Race can insurance nightmare
Discussion
Just got a quote for next years insurance - £250 (fair enough, a bit more than last year but then I've doubled the mileage limit). Unfortunatley this is for a standard bike and I have a race can. This put the quote up to 500 quid!
Thats a £250 increase due to a £150 exhaust! WTF! I put the standard can back on this weekend - sounds poo.
Naturally I checked what I could insure for the same money and for the same premium as a ZXR400 with race can I could insure a ZXR750. This is sooooooo fcuked up.
Thats a £250 increase due to a £150 exhaust! WTF! I put the standard can back on this weekend - sounds poo.
Naturally I checked what I could insure for the same money and for the same premium as a ZXR400 with race can I could insure a ZXR750. This is sooooooo fcuked up.
Why did you tell them? Even having paid the extra you still won't be insured because your bike won't be capable of passing an mot and without an mot your bike is not insured (check the small print). So you may as well pay less and not be insured than pay more and not be insured.
Risking having an accident while uninsured for the sake of a bit of noise always seemed like an odd thing to do to me but each to their own....
Regards,
Mark
Risking having an accident while uninsured for the sake of a bit of noise always seemed like an odd thing to do to me but each to their own....
Regards,
Mark
I had a bit of a rant about this last week in relation to decatted Caerberas and Ferrari's.
I've been a lawyer for 10 years and I've seen a few clients get into accidents driving non-standard cars (i.e decatted or whatever) when the insurance company refuse to pay out on the basis that the car wouldn't pass an MOT = not road legal.
One guy flattened someone on a zebra crossing and got sued. In the end he lost his house, I believe, when he was bankrupted to pay the damages awarded. His kids had to move school etc and last I heard he was living in a council house.
I don't want to preach, buta good point is made below. Why pay £150 for an illegal race can, an extra fortune on insurance and then not be insured ANYWAY when you could spend the extra dosh buying a much more powerful but manufacturer standard machine which will give you more performance anyway.
I really think that this is dangerous stuff, and as I said before for the sake of a bit of extra noise and a couple of bhp people are risking all - it ain't worth it.
On a different but related note, in theory at least when you run a space saver tyre, your car wouldn't pass an MOT either. It's only a matter of time before the insurance companies try this on as an excuse not to pay out, after all running a skiny bike tye on your 360 Modena is bound to affect driveability.
In short, don't want to be a killjoy but I SERIOUSLY think that going for standard machinery at the top end of the scale is a much safer bet in the long term than souping up a tiddler.
I'd be interested in views on this one from fellow PH'ers.
Z
its a valid point, but the insurance firms are twisting the facts.
If you hit someone on a crossroads, it wasnt the fault of the exhaust!!
If you have illegal parts on your bike, thats an issue between you and the police. It isnt anything to do with your riding/crashing/theft.
EG. my insurance allows my sports exhaust. The rule is, if I get it stolen/crash the bike. Everything will be repaired/replaced, except the exhaust. I will be given an original can back.
Fine by me. insurance is getting cut throat, and if the companies wont bend toward the customer, there going to find themselves without any customers.
At the end of the day they a a BUSINESS, that need customers, and if you want to insure a object, the risks are shown in the pricing.
eg. If I were to carry dynamite in my car, the insurance policy is appropiate.
- a nissan micra and a Ducati bike are both legally bound, and capable of 70mph and priced about the same. So why a massive difference in insurance? Because insurance KNOW, you break the law. But your still insured.
If a race zorst can be deemed un-insured, then the theory would be, if your proved speeding, your insurance is invalid also, but AFAIK they still pay out (but cant claim "no fault"?)
illegal doesnt seem to apply here! Imagine the chaos if insurance stopped being valid if your speeding!! If you have points, it tells the insurance co you have driven without insurance - high policies?? no, 3 points makes no difference.
to the original poster: change company, and get one that doesnt care about soup up parts.
adrian flux only seems to cover tarted cars, there are companies out there!
If you hit someone on a crossroads, it wasnt the fault of the exhaust!!
If you have illegal parts on your bike, thats an issue between you and the police. It isnt anything to do with your riding/crashing/theft.
EG. my insurance allows my sports exhaust. The rule is, if I get it stolen/crash the bike. Everything will be repaired/replaced, except the exhaust. I will be given an original can back.
Fine by me. insurance is getting cut throat, and if the companies wont bend toward the customer, there going to find themselves without any customers.
At the end of the day they a a BUSINESS, that need customers, and if you want to insure a object, the risks are shown in the pricing.
eg. If I were to carry dynamite in my car, the insurance policy is appropiate.
- a nissan micra and a Ducati bike are both legally bound, and capable of 70mph and priced about the same. So why a massive difference in insurance? Because insurance KNOW, you break the law. But your still insured.
If a race zorst can be deemed un-insured, then the theory would be, if your proved speeding, your insurance is invalid also, but AFAIK they still pay out (but cant claim "no fault"?)
illegal doesnt seem to apply here! Imagine the chaos if insurance stopped being valid if your speeding!! If you have points, it tells the insurance co you have driven without insurance - high policies?? no, 3 points makes no difference.
to the original poster: change company, and get one that doesnt care about soup up parts.
adrian flux only seems to cover tarted cars, there are companies out there!
On your point of souping up a tiddler. Its not about power (most of the time). A bike race can will only give you a couple of extra Hp which in the grand scheme of things is nothing.
The main reason people fit them is for sound and looks. Also perhaps to replace a corroded origional item with one that will not corrode (thinking titanum here)
All this bollocks of not being insured is a bit daft. Having a loud can on your bike does not make it fundamentally unroadworthy, like say, defective brakes would.
If I had an accident and had a non legal can I'd make sure the can had misterously dissappeared by the time the insurers appeared. Same with decatting. If you wrap your car round a lamp post try and install the cats again before it gets inspected.
And another thing aren't the insurance companies bound to pay out by law. If you knock someone over whilst speeding even if you're convicted the insurance still have to pay out to the victims.
How is this any different?
You know in advance that you are breaking the law cos you're speeding. Same as fitting a race can (but the race can is a whole lot less deadly)
If you cause a crash due to defective brakes then the insurance still have to pay up. You could argue that the car in effect didn't have a valid MOT cause the brakes were defective.
Its all bollocks. And another thing. Whats to stop you taking off the "not for road use" plate/sticker and attaching a BSI plate pinched off another can? I've always wondered why people don'd do this.
Andy
edited to say "damn I need to type faster" post above has beaten me to most points
>> Edited by andytk on Monday 24th March 10:05
The main reason people fit them is for sound and looks. Also perhaps to replace a corroded origional item with one that will not corrode (thinking titanum here)
All this bollocks of not being insured is a bit daft. Having a loud can on your bike does not make it fundamentally unroadworthy, like say, defective brakes would.
If I had an accident and had a non legal can I'd make sure the can had misterously dissappeared by the time the insurers appeared. Same with decatting. If you wrap your car round a lamp post try and install the cats again before it gets inspected.
And another thing aren't the insurance companies bound to pay out by law. If you knock someone over whilst speeding even if you're convicted the insurance still have to pay out to the victims.
How is this any different?
You know in advance that you are breaking the law cos you're speeding. Same as fitting a race can (but the race can is a whole lot less deadly)
If you cause a crash due to defective brakes then the insurance still have to pay up. You could argue that the car in effect didn't have a valid MOT cause the brakes were defective.
Its all bollocks. And another thing. Whats to stop you taking off the "not for road use" plate/sticker and attaching a BSI plate pinched off another can? I've always wondered why people don'd do this.
Andy
edited to say "damn I need to type faster" post above has beaten me to most points
>> Edited by andytk on Monday 24th March 10:05
So how are insurance companies allowed to accept a modification and agree a higher premium for it if they will later say that it is not legal and not insurable? Very dodgy ground for them to accept something like that, surely!
I err... know someone who wrote off a decatted Lotus. The decat modifification was declared on the insurance and the insurers payed out with no argument. So it's not all as bad as you make it out to be Zoomer.
I err... know someone who wrote off a decatted Lotus. The decat modifification was declared on the insurance and the insurers payed out with no argument. So it's not all as bad as you make it out to be Zoomer.
dern said: Why did you tell them? Even having paid the extra you still won't be insured because your bike won't be capable of passing an mot and without an mot your bike is not insured (check the small print). So you may as well pay less and not be insured than pay more and not be insured.
Risking having an accident while uninsured for the sake of a bit of noise always seemed like an odd thing to do to me but each to their own....
Regards,
Mark
The race can was fitted to the bike when I got it, I'm now using a scrap OE can and saving £250 on insurance.
Oddly enough the bike was MOT'd with the race can on with no problems despite the "not for road use" stamped on the end.
No but Zoomers points are valid. The insurance company will always avoid paying out if they possibly can.
If you modify your car - tell them and better still maybe ask them before you do it! At least you then know the implications of altering your car before you do it and so avoid unpleasant surprises.
If they insure it modified then you're covered. If you modify it without telling them then its at your peril.
Equally if you get points on your licence then you must tell them as this can too give them a reason for refusing to pay out.
If you modify your car - tell them and better still maybe ask them before you do it! At least you then know the implications of altering your car before you do it and so avoid unpleasant surprises.
If they insure it modified then you're covered. If you modify it without telling them then its at your peril.
Equally if you get points on your licence then you must tell them as this can too give them a reason for refusing to pay out.
How will you swap the end can on your bike if you've just binned it, hurt yourself and the police/ambulance have been called?
I'm pretty sure my insurance states that it is only valid if your bike has a current mot. Given that an mot only validates the bike for the time immediately after the test and it's your responsibility to maintain the bike in that state until the next test. The idea of the test, I guess, is to provide an annual check up on the state you keep your bike in. So if you wilfully change the bike so that it won't pass an mot then surely you have just invalidated (technically) your insurance and regardless of how stupid you think that is (and most would) you have still opened yourself up to a potentially big bill.
I can see how, if your bike was nicked, they would reimburse you for the bike minus the can but I can't believe they would apply that logic to all cases.
Worst case scenario... you come around a bend way too fast, bugger it up and stuff it into a car. The insurance company aren't too keen on paying out for your medical bills, your kit, your bike, the car, any personal injury claims from the occupants, any loss of income claims from the occupants and their car rental so they get your bike inspected to see if you've modded it. They find a 'not for road use' can and discount your claim on the basis that your can increased the performance of your bike. You then get to pay for all of the above personally.
If this happens then I'd suggest it's not worth the risk. If it doesn't and they will pay for all of the above minus your carbon can then it obviously isn't much of a risk.
Does this happen or not? Anyone actually know?
Mark
I'm pretty sure my insurance states that it is only valid if your bike has a current mot. Given that an mot only validates the bike for the time immediately after the test and it's your responsibility to maintain the bike in that state until the next test. The idea of the test, I guess, is to provide an annual check up on the state you keep your bike in. So if you wilfully change the bike so that it won't pass an mot then surely you have just invalidated (technically) your insurance and regardless of how stupid you think that is (and most would) you have still opened yourself up to a potentially big bill.
I can see how, if your bike was nicked, they would reimburse you for the bike minus the can but I can't believe they would apply that logic to all cases.
Worst case scenario... you come around a bend way too fast, bugger it up and stuff it into a car. The insurance company aren't too keen on paying out for your medical bills, your kit, your bike, the car, any personal injury claims from the occupants, any loss of income claims from the occupants and their car rental so they get your bike inspected to see if you've modded it. They find a 'not for road use' can and discount your claim on the basis that your can increased the performance of your bike. You then get to pay for all of the above personally.
If this happens then I'd suggest it's not worth the risk. If it doesn't and they will pay for all of the above minus your carbon can then it obviously isn't much of a risk.
Does this happen or not? Anyone actually know?
Mark
If the standard system costs (say) £800, and a race system £400 - why don't they reduce the premium?
The bike MOT DOES NOT specify that the system has to be approved, only that it is quiet enough. Hence the "not for road use" cans passing an MOT. Not approved only means that it hasn't been put through an inspection. You could buy a none approved system that is actually quieter than a "standard".
The insurance thing is about theft - make it look pretty, increase the risk of it being nicked. Bike theft is ten fold worse than car theft. It has nothing to do with the puny 5bhp extra it gives you.
Anyway, who claims for things these days unless it is a total wreck? I can't afford to lose my NCB, so I pay up to fix my own damage & don't tell anyone as it is not their business (so long as no one else is involved).
And there is a good reason to upgrade bits on a cheaper machine - it looks & sounds good. Reason enough. The fact it ain't legal is a direct case of discrimination against the biker community, after all, car owners seem to be able to fit anything they like and get away with it.
C
The bike MOT DOES NOT specify that the system has to be approved, only that it is quiet enough. Hence the "not for road use" cans passing an MOT. Not approved only means that it hasn't been put through an inspection. You could buy a none approved system that is actually quieter than a "standard".
The insurance thing is about theft - make it look pretty, increase the risk of it being nicked. Bike theft is ten fold worse than car theft. It has nothing to do with the puny 5bhp extra it gives you.
Anyway, who claims for things these days unless it is a total wreck? I can't afford to lose my NCB, so I pay up to fix my own damage & don't tell anyone as it is not their business (so long as no one else is involved).
And there is a good reason to upgrade bits on a cheaper machine - it looks & sounds good. Reason enough. The fact it ain't legal is a direct case of discrimination against the biker community, after all, car owners seem to be able to fit anything they like and get away with it.
C
A good interesting debate.
The terms and conditions of the policy will state that unless you give "full and frank disclosure" of all modifications then you will lose the benefit of the policy in full.
That is to say that it is a fundamental term of the agreement that the information you give is truthful and complete.
If it's not, then legally (if not morally but since when were insurance companies moral?) they are entitled to say that you are not insured.
SO
On a legal reading (and that's what matters when it goes to ratpoo) EVEN IF your bike gets nicked and you have not declared something, the policy is invalid and it's tough t1ts, because you are in breach of your agreement.
Now I know that the fact a bike has a race can or a bit of carbon on it doesn't make it more likely to crash, BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
The point is that you reach an agreement with the insurance co. saying that they agree to insure you, conditional upon the information you gave them being full and frank. If it's not, then you might as well save the premium and buy a couple of hours of a solicitors time when you stuff it.
That's all well and good and something I can cope with when the most I have to lose is the price of a can or in the worst case the cost of my bike (ok that would smart a bit, admitedly) but the real risk is in the scenario I described below when you crash into someone else on a bike with an illegal can. What will be the results if (a) you told the insurance company you fitted it but, technically, your bike is not legally road-worthy or (b) you didn't tell them and you're bike still isn't legally road worthy?
The point is that you reach an agreement with the insurance co. saying that they agree to insure you, conditional upon the information you gave them being full and frank. If it's not, then you might as well save the premium and buy a couple of hours of a solicitors time when you stuff it.
Is the answer to either (1) the insurance company pay up but you're possibly liable to buy a new can yourself or (2) you are personally liable to settle all the claims made against you?
Mark
Zoomer, you were saying that having a vehicle that would not pass MOT (i.e. decatted) would invalidate your insurance. Fair enough if you've modified without telling them - tough sh!t say I.
But is this still the case even if I have given a "full and frank disclosure"? If the insurance company have accepted a decat modification, how can they refuse to pay out on a claim because of it?
But is this still the case even if I have given a "full and frank disclosure"? If the insurance company have accepted a decat modification, how can they refuse to pay out on a claim because of it?
In both cases you are in breach of your contract with the insurance company.
(1) You told them about the mods, but your bike still breaches the clause which says it must be roadworthy and have a valid MOT where applicable. They would certainly try it on not paying - especially if you killed someone and the claim could be £1m+
(2) You are in breach of the requirement to giev full and frank disclosure. You pay. If you can't, they bankrupt you and sell your house and any other assets. You move to a council estate and your kids suffer.
Sorry to be a drama queen, but I've spent too many days arguing with insurance company claims handlers who use ANY EXCUSE not to pay.
What if you buy a bike with a race can fitted. It is quite possible that you would be unaware that the can is illegal (or you could at least pretend to be unaware). You would therefore not tell the insurance company that it was modified as you were "not aware" that it was modded.
Where would you stand then ?
It is possible that you could buy a second hand bike that had internal engine mods from a previous owner that would not be apparent to look at.
My wife had an old TVR which had a seriously modded engine (undeclared), but when she wrote it off no questions were asked and they paid up. (Although we did worry a lot !)
Where would you stand then ?
It is possible that you could buy a second hand bike that had internal engine mods from a previous owner that would not be apparent to look at.
My wife had an old TVR which had a seriously modded engine (undeclared), but when she wrote it off no questions were asked and they paid up. (Although we did worry a lot !)
I have an client who suffered like this.
Flattened a bloke on a crossing and hurt himself.
Cops called, car towed, client in hospital.
Comes out of the hospital, gets better, pedestrian is very badly hurt and can't work again and needs 24 hour care. He has 4 kids.
Insurance company looking at £1m+ claim.
They get the Ferrari inspected, and it's got some sort of ECU twek and decat plus sports 'zorst, aftermarket alloy wheels (ugh) and some other twiddly bits and pieces.
He hadn't declared the wheels or the remap, so they tell him he is in breach and knock back the claim.
Now, client is not short of a few quid, but ends up having to sell his house to pay the damages when it comes to court. The other nightmare was that he also invalidated his Legal Cover Policy and so he had to pay for the defence.
Maybe I should just shut up 'cos I don't think people want to know.
I only raised this out of genuine concern for fellow PH'ers.
Ah well.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff