Prior Modifications & insurance implications

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly

I bought a second hand car. After the purchase I spotted that it has upgraded front calipers, which is nice.

If someone else purchased the same car they could well be clueless as to the upgrade and would have been unable to divulge this to their insurer. I've heard that ignorance is no defence so if a claim was made and an assessor spotted the undisclosed upgrade, could they refuse to settle?

To Elland Back

For any own damage, or theft, yes they can refuse a claim. They are legally obliged to pay any 3rd party claim, but if they cite misrepresentation, they are likely to cancel your insurance and that has long term disclosure problems

Marcusm

Insurance operates under utmost good faith; if the owner is not aware of the modification and has no reason to suspect it, the insurance company would not have a genuine basis to void the insurance.

To Elland Back

Marcusm wrote: »

Insurance operates under utmost good faith; if the owner is not aware of the modification and has no reason to suspect it, the insurance company would not have a genuine basis to void the insurance.

Insurers can argue that the owner of the car would usually have had the car checked over when he bought it and should therefore have been aware of the situation.

Pov06

To Elland Back wrote: »

Insurers can argue that the owner of the car would usually have had the car checked over when he bought it and should therefore have been aware of the situation.

That may be the case if you are buying privately, however what happens if I buy a car from a dealership which was traded in? Surely the dealer would be obliged to tell the buyer that there has been modifications done and if they don't say then how can a buyer be blamed for such a thing?

To Elland Back

Pov06 wrote: »

That may be the case if you are buying privately, however what happens if I buy a car from a dealership which was traded in? Surely the dealer would be obliged to tell the buyer that there has been modifications done and if they don't say then how can a buyer be blamed for such a thing?

Good luck with that defence is all I'd say.

Pov06

To Elland Back wrote: »

Good luck with that defence is all I'd say.

I don't see why it wouldn't work to be honest.

All that is required is utmost good faith. If you think about it - your average driver knows next to nothing about cars besides driving them. The previous owner putting on bigger brakes or remap the car and a buyer or even dealership may not even realise it. Then you get some assessor who notices the bigger brakes and begins claiming that the owner lied when he took out his policy?

There is no way you can expect a person to be a car mechanic in order to take out a simple car insurance policy...

Special Circumstances

When is a mod not a mod? Uprated halogen bulbs? Bosch Aerotwins to replace old style wipers?
Tyres not available as OE tyres? Fancy brake pads? Fumoto oil drain valve? Polyurethane ARBs?
Bosal exhaust to replace worn out factory back box?
Engineers report to certify your new magic tree?

Pov06

Special Circumstances wrote: »

When is a mod not a mod? Uprated halogen bulbs? Bosch Aerotwins to replace old style wipers?
Tyres not available as OE tyres? Fancy brake pads? Fumoto oil drain valve? Polyurethane ARBs?
Bosal exhaust to replace worn out factory back box?
Engineers report to certify your new magic tree?

The new one I've seen is window tint... even on the rear being classed as a modification. Sure at some point we will probably have to pay extra to be covered to drive at night :pac:

Special Circumstances

Pov06 wrote: »

The new one I've seen is window tint... even on the rear being classed as a modification. Sure at some point we will probably have to pay extra to be covered to drive at night :pac:

"Listening to anything but Larry's Golden Hour while driving? That's a loadin..."

millington

To Elland Back wrote: »

For any own damage, or theft, yes they can refuse a claim. They are legally obliged to pay any 3rd party claim, but if they cite misrepresentation, they are likely to cancel your insurance and that has long term disclosure problems

First of all, if it was stolen, they couldn't see them to notice

Anyway I would not worry about it. It's not an obvious change. Have seen highly modified cars assessed no problem before.

Marcusm

To Elland Back wrote: »

Insurers can argue that the owner of the car would usually have had the car checked over when he bought it and should therefore have been aware of the situation.

THat's too dogmatic and they cannot argue hypotheticals. If the person was not aware of it and affirms that fact, it would be very difficult, as with the suggestion here of uprated brakes, that the insurer could establish that the owner was aware of the modification. If they held their position, it would be a matter for the ombudsman and eventually the courts.

Despite what many may believe, they cannot act on a mere foot fault, in order for it to be a non disclosure item, the insured needs both to be aware and to have believed that it would have affected the insruance. THere was a recent case involving a fire claim on a Limerick house where the insurer sought to avoid the claim on the basis that the house had previously been hit with gunfire.

That case contains a very good analysis of what is considered non disclsoure and what is not.

robbiew

Just spoke to my insurance about new alloys and stainless exhaust, and they said no problems since it's more cosmetic then performance, but in the case of a claim only original parts would be replaced instead of add-ons..