How about this for an argument? I can't name anyone or specify certain things because apparently it is going to court. About two years ago, a frind of mine bought a bike from a lower end dealer (ie, one of those that takes trade-ins from the larger dealers).......he paid a good price for what is effectively an 80s classic in pretty much pristine condition. The dealer he got it from checked the bike over and gave it the usual basic service (oil change etc) but was satisfied the bike was in good working order. My friend insured the bike, advising the insurance company of a few mods, like braided brake lines and aftermarket exhaust system. The premium was reasonable and was fully comp. My friend is not the mechanical minded type....he just rides bikes. Four weeks ago he had a low speed off owing to mud on road (whether he should have seen it or not is another debate) but quite a bit of damage was done and he broke his arm. The police were called and they took details, satisfied that he was all perfectly legal. They noted the mud on the road, but said they couldn't pursue that as there was no clue to the identity of the person responsible. The bike was recovered to a suitable repairer where the insurance assessor eventually attended to inspect the bike. Apparently the assessor noticed the aftermarket exhaust and asked the repairer to check the rest of the bike more thoroughly specifically the carb bank which had slipped off the manifold rubbers slightly.....They discovered a Stage 2 D***jet or similar kit had been fitted. So now the insurance company have said he wasn't insured because he failed to notify them of the specific modification; refused to do the repairs and given him back his premiums, plus they have informed Plod who are now considering prosecuting him for being uninsured. Both the insurance company and Plod are using 'ignorance is no excuse'........ My friend has appointed a solicitor and intends challenging the decisions....I have my doubts he will win. AL
Grotesque. Should I be telling my insurance company that I fitted Pazzos and a carbon cam cover? The other tricky thing is that if an insurance company refuses to cover you, and you apply to another, normally there is the question "Have you ever been refused insurance?". If you answer yes, companies B, C and D will also normally refuse to insure you. If you answer no, and they find out you lied, you are uninsured. It's a grim one.
Keep us imformed on this one. Afaik the insurer has to prove it materially contributed to the accident, and in most cases I've seen they tend to give just standard parts value if its a damaged part eg exhaust or charge an additional premium for the term to cover the mods before paying out
As far as I can ascertain, the insurance company say the policyholder failed to inform them of a modification which materially increases performance which they state is serious enough to void the policy. His basic defence would much the same as mine if I had no spanner skills "How the f*** would I know a modification had been carried out?" and the insurance company and Plod are simply saying "You should have known". IMO, they have assessed the damage and realised that they have probably under-estimated the potential repair costs when providing the policy in the first place.......a new tank (if one can be found) is probably going to hit £1000 so bearing in mind it is a 'classic bike' which rarely get written off, the repair costs are going to be huge. AL
Nah they'd just write it off. If the cost of repair is more than 60% of the value of the bike it will normally just get binned
If it hadn't been you posting I would have seriously doubted the bit about the carburretor investigation as I thought they only 'went to town' like that in the event of a fatality and as already said an owner could genuinely not have known as parts are internal and not possible to check for most. As said, would like to know the outcome please AL.
I am waiting for my mate to phone me back about the whole issue, but the carbs were looked at because the tank was off and the carb bank had pulled away from the manifold thingys and appears the tops on two of them were damaged....... Maybe the discovery was due to a general checkover of the carbs......... ......but in my mind, are some assessors 'savvy' enough to look at non-OEM zorst, K&N filters and think 'what else?'..... AL
Most of the assessors I've met have been pretty clued up. Many are from the "trade" and have a personal interest in bikes/cars etc. It's a tricky one, because ultimately the onus is on the owner to declare the details about the machine and then sign off to that. Insurance companies will get out of paying if they can and often on the slightest detail.... Legally, if they void the insurance then technically the police have a "duty" etc. etc. The dealer that sold him the bike wouldn't have probably known about the carb kit, and if he did, getting him to own up at this stage will be nigh impossible. It stinks really, but that's the world we live in. Hopefully, the rare commodity nowadays that is "common sense" will rear its head and help you mate out.
I'd get onto the insurance ombudsman and ask them to look at it and also refuse to accept the payment return until the ombudsman has made a decision. I had a load of hassle with my car insurance years ago and was initially charged with driving without insurance until the insurers admitted that they'd cocked up but meanwhile my bike insurance had taken a major hike because I had to declare the NIP for no insurance. My case ended up with the insurers saying that while I'd paid for FC insurance they'd only acknowledge that they had an obligation to provide minimum cover but that was enough to get the prosecution dropped and saved me a lot of money over the next 5 years because of the increase in premiums if I'd been found guilty. There's another body that investigates insurance claims/arguments but I can't for the life of me remember what they're called but they got involved and it was a retired cop who came round to interview me and said that I'd be ok and from there things started to go my way. I hope this one goes the same way.
Right, my fault for not listening to him properly last night....(I'm currently dealing with a death in the family and all that entails)....... .........being careful what I reveal, the sliding bike also hit 'another object' before it came to rest, which is attracting a claim against him. AL
In theory the dealer should be responsible as they didn't inform the buyer about the modification so the goods weren't as described. But then the law rarely have anything to do with logic. I'm really interested how this will end because following this logic, every road user who has second hand vehicle should be a fully qualified mechanic and be able to spot every possible modification. I wonder if my wife would be able to tell the difference if our car happened to come fitted with an aftermarket supercharger
Another thing... how thoroughly the assessors check the vehicle? Do they open the engine? If not, then you could have a heavily modified/upgraded internals, not declare it and still be fine because there is a slim chance that the engine will split open during the accident. On the other hand if you have a few carbon bits which reduce weight by 1/2lb and therefore increase performance by 0.000001% and you're f*cked if you don't declare it. Renders the whole thing pretty pointless.
There was an EU law passed earlier this year that if an insurance company doesn't ask the question then it can't be that important and can't be used to refuse a claim, but as I was looking at the small print whilst taking out a new car insurance policy the other day on line there was a catch all clause of 'has the vehicle been modified in any way' which required a phone call to clarify. I am quite careful to declare any modification but at which point does an accessory become a modification ?
I think it's usually limited to performance mods but then, what is exactly 'performance mod'? Would me losing a stone of fat qualify as a performance mod? :wink:
There were and are countless stories of a car being sold with a 'pack' at new which then wasnt declared and insurer tried to wiggle out...to my knowledge they all failed. As said above, I have heard of circumstances when they have refused to cover repair or replace and reverted to 3rd party only, as the mods have been so obvious as to invalidate the policy but that they could not backdate he removal of the core legal cover you need to use a vehicle
The aftermarket exhaust was declared and accepted by the insurers. The majority of aftermarket exhausts require re jetting, not necessarily for performance gains (ahem! - innocent face), but simply to run cleanly and meet emission requirements. Ignorance should be no defence for the insurers either - they could be argued to have accepted the re jetting by omission. This must be a very contestable case with a decent lawyer. The insurance company should be made to state the threshold of power gain that would render the rider uninsurable, then prove the power gain from this combination of jetting and exhaust.
For insurance companies to try to wriggle out of cover following a claim is pretty common. They love to try it on. If you let them get away with it, they've won. Insurance companies try to pretend they have the final word; this is rubbish, and they do not - unless you let them. If you sue them for the value of the claim, they will most likely give in and pay up - but of course that's a load of work and trouble. It's often better not to make a claim in the first place but just bear the cost of repairs yourself, if you are in a position to do that. Modifications? It is a matter of degree, and of argument, whether a given undeclared modification is relevant to a claim or not. Fitting a different make of tyres or brake linings, or putting a sticker on the bumper, is a modification, but would never invalidate cover. Fitting a bigger engine certainly would invalidate cover. Everything in between is up for debate.
The actual point of this is: 1) Should the dealer have known it had a hidden performance increasing modification? I ask why should he? 2) Should he have asked the dealers who he got the bike from? Again, I ask why should he? 3) Should the dealers who took the bike in as a trade-in have asked the original owner had it been modified? I don't see why? 4) Should my friend have asked if the bike had been modified when he knows b*gger all about the workings? 5) In fact the Insurance company and Plod, by effectively saying ignorance is no excuse, obviously think those questions should have been asked or that my mate should have X-ray eyes (but even if he had, he wouldn't know WTF he was looking at!). Apparently Plod are being visited by the solicitor (and a barrister) tomorrow..............Well, at least they are being receptive to discussion, which is something.....I wonder what hook was used to get the meeting with them, because in my experience, the Plod mind-set is fixed?
