Remapping and insurance?

Stallingrad

Did anyone here ever phone their insurance company to see what effect a remap would have on their policy premium?

If so what was the response and subsequent price hike?

whomitconcerns

Would depend completely on the car and the remap. €0 to 10000€ difference in price. Call your company and ask

Stallingrad

Normal family saloon in this case, Passat. Just curious generally though what kind of response people have got from the insurance company and rough percentage of increase, if any.

kco3d

While renewing my insurance a few years back when ringing around looking for quotes I enquired about mapping the ECU. Nobody would quote me. My current insurer at the time was giving me the best quote so I chanced asking them. They went to the underwriter, rang back the next day and said no problem and there was no increase in premium. Couldn't believe it. I had been with that insurer for 4 years at that stage so that possibly played a part!

Car was Honda Accord and the ECU remap was an increase of ~ 45 HP and 60NM torque.

cojomo2

Hi...can you share the name of the insurer ? I thought about a remap..rang every insurer I could think of..all declined so never went ahead.

irish bloke

kco3d wrote: »

While renewing my insurance a few years back when ringing around looking for quotes I enquired about mapping the ECU. Nobody would quote me. My current insurer at the time was giving me the best quote so I chanced asking them. They went to the underwriter, rang back the next day and said no problem and there was no increase in premium. Couldn't believe it. I had been with that insurer for 4 years at that stage so that possibly played a part!

Car was Honda Accord and the ECU remap was an increase of ~ 45 HP and 60NM torque.

Ild say that's a very rare case. I be very surprised if any company would entertain a remap of any size at any reasonable increase in premium.

In fact Ild say 9 put of 10 remapped cars are not declared at all. Possibly more

frozenfrozen

sure the VW engine recall is just a remap isn't it? hello insurers, I'm after giving the car into a garage they told me the car should have this remap business done.. I'd say it's something to do with emissions and changes them or something anyway that's been done so I've been told I have to tell you that the car has been "RE" "mapped" and this changes the "performance"

do that with a thick accent and you'll be grand

GustavoFring

Rang up FBD about a remap on a Leon FR. Was going to be a mild one going from 184 to about 210. Said they'd need to call the underwriter. Called back about ten minutes later saying "it's a diesel so that's alright, no extra charge".

Didn't even want a dyno run when I offered it to cover my backside, just said send it in if I wanted and they'd keep it on file.

irish bloke

Call me skeptical but I think insurance companies are hardly reading ECU's of crashed cars as mentioned in a previous thread. Even if they did and had the expertise to do it correctly, they would have to prove it was you that completed it which IMO would be very difficult unless you were a car diagnostics expert or aware of the totally hidden change.

Not advocating withholding information, but If you declare a car for ECU remap you are then marking that car for life. If an insurance company did insure it you could find yourself tied to that company for the duration of ownership as no one else would touch you.

kco3d

cojomo2 wrote: »

Hi...can you share the name of the insurer ? I thought about a remap..rang every insurer I could think of..all declined so never went ahead.

FBD

irish bloke wrote: »

Call me skeptical but I think insurance companies are hardly reading ECU's of crashed cars as mentioned in a previous thread. Even if they did and had the expertise to do it correctly, they would have to prove it was you that completed it which IMO would be very difficult unless you were a car diagnostics expert or aware of the totally hidden change.

Not advocating withholding information, but If you declare a car for ECU remap you are then marking that car for life. If an insurance company did insure it you could find yourself tied to that company for the duration of ownership as no one else would touch you.

I would have my doubts also as to whether insurances companies would check for remaps after an accident but with the lengths they go to to avoid paying out I wouldn't take the risk! I agree that the car is probably marked for life but remaps can be removed. I could remove mine in 10 mins if needed.

Seth Brundle

frozenfrozen wrote: »

sure the VW engine recall is just a remap isn't it? hello insurers, I'm after giving the car into a garage they told me the car should have this remap business done.. I'd say it's something to do with emissions and changes them or something anyway that's been done so I've been told I have to tell you that the car has been "RE" "mapped" and this changes the "performance"

do that with a thick accent and you'll be grand

VW remapping the car does not alter the insurabke risk. The owner getting the car remapped does!

ironclaw

irish bloke wrote: »

Call me skeptical but I think insurance companies are hardly reading ECU's of crashed cars as mentioned in a previous thread.

I was skeptical had I not seen a car being checked first hand in my mechanics yard when I happened to be picking mine up. They were checking the ECU and also giving the car a fine run over for non-standard parts e.g. Intakes, Struts etc. Its far cheaper to pay someone to check you car than it is for them to pay out. I struck up a conversation with the guy doing it, and while he admitted it was rare, it wasn't unheard of and he'd do a few per week.

There was another guy, from the UK I think, that specialized in (I think) a certain Renault van that had a fault that would cause fires in the engine. His only job was to ascertain if a fire started as a result of the van or the owner taking a chance and burning it themselves for the money. Again, cheaper to fly him in to inspect the vans than pay out.

Even if they did and had the expertise to do it correctly, they would have to prove it was you that completed it which IMO would be very difficult unless you were a car diagnostics expert or aware of the totally hidden change.

No, the onus is on you actually. You must take reasonable measures to ascertain if you car is 'stock'. Ignorance is not a legal defense e.g. 'I didn't know Ireland was in km/h, hence why I was doing 120mph'

Del2005

irish bloke wrote: »

Call me skeptical but I think insurance companies are hardly reading ECU's of crashed cars as mentioned in a previous thread. Even if they did and had the expertise to do it correctly, they would have to prove it was you that completed it which IMO would be very difficult unless you were a car diagnostics expert or aware of the totally hidden change.

Not advocating withholding information, but If you declare a car for ECU remap you are then marking that car for life. If an insurance company did insure it you could find yourself tied to that company for the duration of ownership as no one else would touch you.

Civil law doesn't require proof, it's down to probably. If an insurance company took you to court over an undeclared remap I'd say that they know there's a good chance they'd win, they pay off so many spurious claims that they only fight when sure.

AMGer

GustavoFring wrote: »

Called back about ten minutes later saying "it's a diesel so that's alright, no extra charge.

What's the logic behind that I wonder? Your grand if it's diesel but pure lethal if it's petrol?

shietpilot

AMGer wrote: »

What's the logic behind that I wonder? Your grand if it's diesel but pure lethal if it's petrol?

Again just shows how insurance companies have no clue in the automotive industry at all! Remapping a diesel you can gain a good 30-40 horsepower. Try the same with a petrol with an unmodified engine and you'll gain like 5 :pac:

Stallingrad

shietpilot wrote: »

Again just shows how insurance companies have no clue in the automotive industry at all! Remapping a diesel you can gain a good 30-40 horsepower. Try the same with a petrol with an unmodified engine and you'll gain like 5 :pac:

Don't forget turbo petrols now, big gains to be had there too.

Special Circumstances

ironclaw wrote: »

No, the onus is on you actually. You must take reasonable measures to ascertain if you car is 'stock'. Ignorance is not a legal defense'

Is there a list of prohibited "mods"? Or is Joe Average supposed to instinctively know what tips the scale from "careful now" to "verboten"?

Is there a sliding scale, from Halford cd player through polyurethane ARB bushes through new car magic tree through to remap plus straight pipes?

grogi

shietpilot wrote: »

Again just shows how insurance companies have no clue in the automotive industry at all! Remapping a diesel you can gain a good 30-40 horsepower. Try the same with a petrol with an unmodified engine and you'll gain like 5 :pac:

It's just about turbocharger. With an N/A engine there is hardly any gain to make.

grogi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Is there a list of prohibited "mods"? Or is Joe Average supposed to instinctively know what tips the scale from "careful now" to "verboten"?

Is there a sliding scale, from Halford cd player through polyurethane ARB bushes through new car magic tree through to remap plus straight pipes?

I had my discs replaced... Should I worry?

But in fairness I previously called to declare that I have a slightly different size of tyres put on (205/55 vs 195/55 - were €25 cheaper a corner). Wasn't an issue.

Special Circumstances

AMGer wrote: »

What's the logic behind that I wonder? Your grand if it's diesel but pure lethal if it's petrol?

As with all decisions made by insurers they absolutely positively definitely have facts and figures to support this decision. They NEVER just make sh1t up.


Lol.

ironclaw

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Is there a list of prohibited "mods"? Or is Joe Average supposed to instinctively know what tips the scale from "careful now" to "verboten"?

Is there a sliding scale, from Halford cd player through polyurethane ARB bushes through new car magic tree through to remap plus straight pipes?

Well, its all down to the risk model. Is someone who fits an after market stereo likely to also modify the rest of the car? Some actuary likely has the answer and I'm sure its not favorable to the average motorist. Is the theft of an after-market radio higher? Yes, hence it changes the premium. Average Joe will be well out of their depth before they cross the line.

If you change any mechanical aspect of the car, you've departed from the standard risk model, and hence it needs to be re-weighted. Remember, insurance isn't about 'you', its about the model you fit in to. If you up-rate the brakes you may stop faster, but it doesn't make you a better driver, in fact you could be travelling faster and cost the company more in the event of a collision. Now, if you had up-rated brakes and had a huge amount of experience and certificates to show it, then your risk profile may be lower.

As much as I dislike the insurance companies, they are within their rights to charge a premium for modified cars. It shouldn't be extortion of course, but if you want to change the profile of your car, then you should reasonably expect to cover the insurance hike. Driving a stock GTI versus a highly tuned unit is worlds apart, everything is happening faster and it will get you into trouble far quicker than the average driver can get out of it. By the same token, to be fair to some companies, they are honoring 'previous exotic' ownership and lowering premiums if you've had something 'unique' before.

Stallingrad

If you did get insured, and it is on record as being remapped, I'd imagine come renewal time you would be all but locked to your current insurer given what people are saying about few companies quoting. Another thing to consider.

Special Circumstances

ironclaw wrote: »

Well, its all down to the risk model. Is someone who fits an after market stereo likely to also modify the rest of the car? Some actuary likely has the answer and I'm sure its not favorable to the average motorist. Is the theft of an after-market radio higher? Yes, hence it changes the premium. Average Joe will be well out of their depth before they cross the line.

Is it though? I haven't heard of an aftermarket radio being taken in yeeeeeaaars.

Some android unit or whatever I could see being a problem. I still reckon a high end German manufacturer option would be more likely to go missing than a chinese yoke.

I don't really believe that "likes to listen to MP3s on a USB stick or Ipod" = "more likely to install NOS". I suspect a "what kind of music do you like?" or "favourite radio station" would be a more useful indicator than "have you replaced a broken or seriously basic radio", but we won't fall out over it. The insurance companies have the rigorously, sensibly, interpreted stats to back up these conditions and there's no point arguing them I suppose.

ironclaw wrote: »

If you change any mechanical aspect of the car, you've departed from the standard risk model, and hence it needs to be re-weighted. Remember, insurance isn't about 'you', its about the model you fit in to. If you up-rate the brakes you may stop faster, but it doesn't make you a better driver, in fact you could be travelling faster and cost the company more in the event of a collision. Now, if you had up-rated brakes and had a huge amount of experience and certificates to show it, then your risk profile may be lower.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is NO provision by anyone in the Irish insurance industry to discount based on any advanced driving certification. In fact, as you implied yourself, it could most likely be seen as an indicator that you were not the 49year old Yaris driving accountant from Wexford and that you deserve a financial pummeling.

ironclaw wrote: »

As much as I dislike the insurance companies, they are within their rights to charge a premium for modified cars. It shouldn't be extortion of course, but if you want to change the profile of your car, then you should reasonably expect to cover the insurance hike.

Indeed, but if they were a bit clearer and consistent wouldn't it be better for everyone?

"DPF gutted" + "ECU modified to stop looking for pressure differential" would be BANG outta order so I take it? Actual performance increase versus say, a K&N cone filter, widely acknowledged to increase noise but no real performance boost (best case)...

But which one is more likely to get you in trouble with insurance???

I'm not arguing with you - I'm just pointing out the completely random and illogical nature of the "ah sure it's a diesel, remap away" industry.

conzy

Its a grey area. Where do they draw the line.

I had a 325i with no backbox and it had a K&N panel filter. Is that modified enough to void insurance.

An RX8 with after market coils and leads for longevity not performance and a decat ( the OEM ones block) is that enough to void insurance.

I would feel pretty hard done by if either of those cars was in an accident and insurance wouldn't pay out. At the same time if someone has an evo or some other jap scrap with double the advertised HP and they wrap it should insurance pay out?

kirving

It's not a grey area though, all you have to do is call up and ask them.

Special Circumstances

Kevin Irving wrote: »

It's not a grey area though, all you have to do is call up and ask them.

And ask to speak to an expert (some chance) or just go with what Josephine Headset gathered on the subject from talking after the Sacred Novena? "She diesel?? Fire away!"

dr.fuzzenstein

Kevin Irving wrote: »

It's not a grey area though, all you have to do is call up and ask them.

That would be a lot of calls. What if I use a different brand air filter, oil filter, oil, shocks, springs, tires, exhaust, brake fluid, pads and discs, coolant and any other consumable? And I don't mean the boy racer variety, but bog-standard, off the shelf stuff? It's still a modification from factory if it's a different brand, do I have to run this by them? Every time I change brake pads I have to bring my car in to be assessed? Whoops, I've just handed insurance companies a way to void 99% of all claims.
At this stage insurance companies are desperate to search for the tiniest thing to void your claim, but for some reason Mary who got €15k (now up to €17k) for "a bit of a sore neck" is perfectly alright in her dent-strewn (no more than 10 year old) Yaris.
The completely fcuked up claims awards in this country is what they should be fighting, but I guess they are in their own way. They just decided "right, let's wham premiums up by 25% a year and let's see how long it take people to cop on there's a problem". The problem is, this is Ireland. If the option is early lunch and extended tea break, everyone and everything can go fcuk themselves, thank you very much.

Seth Brundle

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

for some reason Mary who got €15k (now up to €17k) for "a bit of a sore neck" is perfectly alright in her dent-strewn (no more than 10 year old) Yaris.

Mary's car has little to do with her whiplash!

I received money for a neck injury. If I could get my neck back to the way it was beforehand, I'd gladly hand back every single cent!

dr.fuzzenstein

kbannon wrote: »

Mary's car has little to do with her whiplash!

I received money for a neck injury. If I could get my neck back to the way it was beforehand, I'd gladly hand back every single cent!

A rare genuine claim. But the awards are still stupid money. I was in accidents on three occasions, old lady pulls straight into my path on a country road, both cars write-off, lady runs into the back of me at traffic lights after they go green but traffic had stopped again and young guy pulls out 5 meters in front of me whilst looking the other way.
That's €45k right there that I could have had and since most insurance companies don't fight it anymore (because going to court will cost three times as much), they would have (and do) pay out without as much as a sideways glance. Unless I'm stupid enough to put a video of me dancing on a table on YouTube, there's zero chance I'll be caught. But I'm honest (read: stupid) and I won't engage in fraud to make money. Maybe I'm the last decent person (idiot) alive for not claiming. It's a victimless after all. HEY! Why's my insurance €1k! This is an outrage! I demand action! I'll ring Joe and my local TD, they'll soon sort this out...
Don't tell me people get into accidents and suddenly realise they could pay off a chunk of their mortgage, go on an exotic holiday or buy a new kitchen if they just exaggerate a bit (lie and engage in fraud) and they're not tempted? Of course they are. I dare say fraud is rampant and I do include Mary's slightly sore neck in that, because an exaggerate claim is fraud, just as much as 5 scangers piling into a taxi for a bit of a claim.
In most countries you get 10% of what you get here. Claims in Ireland are WILDLY out of tune with the rest of Europe and bear no relation to the actual damage done (€60k for a grazed knee, I'll take that, thank you very kindly). If the book of quantum had a zero lobbed off the end of every amount in it, it would still be sufficient.

Seth Brundle

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

A rare genuine claim.

I'm not disputing the rest of your post but the above is your opinion and not based on fact (or at least prove me wrong)

dr.fuzzenstein

kbannon wrote: »

I'm not disputing the rest of your post but the above is your opinion and not based on fact (or at least prove me wrong)

I never said you were wrong about your claim.

Seth Brundle

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I never said you were wrong about your claim.

I meant about the genuine claim being rare.

Special Circumstances

kbannon wrote: »

I meant about the genuine claim being rare.

"The majority must suffer so that the minority of scammers still receive money, but not as much." Apparently.

At least you weren't in Germany, €600 "grand total" cost for whiplash like. Definitely no other costs associated. And any (in)decent insurer would claw that back off you through some loading in no time.
Or perhaps a misrepresentation of facts and figures, and that 600 is a component of a total package.
Common sense should indicate the correct interpretation of that figure that gets bandied about.

Henry Ford III

conzy wrote: »

Its a grey area. Where do they draw the line.

I had a 325i with no backbox and it had a K&N panel filter. Is that modified enough to void insurance.

An RX8 with after market coils and leads for longevity not performance and a decat ( the OEM ones block) is that enough to void insurance.

I would feel pretty hard done by if either of those cars was in an accident and insurance wouldn't pay out. At the same time if someone has an evo or some other jap scrap with double the advertised HP and they wrap it should insurance pay out?

I don't think it's a grey area at all.

It's all to do with "materiality" and what would a reasonable underwriter say in the circumstances.

If the exhaust and air filter change the performance in any way then it's relevant and needs to be disclosed.

If someone fits fancy alloys or a valuable head unit that might make the car a more attractive one to a potential thief then that's relevant too.

There's no point in calling an insurer. Communicate in writing/email because you might need to rely on the reply you're given.

Special Circumstances

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I don't think it's a grey area at all.

It's all to do with "materiality" and what would a reasonable underwriter say in the circumstances.

If the exhaust and air filter change the performance in any way then it's relevant and needs to be disclosed.

If someone fits fancy alloys or a valuable head unit that might make the car a more attractive one to a potential thief then that's relevant too.

There's no point in calling an insurer. Communicate in writing/email because you might need to rely on the reply you're given.

Has anyone heard of a case of a dpf gerrymandering resulting in insurance being void? If not, why not...

I suspect that insurers are just making it up as they go along, or are extemely inconsistent, and as such there IS a grey area about what is acceptable or not acceptable. "Remap? She grand if she diesel lad"

dr.fuzzenstein

Special Circumstances wrote: »

"The majority must suffer so that the minority of scammers still receive money, but not as much." Apparently.

At least you weren't in Germany, €600 "grand total" cost for whiplash like. Definitely no other costs associated. And any (in)decent insurer would claw that back off you through some loading in no time.
Or perhaps a misrepresentation of facts and figures, and that 600 is a component of a total package.
Common sense should indicate the correct interpretation of that figure that gets bandied about.

So how come I can get an insurance quote (3rd party) of about 500 from any German website for 1994 BMW 325i? And how come that if I wanted to insure the same car here it would spark a crisis meeting of the heads of the Irish insurance federation resulting in a 2 week summit before being quoted the GDP of Ecuador?
600 is correct for whiplash as we understand it here, bit of a sore neck for 2 weeks and its only right. People who have real, actual damage do get more money. And its only fair. But paying people 15k for "oh my neck hurts a bit" is retarded and only a moron would defend it.

Special Circumstances

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

600 is correct for whiplash as we understand it here, bit of a sore neck for 2 weeks and its only right. People who have real, actual damage do get more money.

Grand righty of so. Whiplash is not a real injury. There's absolutely no way that sudden unexpected acceleration applied to a species with an abnormally skewed skull size/weight versus neck thickness/strength could result in damage. Good one doc!

ironclaw

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I suspect that insurers are just making it up as they go along, or are extemely inconsistent, and as such there IS a grey area about what is acceptable or not acceptable. "Remap? She grand if she diesel lad"

I had a think about this diesel / petrol and the only reason I can come up with is that remapping diesels is either 1) Less prevalent or 2) Less likely to be involved in an accident versus a petrol remapped car.

Remember, its based on a huge mathematical model, not your exact car or circumstance. Sure, you can take a 535D to 400bhp or more, but the M3 is statistically more likely be involved in a collision, and more so if remap e.g. They have more remapped M3 crashes on the books than 535Ds as the 535Ds on the whole are probably owned by older, more mature owners (As an abstract example)

Its not really inconsistency, its just down to statistical chance.

grogi

ironclaw wrote: »

Its not really inconsistency, its just down to statistical chance.

That model is simply to simple...

Remapping a 1.2TSI brings it into 1.4TSI territory...
Remapped 1.2 bad... Factory 1.4 - good...

When 23 year old Olympic boxer is remapping it's bi-turbo diesel - that's ok.
Me 35 year-old-father-of-three remapping a poor-spec octavia from 85PS to 110-ish so I can climb a hill - not so...

ironclaw

grogi wrote: »

That model is simply to simple...

Remapping a 1.2TSI brings it into 1.4TSI territory...
Remapped 1.2 bad... Factory 1.4 - good...

When 23 year old Olympic boxer is remapping it's bi-turbo diesel - that's ok.
Me 35 year-old-father-of-three remapping a poor-spec octavia from 85PS to 110-ish so I can climb a hill - not so...

Statistically that's a false comparison.

Is an F1 car the same as an F3 car if you remap the block of the F3 car to F1 spec? No, its not. Likewise, you have a collection of statistics for F1, they are not directly applicable to F3.

You are making the mistake of focusing on one aspect, the power, of the car. But insurance looks at the entire model e.g. What are the chances of a 2.0 520D that mainly resides in Dublin being driving by a 23 year old from being involved in an accident? That might encompass 1000 samples. You can't now say that the same sample and result is valid for a 518D that has been mapped to the same power of a 520D. That's a false comparison in terms of probability and statistics.

grogi

ironclaw wrote: »

That might encompass 1000 samples. You can't now say that the same sample and result is valid for a 518D that has been mapped to the same power of a 520D. That's a false comparison in terms of probability and statistics.

I get that - it is profiling the driver based on a very limited information...
I just feel this is just stupid blanket policy, nothing more.

Similarly I could not insure my house for flooding because of it's location. It is on a bloody hill, 30m above any highest water the area have seen... But it's Cork - so no coverage...

Special Circumstances

ironclaw wrote: »

I had a think about this diesel / petrol and the only reason I can come up with is that remapping diesels is either 1) Less prevalent or 2) Less likely to be involved in an accident versus a petrol remapped car.

Remember, its based on a huge mathematical model, not your exact car or circumstance. Sure, you can take a 535D to 400bhp or more, but the M3 is statistically more likely be involved in a collision, and more so if remap e.g. They have more remapped M3 crashes on the books than 535Ds as the 535Ds on the whole are probably owned by older, more mature owners (As an abstract example)

Its not really inconsistency, its just down to statistical chance.

A lot of "ifs" and assumptions there ironclaw - I've come to expect better from you!

millington

I highly doubt any insurance company will ever check an ECU for a remap. I've never seen it happen nor have I ever heard of it happening. Just map it and say nothing. Even if something did happen, and in the 1 in 99999 chance they find out, surely you can say you didn't do it and it must have been done before you bought it.


Disclaimer - post is based on no facts at all and just my not very sensible common sense

Special Circumstances

millington wrote: »

I highly doubt any insurance company will ever check an ECU for a remap. I've never seen it happen nor have I ever heard of it happening. Just map it and say nothing. Even if something did happen, and in the 1 in 99999 chance they find out, surely you can say you didn't do it and it must have been done before you bought it.


Disclaimer - post is based on no facts at all and just my not very sensible common sense

It's not impossible, it just seems unlikely that they would have some guaranteed correct master database of the checksums for every possible image for every possible variant of ECU.
Maybe they only need a few to cover a good chunk of the market.

I'd guess that whether or not they'd check would heavily depend on the circumstances and car.

ie if I remapped the C5 and sideswiped someone at 50kmh turning into my road, as it's effectively a family car with a 'normal' crash and a 28 uear old driver they'd probably not care to check.

A boy racer mobile (whatever qualifies for that these days, older passats and golf's it'd seem?) in a crash causing enough damage as to give the impression it was speeding, with a 20 year old driver, is probably more likely to be looked at.

I just wouldn't remap as I'm lead to believe it causes more smoke from the car, can be harder wearing on the components and if a mechanic wires it up to a diagnostics machine they can accidentally wipe the remap quite easily?

if it weren't for those issues of have done it ages ago. I'm no boy racer but I do miss the acceleration of the 2ltr 407 I had and would like to regain it again. (I know a remap wouldn't fully get me there but anythings better than nothing).

Henry Ford III

millington wrote: »

I highly doubt any insurance company will ever check an ECU for a remap. I've never seen it happen nor have I ever heard of it happening. Just map it and say nothing. Even if something did happen, and in the 1 in 99999 chance they find out, surely you can say you didn't do it and it must have been done before you bought it.


Disclaimer - post is based on no facts at all and just my not very sensible common sense

No common sense in that I'm afraid.

"Map it and say nothing" is a really silly idea. By doing so you'd deliberately risk your cover being voided.

tossy

edit: wrong thread lol

In the case of the insurance company voiding things.. Don't they have a requirement to demonstrate that the reason they're not standing by you is a valid reason and is connected to the issue.

In other words, if you crash and have a remap, or tinted windows, or no NCT, etc. if they try to use one of those reasons as an excuse not to cover you, don't they have to show that the reason they're not standing over you contributed to the accident or made it worse?

ie; they can't say 'you've got window tints, we're not covering you' unless they can demonstrate that the tints actually contributed to the crash. So if you have your side windows at 100% blackout tint and can see nothing, but you rear end someone in traffic, they have to cover it as the window tints made no difference and their presence didn't cause the accident.


Or am i making that up? I'm fairly sure that's how it works?

grogi

Deleted User wrote: »

In the case of the insurance company voiding things.. Don't they have a requirement to demonstrate that the reason they're not standing by you is a valid reason and is connected to the issue.

In other words, if you crash and have a remap, or tinted windows, or no NCT, etc. if they try to use one of those reasons as an excuse not to cover you, don't they have to show that the reason they're not standing over you contributed to the accident or made it worse?

ie; they can't say 'you've got window tints, we're not covering you' unless they can demonstrate that the tints actually contributed to the crash. So if you have your side windows at 100% blackout tint and can see nothing, but you rear end someone in traffic, they have to cover it as the window tints made no difference and their presence didn't cause the accident.


Or am i making that up? I'm fairly sure that's how it works?

Third party loses will be paid. Maybe even your losses will be covered too.

However the policy will be cancelled immediately due to non disclosure. That's like a motoring death-sentence.

JoeA3

Some people are watching too much CSI. The chances of (a) an insurance assessor investigating your car's ECU (b) knowing what to look for and (c) proving you even knew the map was there is somewhere between slim and absolutely none imo.

In my experience the assessors don't even bother to do the basics of their job, never mind going all CSI and examining ECU's! Hence we have situations in body shops all over the country where minor-ish crash damage is jacked up into thousands as its an "insurance job".... And it's part of the reason of course that we're all paying silly premiums.

millington

Henry Ford III wrote: »

No common sense in that I'm afraid.

"Map it and say nothing" is a really silly idea. By doing so you'd deliberately risk your cover being voided.

Clearly the common sense bit was a joke.

Yes you do risk it but how would the insurance company know it's been mapped?

JoeA3 wrote: »

Some people are watching too much CSI. The chances of (a) an insurance assessor investigating your car's ECU (b) knowing what to look for and (c) proving you even knew the map was there is somewhere between slim and absolutely none imo.

In my experience the assessors don't even bother to do the basics of their job, never mind going all CSI and examining ECU's! Hence we have situations in body shops all over the country where minor-ish crash damage is jacked up into thousands as its an "insurance job".... And it's part of the reason of course that we're all paying silly premiums.

Exactly. I seen a bumper scratch lately cost €864 to the insurance company. It's wild.