Declared modifications not covered by insurance

se2020

Posting for a mate that does not have an account...

I purchased a second hand pickup truck from a main dealer 18months ago.
The truck was just under a year old and came with all the original sales paperwork.
Insurance was taken out on the day or purchase. The value given was £19,995 (sale price that day) The small print of the insurance clearly states that any optional extras that were factory fitted do not need to be declared as modifications. 
One month after purchase a hardtop was fitted to the truck. This was done by the company that make/sell the hardtop.
The insurance company were phoned while the truck was in the workshop having the hardtop fitted. The cost of the hardtop was £3870. (Including painting and fitting). The insurance company charged a £25 admin fee plus a premium increase of £32 and an email confirmation was received.
11months later (Feb this year) the policy was auto-renewed. The new policy documents have the hardtop listed in a "any modifications" section. Value is still listed as £19995.

While stationary at a roundabout a large van has rear-ended the truck at speed and caused considerable damage.
The van is insured by the same company. 
The insurance company have collected the car and taken it away for repair.
They have now sent out a letter stating they will not pay for half (£) of the repair costs.
The spare wheel would have originally been steel. A factory upgrade from 4x 18" alloy wheels to 5x 19" alloy wheels was optional extra at the time of original purchase.
A reversing camera was a factory fit option.
Strangely,  rear parking sensors were standard fit but because the option to add front sensors was also taken they are not the same rear sensors as standard so they do not want to pay for those either.
The garage have said the hard top is beyond repair and they say that is not covered at all.

After a bit of back-and-forth they have confirmed in writing that there is/was no need to inform them of all the factory fitted options.
In a phone conversation they said that due to covid they did not send out their own inspector before taking the car away if they had then they would have written the car off due to the extra repair costs.
The repair centre have already repaired/replaced the back end of the truck/tailgate. I have spoken directly to the repairs centre and they have not fitted the new rear bumper yet as they need £1100 for the parking sensors and reverse camera or they can fit it without these parts and return it but it will have no spare wheel and no hardtop. Apparently the repairers had asked the insurance what to do about the hardtop and been told to provide a quote for a secondhand one but they were unable to find one. 
The company that have provided the hire van have also sent a letter (today) to say the insurance company have instructed them to collect it on monday. 

My main question is if the hardtop and the other parts should be covered?

dacouch

Which Insurer is it?

Admiral?

Scrapit

Have you asked em what the 32 quid did cover then?

forgotmyname

Claim from the 3rd party, they don't care what your insurance covers or not.

They told you its not covered, the admin fee and additional premium because it maybe seen as a higher risk.

AdrianC

I presume this is a business-use vehicle...?

If so, then it's a different set of rules of engagement to consumer legislation.

You still have the option to go to the financial ombudsman, though.

se2020

It is covered for business use.
I think part of the problem is that both vehicles have turned out to be insured by the same company so they are trying to keep both claims as low as possible!

It is strange to think that they do not need to be told of factory ordered options yet the cost of replacing these options is not covered.
The metallic paint work was also a factory optional extra yet they have painted the parts that they have replaced in the same paint with no questions.

It does not mention anything in the small print.
Verbally they have said that the extra premium is to cover increased risk although I can not see what extra risk they are taking if the costs for repairing/replacing this part is not covered?

Car_54

se2020 said:

Verbally they have said that the extra premium is to cover increased risk although I can not see what extra risk they are taking if the costs for repairing/replacing this part is not covered?

Their standard answer will be that some mods make the vehicle more likely to be involved in an accident, and some make it more desirable to thieves.

Ectophile

If it's the van driver's fault, then the van driver's insurance is legally obliged to pay out all losses for injuries and damage to property that they have caused.  Whether your mate's insurance would, or would not, have covered the hard top is irrelevant.  The van driver's insurance must pay.

The normal process in such a situation is to seld a Letter Before Action to the van driver (or their employer if they were on business), with a suggestion that they should pass the letter on to their insurance company.

se2020

Part of the problem is that both cars/Van's are insured by the same insurance  company.
Just a coincidence,  they have no connection apart from that.

Ectophile

se2020 said:

Part of the problem is that both cars/Van's are insured by the same insurance  company.
Just a coincidence,  they have no connection apart from that.

The problem is an insurance company that is trying to weasel out of paying, even though it's their responsibility.  Sometimes it takes the threat of legal action to get them to pay.

jimbo6977

If the insurer accepts that the van driver is 100% liable, they have to pay your (mate's) losses as a third party, whether or not they would have to pay you(r mate) as a policyholder.

It is I suppose possible that the insurer is trying to deal with you(r mate's) underwriting situation (eg supposedly undeclared mods that would result in an Additional Premium being due) at the same time as dealing with your (mate's) losses as a third party, hence deducting the AP from your (mate's) settlement. If so I would ask them to treat the two matters separately, as they are effectively unrelated. 

IME these sorts of situations ought to be under the supervision, if not direct control, of a senior manager, in order to avoid the sort of mixup described by the OP.