This is very worrying... I'm going to have to check my policy...
Is my CB aerial a modification?!
Is my CB aerial a modification?!
A nice Christmas present for the driver involved.
www.autoexpress.co.uk
Driver whose towbar voided his insurance wins payout | Auto Express
Allianz tells Auto Express it was ‘right in principle’, but has agreed to cover the claim in full
www.autoexpress.co.uk
If the insurance company say it was "right in principle" then al least they should provide the policyholder with information what constitutes a modification to the vehicle. Would a swap from summer to winter tyres amount to a modification, for example?
Some drivers do advise their insurance company of such a change, and some companies don’t need it. I changed tyres on a SWB Pajero to give improved mud capability and higher ground clearance. They went from OEM 30 inch tyres to 33 inch tyres . The insurer just noted it with no conditions imposed.
Last edited:
These admin fees are a bit of a joke... £20 for a couple of seconds of computer code to run. Not like there's some clerk sat there rummaging through reams of paper to dig out my policy then doing a load of sums on a calculator.
The FOS decision though probably technically correct is a worry. Hopefully the FCA will take a different view.
Meanwhile as we are now seeing on a lot of Insurers, not all, e proposal forms questions about modifications are now included . The tow bar featured in a number I have seen.
Meanwhile as we are now seeing on a lot of Insurers, not all, e proposal forms questions about modifications are now included . The tow bar featured in a number I have seen.
Last edited:
Why do you see it as a worry? Its only an illegitimate concern if an antisocial owner is making modifications and doesn't want to declare them. By doing so they are causing all law abiding drivers extra expense becasue of the difficulties that arise if a claim has to be lodged against what is an uninsured driver.
The insurers are only asking proposers to be truthful, when did that become unfashionable?
The FOS are supposed to be the Final Arbiter before Legal Proceedings.
You too Prof know the difference between a Condition precedent to Policy Liability and dare I say a potential ambiguous “invitation “ to disclosure.
With so much on line inviting purchase of Insurance I believe it is encumbent on the Insurer to encourage disclosure of anything that may cause them to refuse covering the risk.
Disclosure has been raised a number of times in recent years and this has resulted in comprehensive on line questions being asked by Insurers. The trend is set. Those who don’t ask or give examples of what they seek leaves them on a sticky wicket imo.
The FOS here missed a serious error on the part of Allianz “request for disclosure “. Something they subsequently sought to use as a refusal of policy liability even though the tow bar had not one iota to do with the accident.
You have to ask on this case if the FOS decision was correct , why did the Allianz have a change of heart and support a motoring magazine ?
The fact here was , I suspect , Allianz didn’t ask the correct questions at Proposal stage which in itself maybe considered unfashionable😉
Hence the most unusual step where the Insurer actually contradicts an FOS decision in their favour.
With such a widely read auto magazine having the insurers name in leading articles may have been seen as too much negative publicity with the potential to affect sales of policies.
The Power of the Press😉
If a Caravan magazine said Joe Bloggs caravans are junk🙀
Thank you Dusty,
I do appreciate how unsatisfactory the subject has been managed in the past. The question of what constitutes a relevant modification, depends on who is asking the question, and that does in my opinion need to be further clarified to remove any ambiguity or uncertainty, especially when vehicle insurance is a legal requirement, and having a claim declined or voided on the basis of an undeclared modification would seem to be playing Russian roulette.
The Insurers (bless their cotton socks) are having to deal with an increase in fraudulent claims and as such they are justifiably developing tighter controls and checks to lower their exposure, and to crack down of the fraudsters. Unfortunately these changes also impact the honest customers, by raising the 's bar on how the insured entity is described.
Our present vehicle insurance industry relies on the underwrites having confidence in the description of insured vehicle. In most cases they accept the vehicle manufacturers standard specification as published by the manufacturer. Historically they needed to know if proposers have added any performance enhancing modifications, because such modifications have on average raised claim rates. But in more recent times with the continually enhanced safety requirements , its the need to repair the vehicle back to a satisfactory condition which is becoming eyewatering. Modifications such as towbars can cause considerable damage to the other vehicle in an incident. This raises the risk value which insurers need to be able to account for.
Insurers usually include at the end of a proposal a proposers declaration of accuracy, Failure to declare any modifications may affect the validity of the policy or claims made against the policy. It points out that its an offence to make a false deceleration.
That is a legal statement and applies whether of not the modification affects the reason for or on the impact of a claim, it s the fact the modification was not declared that's the breach of contract.
On that basis it is clear that it is the insured persons responsibility to advise the insurer of any modifications that takes the vehicle away from its standard specification.
I do appreciate how unsatisfactory the subject has been managed in the past. The question of what constitutes a relevant modification, depends on who is asking the question, and that does in my opinion need to be further clarified to remove any ambiguity or uncertainty, especially when vehicle insurance is a legal requirement, and having a claim declined or voided on the basis of an undeclared modification would seem to be playing Russian roulette.
The Insurers (bless their cotton socks) are having to deal with an increase in fraudulent claims and as such they are justifiably developing tighter controls and checks to lower their exposure, and to crack down of the fraudsters. Unfortunately these changes also impact the honest customers, by raising the 's bar on how the insured entity is described.
Our present vehicle insurance industry relies on the underwrites having confidence in the description of insured vehicle. In most cases they accept the vehicle manufacturers standard specification as published by the manufacturer. Historically they needed to know if proposers have added any performance enhancing modifications, because such modifications have on average raised claim rates. But in more recent times with the continually enhanced safety requirements , its the need to repair the vehicle back to a satisfactory condition which is becoming eyewatering. Modifications such as towbars can cause considerable damage to the other vehicle in an incident. This raises the risk value which insurers need to be able to account for.
Insurers usually include at the end of a proposal a proposers declaration of accuracy, Failure to declare any modifications may affect the validity of the policy or claims made against the policy. It points out that its an offence to make a false deceleration.
That is a legal statement and applies whether of not the modification affects the reason for or on the impact of a claim, it s the fact the modification was not declared that's the breach of contract.
On that basis it is clear that it is the insured persons responsibility to advise the insurer of any modifications that takes the vehicle away from its standard specification.
Thanks Prof,
Totally agree the signed declaration at the end of the proposal form creates the legally binding contract of insurance between the two parties.
I suspect in this e world the understanding us guys have of these matters is not shared by the younger generation.
You and I may still wonder why a blue chip Insurer in this case chose to reject a FOS decision in their favour to placate a magazine.
On balance Clive is probably right that public image is more important to the Insurer than technical correctness . How sad that is 🙀
That said I have always been in the “ Full disclosure camp”👍
.....a towbar also adds to potential liabilities for an insurer in that any legal trailer is covered for third party claims whilst it is attached to the insured vehicle.
I've always worked on the basis that because of this compulsory cover an insurer would want to know if a towbar is fitted.
Quite surprising to me that most insurers don't ask for an extra premium when you declare a towbar.
I've always worked on the basis that because of this compulsory cover an insurer would want to know if a towbar is fitted.
Quite surprising to me that most insurers don't ask for an extra premium when you declare a towbar.
Wrt Prof”s excellent post, it is still not clear to me what constitutes a modification to standard spec especially if the purchaser of a new vehicle has optional extras fitted at the factory. Minefield ??
I've written to my insurer today with a full list of the regular production options which were added to the factory order for my car - I don't want them rejecting a potential claim - eg because "additional airbags" was one of the extras.
Does metallic paint constitute a modification? It does affect repair costs!
On optional extra is by definition a modification to the manufacturers standard product, whether its a factory or after sales fitting the word option infers its a modification.
Metallic paint usually costs more to apply so yes it does affect repair costs.
PLaying devils advocate here - but yes every mod should be advised to the insurer as it may affect the value of the vehicle and cost of any repair.
Things are not so easy as that. If you are in possession of a complete list of all regular production options that were applied during the build of your car you will find that it contains a whole host of items that you may have considerd as standard but which, as far as the manufacturer is concerned, are actually regular production options, but they are mandatory.
The complete list for my BMW is a two page build schedule of RPO's, including items such as 6-way power seats with memory function, sat nav, air conditioning, even the type of surface finish of the interior brightwork (brushed aluminium),
Knowing what might be "modifications" appears challenging enough if ordering a factory build vehicle, it becomes way more so in say buying it well into the used market.
Insurers could be very much more helpful, if they so wish, if they list those they want to know about.
Even the new buyer, as in our case buying a "run-out" vehicle where the maker variously and randomly used up their options stock holding, really can only fathom out what "extras" they have or have not if they study the subject.
Insurers could be very much more helpful, if they so wish, if they list those they want to know about.
Even the new buyer, as in our case buying a "run-out" vehicle where the maker variously and randomly used up their options stock holding, really can only fathom out what "extras" they have or have not if they study the subject.
It is quite common for the FOS to reject a complaint at the fist tier. However if you appeal and it is escalated, it is then dealt with by more knowledgeable people.
Facebook
Twitter