Insurance Issue for those with/supplying Engine Related Mods
Discussion
My TVR is insured via a well known broker. Several months ago I had several modifications made that changed the engine set-up, amoungst other things. I informed the broker of all the mods in writing, everything was accepted and I paid my increased premium. This week the broker has approached me by telephone with a requirement for evidence that my car remains 'roadworthy' in the legal sense of the word following the modifications. I spoke to the brokers for more than an hour yesterday to clarify what this means in practice but the way forward remains unclear. The brokers also spoke to the highly respected organisation who undertook the modification work and then continued to pursue me for evidence that the car remains 'roadworthy'. I have concluded that the brokers and insurers are taking this issue forward and I'm now waiting for written confirmation of their requirements.
This issue appears to be a change in policy by the insurers that on the face of it is unenforceable but could prevent the majority of modifications, that in anyway change the set-up of an engine, from being insurable. This policy if applied as has been suggested by the brokers would have to be applied retrospectivly, so it will affect you if you have modifications that affect the engine set-up in anyway. It could also have a major impact on those busineses who provide such modifications by restricting sales of certain products.
I don't want to publicise details of the matter yet because I am hoping that I can work with the brokers and insurer to resolve this issue to avoid it becoming a policy that is adopted by other insurers. Quite frankly I think is bureaucracy gone mad but it is being presented to me formally so I have to respond. I would be interested to hear from any insurance experts out there who are willing to offer advice off-line that may help resolve this issue before it affects a large number of PHer’s.
phil_hallam@hotmail.com
This issue appears to be a change in policy by the insurers that on the face of it is unenforceable but could prevent the majority of modifications, that in anyway change the set-up of an engine, from being insurable. This policy if applied as has been suggested by the brokers would have to be applied retrospectivly, so it will affect you if you have modifications that affect the engine set-up in anyway. It could also have a major impact on those busineses who provide such modifications by restricting sales of certain products.
I don't want to publicise details of the matter yet because I am hoping that I can work with the brokers and insurer to resolve this issue to avoid it becoming a policy that is adopted by other insurers. Quite frankly I think is bureaucracy gone mad but it is being presented to me formally so I have to respond. I would be interested to hear from any insurance experts out there who are willing to offer advice off-line that may help resolve this issue before it affects a large number of PHer’s.
phil_hallam@hotmail.com
Phil,
Sorry to hear about your problems, and I come to this blind as I do not have any modifications on my car but..
Could you not just re-MOT your car and send them a copy of the new cert. This (I would have thought) would be proof that the car is roadworthy as defined by current legislation???
Just an idea.
Lake
Sorry to hear about your problems, and I come to this blind as I do not have any modifications on my car but..
Could you not just re-MOT your car and send them a copy of the new cert. This (I would have thought) would be proof that the car is roadworthy as defined by current legislation???
Just an idea.
Lake
Re. MOT re-test.
I have discussed this option with the brokers but given what is being requested by the insurers it would require an MOT re-test everytime a new mod is introduced PLUS an engineers report clearly stating the mods on the car at the time of the test. This would kill the modification business and IMHO is an unreasonable burden on the owner.
I think the issue here is the definition of 'roadworthy' and I would like to explore this with a PH friendly expert who hopefully has a vested interest.
I have discussed this option with the brokers but given what is being requested by the insurers it would require an MOT re-test everytime a new mod is introduced PLUS an engineers report clearly stating the mods on the car at the time of the test. This would kill the modification business and IMHO is an unreasonable burden on the owner.
I think the issue here is the definition of 'roadworthy' and I would like to explore this with a PH friendly expert who hopefully has a vested interest.
I have built specials in the past (bigger engine, uprated brakes, suspension, etc), and have submitted an 'engineer's report' to the insurance company. After all, I WANTED to be insured.
I thought this was the normal accepted practice.
There must be thousands of (technically) uninsured vehicles on the road these days, with all these chav type cars with different brakes, wheels and tyres to original, not to mention chipped motors, all of which should be notified to the insurer.
The insurance inspectors aren't stupid, and will soon sus out any modifications. Why give them another reason not to pay up, especially if you've given them a few grand premium ?
A written statement from a qualified motor engineer should be sufficient.
Anyway, that's my experience as a customer. Maybe one of the insurance experts on here can advise.
I thought this was the normal accepted practice.
There must be thousands of (technically) uninsured vehicles on the road these days, with all these chav type cars with different brakes, wheels and tyres to original, not to mention chipped motors, all of which should be notified to the insurer.
The insurance inspectors aren't stupid, and will soon sus out any modifications. Why give them another reason not to pay up, especially if you've given them a few grand premium ?
A written statement from a qualified motor engineer should be sufficient.
Anyway, that's my experience as a customer. Maybe one of the insurance experts on here can advise.
I've had modified cars for the last 5 years, and have never been asked for an engineers report. Admittedly, they've not been all that major. (chips, exhaust, suspension, brakes but no actual structural changes)
Maybe you've just stepped over some threshold of the insurance company's so they want to check up before they'll accept the risk? I find that you need to speak to at least 5 people in a large insurance company before the story they tell starts to make sense...
I've no problem with getting reports done, as long as there's value for money and they're not too onerous. What qualifications do you need to be able to issue an engineers report? Just interested what professional institution they're in or if it's another New-IEE-Wiring-regs-like money grabbing excercise aimed at fixing a "problem" that doesn't exist anyway... (I'm always a little cynical)
Maybe you've just stepped over some threshold of the insurance company's so they want to check up before they'll accept the risk? I find that you need to speak to at least 5 people in a large insurance company before the story they tell starts to make sense...
I've no problem with getting reports done, as long as there's value for money and they're not too onerous. What qualifications do you need to be able to issue an engineers report? Just interested what professional institution they're in or if it's another New-IEE-Wiring-regs-like money grabbing excercise aimed at fixing a "problem" that doesn't exist anyway... (I'm always a little cynical)
Phil, what do you class as a couple of mods? I had my ecu remapped by Austec and had the ACT induction pipes fitted, which I guess are technically mods, but I take the view (and reading your post, possibly wrongly) that my insurers insured me to drive a 420bhp cerbera and in fact it only puts out 415bhp 
Surely they wouldnt be able to easily detect these mods? Well, apart from the bright yellow induction pipes 
, but then again, they are just pipes 
Ive already owned up to the sports pipes
>> Edited by NJW 77 on Friday 13th January 11:15
Surely they wouldnt be able to easily detect these mods? Well, apart from the bright yellow induction pipes , but then again, they are just pipes Ive already owned up to the sports pipes
>> Edited by NJW 77 on Friday 13th January 11:15
Graham - thanks.
I have it in writing from my brokers that all my mods were accepted by the insurers 2-3 months ago and nothing since to contradict this. In fact the brokers confirmed verbally yesterday that I remain insured until informed otherwise. I'm now waiting for them to clarify the present situation in writing. However, following lengthy discussions yesterday, the brokers don't seem to have thought through the issues yet. And just to re-iterate, if what is being suggested to me becomes policy amoungst insurers it WILL affect everyone of you with a mod that affects your engine performance and could have a significant impact on the performance mod business.
I have been replying to some you off-line but I am still hoping to learn more from an insurance expert who is PH friendly - anyone know one I can contact?
I have it in writing from my brokers that all my mods were accepted by the insurers 2-3 months ago and nothing since to contradict this. In fact the brokers confirmed verbally yesterday that I remain insured until informed otherwise. I'm now waiting for them to clarify the present situation in writing. However, following lengthy discussions yesterday, the brokers don't seem to have thought through the issues yet. And just to re-iterate, if what is being suggested to me becomes policy amoungst insurers it WILL affect everyone of you with a mod that affects your engine performance and could have a significant impact on the performance mod business.
I have been replying to some you off-line but I am still hoping to learn more from an insurance expert who is PH friendly - anyone know one I can contact?
It's formal now.
I have received a 2 page letter from my brokers today stating that they do not think that my TVR will pass an MOT with the modifications fitted and that either it is required to pass an emissions test or have the modification reversed by the end of Jan, otherwise the policy will be cancelled. The modification in question is common place across the TVR and PH community.
What the brokers have failed to specify in writing is which modification they are referring to. This is critical to understand if the insurers accept some modifications and not others, and whether an emissions test will be required following any new modification or just specific modifications. At the very least it means that one particular modification used widely by TVR and PH owners now renders their car uninsured and they probably don't know this to be the case.
This is a change in the interpretation of the insurance policy. The brokers in question, who are renowned for helping owners of modified cars (especially TVR's) to gain insurance, therefore have a responsibility to make clear to all of their customers the change in interpretation of insurance policy, and to be specific in their explanation. No doubt once one broker/insurer has made this decision all insurers/brokers will have to do the same. If I were in the modification business I would be very interested in this case and it potential effect on my business.
And just to be clear, I offered my broker the opportunity to find me an alternative insurer in order to avoid this confrontation. They have obviously decided to pursue the confrontation. I will name them as soon as the position is clear and since I am only stating fact this should not be an issue.
I will be drafting a reply to my brokers along these lines this weekend. If anyone wants to contribute please email me.
I have received a 2 page letter from my brokers today stating that they do not think that my TVR will pass an MOT with the modifications fitted and that either it is required to pass an emissions test or have the modification reversed by the end of Jan, otherwise the policy will be cancelled. The modification in question is common place across the TVR and PH community.
What the brokers have failed to specify in writing is which modification they are referring to. This is critical to understand if the insurers accept some modifications and not others, and whether an emissions test will be required following any new modification or just specific modifications. At the very least it means that one particular modification used widely by TVR and PH owners now renders their car uninsured and they probably don't know this to be the case.
This is a change in the interpretation of the insurance policy. The brokers in question, who are renowned for helping owners of modified cars (especially TVR's) to gain insurance, therefore have a responsibility to make clear to all of their customers the change in interpretation of insurance policy, and to be specific in their explanation. No doubt once one broker/insurer has made this decision all insurers/brokers will have to do the same. If I were in the modification business I would be very interested in this case and it potential effect on my business.
And just to be clear, I offered my broker the opportunity to find me an alternative insurer in order to avoid this confrontation. They have obviously decided to pursue the confrontation. I will name them as soon as the position is clear and since I am only stating fact this should not be an issue.
I will be drafting a reply to my brokers along these lines this weekend. If anyone wants to contribute please email me.
Curiouser and curiouser. Every car on the road has to be able to pass an emissions test and obviously this is checked at MOT time. So their letter would seem to be an accusation that your MOT was falsified? I don't know what line you're taking on this, but if they're just asking for proof of emissions compliance I'd be interested to know why they don't accept your current MOT certificate as proof.
If your insurers think your car has been decatted they might be trying to come down on people who refit cats temporarily for the MOT test, is it possible this is what they are getting at? Strange thing for them to do though, I don't see how it has any bearing on the insured risk and as far as I know they don't have any responsibility to check this.
If your insurers think your car has been decatted they might be trying to come down on people who refit cats temporarily for the MOT test, is it possible this is what they are getting at? Strange thing for them to do though, I don't see how it has any bearing on the insured risk and as far as I know they don't have any responsibility to check this.
Give them the old heave ho, and go direct to an insurer.
Tell the insurer exactly what modifications are involved, and offer to provide a written Engineer's Report as to the vehicle's roadworthiness.
Are your brokers doing their job ?
They haven't even specified the modifications in question ???
I've never heard such rubbish, and in the circumstances described, I certainly wouldn't trust them to cover my vehicle.
Okay, you may lose out financially, but what if you had an accident involving the total loss of your vehicle, or even the death of a third party, and they refused to play ball ?
I believe someone at the brokers has made a cockup, and they are now trying to back out.
Tell the insurer exactly what modifications are involved, and offer to provide a written Engineer's Report as to the vehicle's roadworthiness.
Are your brokers doing their job ?
They haven't even specified the modifications in question ???
I've never heard such rubbish, and in the circumstances described, I certainly wouldn't trust them to cover my vehicle.
Okay, you may lose out financially, but what if you had an accident involving the total loss of your vehicle, or even the death of a third party, and they refused to play ball ?
I believe someone at the brokers has made a cockup, and they are now trying to back out.
Thanks for the support guys.
I've reflected and feel victimised by the situation. I have done nothing different than many others in the past. Why me and why now? I may well move elsewhere for insurance as a result. As you say Graham, this is a mess and the short terms cost doesn't matter to me. By threatening to cancel my insurance now or undertake an emissions test now or remove the mods now, they are threatening me and creating a new policy that affects all of us. So I will pursue this further because someone has to and it just happens that they picked on me.
I've reflected and feel victimised by the situation. I have done nothing different than many others in the past. Why me and why now? I may well move elsewhere for insurance as a result. As you say Graham, this is a mess and the short terms cost doesn't matter to me. By threatening to cancel my insurance now or undertake an emissions test now or remove the mods now, they are threatening me and creating a new policy that affects all of us. So I will pursue this further because someone has to and it just happens that they picked on me.
To be honest... apart from changing their mind, it seems to me that all they are asking is for you to demonstrate that the car can now meet the emissions as a result of the modifications you have done. Nothing different from when you get the car MOT'd every year.
If the car can't meet those requirements, it shouldn't have an MOT and therefore they can argue it shouldn't be on the road.
The whole area of decatting has been gray for some time and maybe now the insurers have decided to make their position clear. The car is supposed to have cats fitted. Legal requirement for the manufacturer. The car is required to meet certain emmissions which usually require a cat to be fitted to acheive them. MOT requirement. The problem is that there is no check for the presence of a cat only that the car can meet those level of emissions. That is the gray area. You have removed the cat so they are querying if the car can still meet the emissions which is reasonable. If it can, then fine. If not, put the car back to the state it was before i.e. refit the cats and tune appropriately. Doesn't mean you still can't mod and change but it does clarify that this has to retain the cat, which is sort of implied in the legislation. The problem is... it is implied and not spelt out in simple words. And it is that which has been exploited.
Alright the agreeing and changing mind is a bit naughty but as I see it, the situation hasn't really changed but only been clarified. All it is remphasizing is that if you mod the car, any mods must be made so that the car's ability to meet the MOT and other legislation is not impacted. Same also applies to sports exhaust and BTW has done since whatever. It's just that it has been conveniently forgotten about.
If the car can't meet those requirements, it shouldn't have an MOT and therefore they can argue it shouldn't be on the road.
The whole area of decatting has been gray for some time and maybe now the insurers have decided to make their position clear. The car is supposed to have cats fitted. Legal requirement for the manufacturer. The car is required to meet certain emmissions which usually require a cat to be fitted to acheive them. MOT requirement. The problem is that there is no check for the presence of a cat only that the car can meet those level of emissions. That is the gray area. You have removed the cat so they are querying if the car can still meet the emissions which is reasonable. If it can, then fine. If not, put the car back to the state it was before i.e. refit the cats and tune appropriately. Doesn't mean you still can't mod and change but it does clarify that this has to retain the cat, which is sort of implied in the legislation. The problem is... it is implied and not spelt out in simple words. And it is that which has been exploited.
Alright the agreeing and changing mind is a bit naughty but as I see it, the situation hasn't really changed but only been clarified. All it is remphasizing is that if you mod the car, any mods must be made so that the car's ability to meet the MOT and other legislation is not impacted. Same also applies to sports exhaust and BTW has done since whatever. It's just that it has been conveniently forgotten about.
DollySprintV8 said:Obviously an MOT cannot guarantee mechanical condition in a GENERAL sense. Otherwise they would need to test the clutch, gearbox, diff etc. as well as safety items. However the MOT should prove the vehicle is safe to use on the road (at the time of testing). Otherwise, why do we need the MOT test?
Bottom of your MOT Certificate.
WARNING.
A test certificate is not evidence that the vehicle is in a satisfactory mechanical condition.
If it's cat/decat that we're talking about then the main issue I have with emissions testing acerbera v8 is that even in good standard form it's unlikely to pass the MOT test .. I do all manner of tricks and tweaks to Cerberas before they go for MOT testing to make sure they stand the best chance of getting through .. some of these are extreme measures for the very worst cars, like opening up the valve clearances way beyond the manufacturer's settings to reduce life on overlap .. and then the car is reset before being handed over to the customer .. this is only in a handful of cases but throws up the question of how good is a standard V8 cerbera at meeting the legal emissions requirements .. answer = piss poor!
We all know that a decatted cerbie is no faster than a std one, we all know that even a std cerbie is highly unlikely to meet the MOT exhaust requirements unless tweaked to do so, does this mean almost every single cerbera on the road is being used without valid insurance?? If that is the case then Cerbera resale values are minimal. I can think of one or two owners who won't be happy with that situation!!
I really can't understand why the insurance is pouncing on this area now .. it doesn't increase the insurance risk one jot .. but it will probably mean that customers will shop around and avoid the non-friendly insurers from now on, and it isn't like insurance companies don't make a tidy living from the owners of expensive sports cars!
Trouble is, if every insurance company suddenly decides that every cerbera must wear cats then that's an extra 700 pounds a year extra expenditure for almost every owner every year, 'cos pound to a penny if you put new cats on for this year they'll be useless in 12 months time.
I wish you the very best with this Phil .. hopefully common sense will prevail.
We all know that a decatted cerbie is no faster than a std one, we all know that even a std cerbie is highly unlikely to meet the MOT exhaust requirements unless tweaked to do so, does this mean almost every single cerbera on the road is being used without valid insurance?? If that is the case then Cerbera resale values are minimal. I can think of one or two owners who won't be happy with that situation!!
I really can't understand why the insurance is pouncing on this area now .. it doesn't increase the insurance risk one jot .. but it will probably mean that customers will shop around and avoid the non-friendly insurers from now on, and it isn't like insurance companies don't make a tidy living from the owners of expensive sports cars!
Trouble is, if every insurance company suddenly decides that every cerbera must wear cats then that's an extra 700 pounds a year extra expenditure for almost every owner every year, 'cos pound to a penny if you put new cats on for this year they'll be useless in 12 months time.
I wish you the very best with this Phil .. hopefully common sense will prevail.
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff