on what the labour cost of the repair would be plus the parts at the last list price so less serious claims could leave you out of pocket.
Parksy
Moderator
- Nov 12, 2009
- 11,904
- 2,400
- 40,935
I think that the term 'new for old' is inaccurate, especially when a second hand caravan is insured 'new for old'.
The sum of money that was paid for the caravan is the item that is actually insured, so if an insured caravan with a valid 'new for old' policy becomes a total loss the original purchase price (or that price toward a replacement caravan) is paid to the policy holder.
We bought a brand new Abbey Vogue 495 s/a in March 2007, and we insured new for old with C&CC.
Unfortunately this caravan was declared a total loss by the loss adjuster after the widespread flooding in July 2007.
Of course we were devastated, but the C&CC Club Care 'new for old' insurance removed the stress and worry because the purchase price, plus an extra amount for accessories and the awning, was covered by the insurance policy.
A cheque duly arrived for he awning and accessories (aquaroll, waste water carrier, chairs, tv etc; and we were invited to choose a replacement caravan and our original purchase price would be forwarded to the caravan dealer.
We took our time in choosing a replacement caravan and decided to upgrade to a brand new Abbey Vogue 620 dealer special.
The fact that the insurance policy had underwritten the bulk of the purchase price put us in a very strong bargaining position, so although the replacement caravan was a different better equipped twin axle model we didn't have to find much cash ourselves to make up the difference.
It was the sum of money that was insured rather than the individual caravan.
The sum of money that was paid for the caravan is the item that is actually insured, so if an insured caravan with a valid 'new for old' policy becomes a total loss the original purchase price (or that price toward a replacement caravan) is paid to the policy holder.
We bought a brand new Abbey Vogue 495 s/a in March 2007, and we insured new for old with C&CC.
Unfortunately this caravan was declared a total loss by the loss adjuster after the widespread flooding in July 2007.
Of course we were devastated, but the C&CC Club Care 'new for old' insurance removed the stress and worry because the purchase price, plus an extra amount for accessories and the awning, was covered by the insurance policy.
A cheque duly arrived for he awning and accessories (aquaroll, waste water carrier, chairs, tv etc; and we were invited to choose a replacement caravan and our original purchase price would be forwarded to the caravan dealer.
We took our time in choosing a replacement caravan and decided to upgrade to a brand new Abbey Vogue 620 dealer special.
The fact that the insurance policy had underwritten the bulk of the purchase price put us in a very strong bargaining position, so although the replacement caravan was a different better equipped twin axle model we didn't have to find much cash ourselves to make up the difference.
It was the sum of money that was insured rather than the individual caravan.
- May 7, 2012
- 8,596
- 1,818
- 30,935
Parksy,
I have not insured a second hand caravan on a new for old basis so had to check this out. The policy does say new for old will be the cost of a new caravan of the same or nearest available one provided the sum insured is adequate. The club also do a guaranteed value policy which sounds to be the basis you were given. It may be to stop potential fraud this is how they take on policies for second hand caravans but if so it needs to be more clear in the literature as you have to go into the policy wording into find it.
If the OP wants replacement as new cover he needs to check with the broker exactly what he is getting.
The wording from the web site is as follows:
New for Old
New for Old is a basis of cover where Insurers calculate Your loss according to the cost of a new replacement, or the nearest equivalent. New for Old cover applies when Your Unit or Equipment is replaced; any cash settlement will be on a Market Value basis only. If, at the time of
the loss, the sum insured for Your Unit is less than 90% of the cost of a new replacement or nearest equivalent then the basis of cover will revert to Market Value. The maximum amount Insurers will pay will be limited to the sum insured shown
I have not insured a second hand caravan on a new for old basis so had to check this out. The policy does say new for old will be the cost of a new caravan of the same or nearest available one provided the sum insured is adequate. The club also do a guaranteed value policy which sounds to be the basis you were given. It may be to stop potential fraud this is how they take on policies for second hand caravans but if so it needs to be more clear in the literature as you have to go into the policy wording into find it.
If the OP wants replacement as new cover he needs to check with the broker exactly what he is getting.
The wording from the web site is as follows:
New for Old
New for Old is a basis of cover where Insurers calculate Your loss according to the cost of a new replacement, or the nearest equivalent. New for Old cover applies when Your Unit or Equipment is replaced; any cash settlement will be on a Market Value basis only. If, at the time of
the loss, the sum insured for Your Unit is less than 90% of the cost of a new replacement or nearest equivalent then the basis of cover will revert to Market Value. The maximum amount Insurers will pay will be limited to the sum insured shown
I understand the point you are making about fabricating a write off. Having recently had a claim under new for old I could see the assessment process in detail.
It seems there are relatively few expert assessors and each seems to be known to the major insureres. They have constant practice and a good current knowledge of construction techniques.
Apart from a fire, it would be quite involved and difficult to do sufficient damage without a stong likelyhood that the assessor would recognise it as such and recommend that the claim is declined. Therefore there would be a considerable risk that the instigator would be left with a caravan of scrap value only, which is not very much.
Another give away would be the temptation to remove some fittings e.g. Lights before creating the 'accident'. You have to declare any extras fitted e.g. mover and these are taken into account at the final settlement.
Clearly the addional premium cost of new for old is a factor, but the problem with market value base is that ideally you need to reduce the sum insured each year and hopefully reduce the premium accordingly. With a car this is easy using one of the Guide publications. It is not so easy, indeed pretty difficult with a caravan as the main guide is not available to the public. Going by forecourt prices for similar models is pretty unreliable as it's difficult to establish what typical mark up a dealer applies in deciding a ticket price which probablly includes a negotiation margin too. So all in all I'm a fan of new for old, now standard for the first 5 years from new for Caravan Club policies.
It seems there are relatively few expert assessors and each seems to be known to the major insureres. They have constant practice and a good current knowledge of construction techniques.
Apart from a fire, it would be quite involved and difficult to do sufficient damage without a stong likelyhood that the assessor would recognise it as such and recommend that the claim is declined. Therefore there would be a considerable risk that the instigator would be left with a caravan of scrap value only, which is not very much.
Another give away would be the temptation to remove some fittings e.g. Lights before creating the 'accident'. You have to declare any extras fitted e.g. mover and these are taken into account at the final settlement.
Clearly the addional premium cost of new for old is a factor, but the problem with market value base is that ideally you need to reduce the sum insured each year and hopefully reduce the premium accordingly. With a car this is easy using one of the Guide publications. It is not so easy, indeed pretty difficult with a caravan as the main guide is not available to the public. Going by forecourt prices for similar models is pretty unreliable as it's difficult to establish what typical mark up a dealer applies in deciding a ticket price which probablly includes a negotiation margin too. So all in all I'm a fan of new for old, now standard for the first 5 years from new for Caravan Club policies.
- May 7, 2012
- 8,596
- 1,818
- 30,935
Having spent my working life in insurance I do agree that in many cases fraudulent claims can be spotted and there were things we looked out for but we do not know how many got through and there are plenty of people out there who take the risk.Some of the things you list would bring up warning lights but the better fraudsters would do better.
Blatant examples of failed claims include a hotel that burned down, where despite being fully booked nobody had turned up and a fish and chip shop where thieves came in through the ceiling fro an empty flat above and we were asked to believe the thieves emptied the shop of everything including sacks of potatoes. In the second case the books showed that they traded normally the next day but had bought only wet fish. We are not idiots but if you know what you are doing we can be beaten.
Blatant examples of failed claims include a hotel that burned down, where despite being fully booked nobody had turned up and a fish and chip shop where thieves came in through the ceiling fro an empty flat above and we were asked to believe the thieves emptied the shop of everything including sacks of potatoes. In the second case the books showed that they traded normally the next day but had bought only wet fish. We are not idiots but if you know what you are doing we can be beaten.
Facebook
Twitter