A very good thread. Thx Travula for posting it up.:thumbsup:
I love @Mr - Dicks; the ombudsman and my attorney...:excited:
I have so many stories to tell over the years. Modded and non modded cars. Issues with issurance companies on stolen vehicles (2). Accidents (a few) which were not my fault...etc etc...
The issue about Modifications vs Insurance, is not as simple as the worded insurance policy document. Its the same debate about waranties and motorplans. An insurance company will often make a decision on your car that is not related to, or in the insured policy document.
Here are some rhetorical questions by way of examples of my concerns and not necessarily of my car:
1. Were you the regular driver when the accident occured? If not, was it someone else and did that person have a valid drivers licence at the time? So the vehicle is not in your name? Yet the insured policy is in your name... So you may not have an insurable interest... Unless of course you can prove you paid for the vehicle even though you did not own it...But this process of "proof" requires more than just a receipt of payment.
2. I added a tune and upgraded turbos to my car... Let me stress it is a turbo car from the factory. Which insurer or assessor has the time or money or knowledge to check for a tune and those upgraded turbos...if i cannot even see the difference or where it is located. It is up to the insurance company to " prove" that is the case if they repudiated your claim based on suspecting that it may be tuned or have upgraded turbos or have read about it on bmwfanatics. Some insurance assessors do not even know the difference between a piggyback tune and an electronic anti-hijack monitoring system.
The fact that insurance companies use different criteria and evaluations to assess a claim (in addition) to the printed worded policy document makes arriving at an absolute opinion very difficult. An opens up the system to abuse (by insurance companies) and leaves the consumer more vulnerable at that.
3. When an insurance assessor inspects you car when a claim is submitted does he or she have the factory spec list & optional spec list that was added by you when you purchase the car for that specific model car as his checklist to "check" which parts were original or which parts were aftermarket or later added (modded)? Does he check or ask whether the original bmw carbon splitter which is part of the front bumper, came with the car at the time of the accident or was it later added (modded)? Would he even know or make a distinction? :thinker:
4. Those brand new alloy rims which is now part of the claim are original bmw parts but I fitted (modded) them, after taking out the insurance...why would the insurer/assessor repudiate or question the mod in the case of a claim if it is an original manufacturers product? Would they or do they know the difference between the stock rims that came with the car or the original optional rims that came with the car. Why would they querry this if they do not have the foggiest idea? And why would you want to declare this? What would be the purpose?:thinker:
5. 40% of the interior of my car is cosmetic changes; carbon bits here and there as well as trim replaced with leather seats;oh yes I switched the speaker system from Harmon Kardon to Bose; yet all original bmw accessories and products fitted afterwards (modded). Would I be penalised 60% or 25% during a claim because of these mods and changes?. Of course not, it would be a ridiculous assessment. What if only the radio is stolen, would i get the value back of the Harmon or the Bose in the event of a claim?
6. What will the insurance say when I replaced my factory runflats (RFT) tyres with normal tyres? Will they repudiate the claim when the car went off the road and got damaged? Yet the normal tyres are legal and fully threaded etc. Well there have been incidences where this happened to some people. Do you have a case against the insurer when it repudiates the claim? Would you inform the insurer that you are changing your tyres from RFTs to normal tyres? Of course you would not and why should you. Your non RFTs are also legal in terms of South African law. Why should non RFTs lead to an increase in insurance premiums or even be questioned by the insurer? :shocked:
7. I say again. Insurance companies use different criteria and evaluations when assessing your claim and often this is not based on the worded official policy document.:hammerhead:
8. So, let's now assume your car is fully modded...not only cosmetic but fully, heavily and well modded. We won't mention names just follow my eyes. You inform the insurance company of these mods as well as the value of the mods, like a good dog should, do you really think that when you are in an accident you will be compensated for its true value? Lets assume the car is written off in such an accident, will you get the book value of the car plus the value of the mods? Often the owner of a heavily modded car has put in hundred thousands rands worth of mods. If it is a Golf you probably spent more on mods than what the actual book value is of the car. :thinking:
Look, no insurance company will pay you the value for those mods because like your car and your favourite chair in your office, your car and mods are of depreciable value and modders know that. Why would I inform my insurer that I am running Nitrous and bigger turbos? What possible monetary insurance value would that have?
I am not saying you should not declare your interests and modifications made to your car. I am all for declaring, just raising some pertinent questions and practices.
9. Provisions and Exclusions. This is the fine print. In the wake of the recent massive earthquake in New Zealand, homes and business were destroyed and it is estimated that most of those businesses demolished will not start up again. I felt the aftershock briefly on Tuesday at 7.20pm...what a thrill and a shock. In the aftermath of this devastation and recovery and the rebuilding of peoples lives a major controversy has also errupted. Was your business and home adequately insured? Did the policy make provision for a natural disater like an earthquake? What is covered and what is excluded from these policies? Were the policy owners aware when they took out these policies many moons ago that they had to be covered for all eventualities including typhoons, tsunamis and volcanic erruptions? Is it at all posiible to carry "comprehensive" insurance for all purposes. What about the vehicles that were destroyed by the quake, while parked in the street or at the shopping mall? Will insurance companies apply the letter of the law or will they act more humanely for the common good? What if you did not have insurance at all for your business, will the Gov provide some relief. Is it fair to help those that had insurance cover and those that did not the same (equally)? Should a different criteria of assessment apply? Should those insured get a bigger settlement compared to those that preferred to carry the risk themselves. What about my fully modded BMW that was destroyed while parked in my garage at home, will it be covered in full?
Fair enough, some of these questions are of an ethical and political nature that may fall under special or exclusive provisions in an insurance policy but it does make us re-think how we interpret the world we live in. :thumbsup:
10. Let me mention a couple of points about the ombudsman. Needless to say it is because of institutions like this that i would also welcome a media tribunal...
The ombudsman also does not look at an insurance claim or querry purely from the perspective of the letter of the law or the actual printed policy document. Its office will take a number of factors and variables in mind. This is not a consumer ombudsman. In other words it will look at the claim from the perspective of the insurer and insured. In my experience you can be assured of a fair assessment by the insurance ombudsmn. My experience with the media ombudsman has been a crazy one; they never reply to submissions unless you follow them up constantly. For the life of me I cannot see the ombudsman getting involved in a mods vs insurance controversy. They certainly wont waste their time assessing if you had carbon fibre emblems or a carbon fibre vented hood when you were rear ended in an accident. It will apply the principle of fair and reasonable law in resolving a dispute between an insurer and insured. If the issue is more fundamental such as you having broken the law, the case would probably not appear before the ombudsman but in court.
11. Lastly, your insurance broker is not your insurer unless you deal with your insurance company directly such as "outsurance", but even here I have concerns. :spit:
No matter what your insurance broker tells you about his wonderful relationship with the insurance company at the the time of selling the policy to you, his word means nothing...they are two different legal entities. Mostly, you will find that your socalled insurer is some unknown spirit with your claim ending up in some unknown legal department that will not argue with understanding when you submit a R100 000 claim; even if you have loyally paid your monthly premiums. It is in the insurers interest not to pay, whether it is provided for in your policy or not. Does this mean we should not be insured? Of course not! But be aware that no amount of diligence, carefulness, and transparency on your part guarantees a settlement in the event of a claim. :mmm:
Those are my thoughts.
imp:
