Car Insurance - To Disclose or not to Disclose ?

[Deleted User]

"Voice analysis is typically only used as one of the tools to identify claims that should be investigated further, it's not the only tool and no claim would be rejected on the basis of voice analysis alone."

My point is only that voice analysis isn't indicative of anything. It has no value, even as an indicator.

""Trying every trick to avoid paying out" clearly means that you are alleging they are attempting to go much further than checking the claim against the policy terms."

"Every trick" means, for example, denying a claim on the basis that the insured had upgraded the brakes yet not informed the company... despite the fact the car was legally parked and unattended at the time and the accident was a hit and run. That had to be appealed, at some length, before it was paid out. I don't know if the full amount was paid, perhaps not. That happened to a neighbour.

"Because it's true? An SL500 was cheaper to insure than a Mini Cooper S (both quoted as brand new, just acquired) despite being massively more powerful and more expensive."

You said 'power means little in a car', not 'power means little in a car according to the insurance companies'. The former, as I say, absurd, but even if you'd said the latter, which is more reasonable, it's not the full story. I guarantee that if you inform your insurer you've chipped your SL500 for 10% more power, you'll either have your insurance cancelled or, if modifications are permitted on your policy, your premiums will rise. And that's because there's a great deal of data on chipping modifications, which are often carried out by young men with relatively low budget cars eager to squeeze as much power from the engine with the smallest possible outlay, whilst stock SL500s are usually driven by older drivers with consequently fewer claims.

"Dont know which insurer you used but in our systems changes to alloys were a different option to body kits"

That's what I'm saying. It's a different situation. The idea that a minor hue change when refurbing alloys on a 'non-boy racer' car is a greater insurance risk than increasing power by 50bhp can only be rationalised by statistical analysis done without any regard for context or circumstance.

"Maybe you'd be better off with a specialist insurer?"

I've always insured with specialist insurers (up until last year - I'm now with a regular insurer who is happy to insure my cars for a big discount as I have house insurance with them). The rep from the last one didn't know what 'throttle bodies' were, so had to 'consult' a colleague. When he didn't know either, he asked me. They might have offered 'specialist' insurance but in all those years I never spoke to a single specialist.

DullGreyGuy

[Deleted User] said:

"Voice analysis is typically only used as one of the tools to identify claims that should be investigated further, it's not the only tool and no claim would be rejected on the basis of voice analysis alone."

My point is only that voice analysis isn't indicative of anything. It has no value, even as an indicator.

It's far from perfect but in a 6 month trial of using it alongside other methods -v- using existing methods only there was a statistically relevant increase in the detection rate. What's your explanation if you maintain its 100% snake oil?

[Deleted User] said:
""Trying every trick to avoid paying out" clearly means that you are alleging they are attempting to go much further than checking the claim against the policy terms."

"Every trick" means, for example, denying a claim on the basis that the insured had upgraded the brakes yet not informed the company... despite the fact the car was legally parked and unattended at the time and the accident was a hit and run. That had to be appealed, at some length, before it was paid out. I don't know if the full amount was paid, perhaps not. That happened to a neighbour.

For that you have to blame MPs, the prior GISC guidance was that the non-disclosure had to be relevant to the claim. It's the guys in Westminster that introduced the CIDRA legislation that said any deliberate or reckless non-disclosure is grounds for voiding the policy, avoiding the claim (and even keeping the premiums). 

The GISC was a self governing body so it was insurers themselves that came up with the old standards rather than politicians. 

[Deleted User] said:
You said 'power means little in a car', not 'power means little in a car according to the insurance companies'. The former, as I say, absurd, but even if you'd said the latter, which is more reasonable, it's not the full story. I guarantee that if you inform your insurer you've chipped your SL500 for 10% more power, you'll either have your insurance cancelled or, if modifications are permitted on your policy, your premiums will rise. And that's because there's a great deal of data on chipping modifications, which are often carried out by young men with relatively low budget cars eager to squeeze as much power from the engine with the smallest possible outlay, whilst stock SL500s are usually driven by older drivers with consequently fewer claims.

When someone quotes something, read the response in relation to the text they have quoted. You said you'd upgraded the power of the car and didnt have to pay an additional premium where as other things had. The comment is in relation to the statement that extra power itself means little when considering extra insurance premium. 

I did have to declare mods as unfortunately was with Admiral at the time who require factory fit optional extras  to be declared so that included the AMG kit which also involved lowering the suspension. Another thing typically associated with boy racers. What smarted more was that 6 months later they changed the SL such that the AMG was included as standard so no longer declarable, a check with their website and yes AMG as optional extra so declared was c£50 more than SL AMG with nothing to declare even though the cars in principle were identical. 

However, even with the boy racer lowered suspension it was still cheaper to insure than a stock mini.

[Deleted User] said:
"Dont know which insurer you used but in our systems changes to alloys were a different option to body kits"

That's what I'm saying. It's a different situation. The idea that a minor hue change when refurbing alloys on a 'non-boy racer' car is a greater insurance risk than increasing power by 50bhp can only be rationalised by statistical analysis done without any regard for context or circumstance.

"Maybe you'd be better off with a specialist insurer?"

I've always insured with specialist insurers (up until last year - I'm now with a regular insurer who is happy to insure my cars for a big discount as I have house insurance with them). The rep from the last one didn't know what 'throttle bodies' were, so had to 'consult' a colleague. When he didn't know either, he asked me. They might have offered 'specialist' insurance but in all those years I never spoke to a single specialist.

Well they dont ask what pantone it was pre and post change to judge how subtle it was. As stated, mass market consumer insurance is done by stats because that works well for the 99% of people. The other problem is that most people on the commercial side of the business are constantly worried of asking too many questions that people dont know the answer so go away. 

A project many years ago was to introduce fixed value mass market car insurance, you tell us the car, we give a value, you can change it up or down by 50% and in the event of a total loss thats what you'll get. Most people thought it was a great idea BUT we needed to know the vehicles current mileage as we couldn't set the mid point accurately enough without it. The Commercial Director blocked it saying most people wouldn't know it off hand and so we'd lose them as they go elsewhere. This was before MOT mileage was readily available online and it wouldn't help with newer cars. 

You want more nuanced considerations then you need specialist insurance but as you seem to have found, it comes at a price and what most people actually really want is cheap insurance and thats accomplished through not considering all the nuances.

It varies on specialists, the underwriter for the Space Insurance at my last client was literally a rocket scientist so imagine he would understand most discussions about the satellites they were insuring. His minimum premiums are a touch higher than the £10k of most the rest of the lines of business

Goudy

[Deleted User] said:

One thing I've learned - two things, actually. 1) Always declare everything that's relevant and could be verified by investigation 2) It's impossible to predict the impact of declaring anything.
1) Because they'll use every trick in the book to avoid paying out, and 2) because they run everything through an algorithm that is, in my experience, little better than random. My latest declaration belly laugh was being told that a £5k engine mod to my weekend car, boosting power by 28%, would cost me nothing... then six months later being told that refurbing the wheels to a slightly darker shade of grey would add £37 to my premium, with a £30 admin fee. My neighbour had his premium increased for adding a dash cam to his car. Figure that one out. Now that's something I wouldn't tell the insurance about, as it's not a required notification.

Over the years (a lot of years) I've never had any grumbles with car insurance companies.
In fact they have been more than fair with me.
 
Yes in the past I've had to haggle a bit on pay out values and other times, like when my year old Abarth got stolen, they put my back into the same position (basically returned me to invoice) without quibble.
They were also eager to go through items in the car and pay for those (like my sunglasses) that I totally forgot about.

The algorithms they use may appear random to us customers (and probably a lot acutally in the car insurance industry if truth be told) as they take in so many different variables.
Every company will also allocate different values to those different variables. For example some might load up age and postcode higher than others, so how could we possibly reliably work all the companies out for yourselves.

I have in the past been known to mod a car or bike and always worked under the premise that you tell them.
If you don't want to pay extra for the mods, just don't mod.
I found one or two main stream insurance companies just don't like it, others are a bit more relaxed but it again it depends on all the other variables.

I can understand that they might not worry too much about an extra bit of power.
For a start you can't use all of it all the time and there are speed limits, there also might be other cars in the same model range with similar outputs. (say like the Golf GTi and the Golf GTi Clubsport) that probably quote within pounds of each other for most drivers.

On the other hand, replacing none standard alloy wheels which are prone to theft and damage would likely increase a claim cost, after all you have paid more to paint them a different colour, you'd think they would have to pay more to do the same.

I do find admin fees a bit off putting, ok someone has to take time to make the changes but £30 to £50 for might only be a few minutes work is a bit excessive.
These days I use Swiftcover and as you do these changes online yourself, admin fees are few and far between.

[Deleted User]

DullGreyGuy said:

It's far from perfect but in a 6 month trial of using it alongside other methods -v- using existing methods only there was a statistically relevant increase in the detection rate. What's your explanation if you maintain its 100% snake oil?

Only scientific studies have relevance because they are the only ones with protocol and controls. Furthermore, the entire premise is flawed on several fronts; primarily, the idea that stress indicates deception. Stress is a natural response after a car accident, especially when discussing specifics of injury or damage, so employing a system to detect stress, even if it worked, which it doesn't, is pointless. You'd be better off employing a witchdoctor.

DullGreyGuy said:

When someone quotes something, read the response in relation to the text they have quoted. You said you'd upgraded the power of the car and didnt have to pay an additional premium where as other things had. The comment is in relation to the statement that extra power itself means little when considering extra insurance premium
. 

That was actually my original point, that whilst increased power is clearly a risk factor, insurers only account for it if the reasons for it fall within the broad category bands they work with. So, I replied to your comment about power as you wrote it. Be clear with your language and confusion will not arise.

DullGreyGuy said:

Well they dont ask what pantone it was pre and post change to judge how subtle it was.
. 

The fact you refuse to admit that it is unreasonable to increase premiums by 12% for an almost imperceptible colour change on a wheel refurb, but claim it is perfectly understandable to make no fee increase for a major engine mod resulting in 50bhp+ power increase on the same car, tells me that either you don't understand the entire premise of my argument, or you're not debating in good faith.

DullGreyGuy said:

. As stated, mass market consumer insurance is done by stats because that works well for the 99% of people.
. 

Where do you get that figure of 99% from? It doesn't work well for 99% of people, it works well for the insurance companies. It works well for very few people (indeed figures across the board show between 13% and 21% trust their motor insurers), not least because it does not properly take into account individual circumstances.

[Deleted User]

Goudy said:
Over the years (a lot of years) I've never had any grumbles with car insurance companies.

In fact they have been more than fair with me.

You're one of the few. Most years they try to scam me, whoever I'm with. Last year my insurance (on my Abarth, so glad to see we have at least one thing in common) renewal rose by 280% to £830, despite no incidents, claims, etc. When I challenged this they came back with £690. I got insurance elsewhere at a slight increase on my previous. Two years before, the renewal on another car went from £380 to £500+. I went on a price comparison site and saw an exact like-for-like at £382. So I rang my insurance company, who did a 'we won't be beaten on price guarantee' (like that means anything), and told them. "Oh," said the lady, "Who's that with?" I replied, "It's with YOURSELVES!" I went elsewhere despite having to pay a little more because they were literally trying to scam me. The new ones try to scam me too, of course, but what can you do.

Goudy said:The algorithms they use may appear random to us customers (and probably a lot acutally in the car insurance industry if truth be told) as they take in so many different variables.
Every company will also allocate different values to those different variables. For example some might load up age and postcode higher than others, so how could we possibly reliably work all the companies out for yourselves.

I have in the past been known to mod a car or bike and always worked under the premise that you tell them.
If you don't want to pay extra for the mods, just don't mod.
I found one or two main stream insurance companies just don't like it, others are a bit more relaxed but it again it depends on all the other variables.

They're not random, but they are solely to serve the insurance company, not the customer. The failure to take account of personal circumstance, in certain cases, is not because it's impossible to implement that electronically (indeed, AI can now do that with an accuracy surpassing humans for almost no cost), but because not taking account of those circumstances is in the best interests of the insurer.

With the mods, it's not that mods cost more to insure (in my experience, that's not actually the case), but that the premiums they attract are based on data that can be completely irrelevant, such as the chipping example I mentioned. And because I've insured varied vehicles for varied uses, I have a whole list of absurdities that no right-minded person would agree are logical but are the result of incorrect application of statistical data.

Goudy said:I can understand that they might not worry too much about an extra bit of power. For a start you can't use all of it all the time and there are speed limits, there also might be other cars in the same model range with similar outputs. (say like the Golf GTi and the Golf GTi Clubsport) that probably quote within pounds of each other for most drivers.

Again, it's not that they disregard power output (and indeed, they shouldn't). If I'd have chipped the car for a handful of bhp more power I would have been charged a hefty premium, because it's a popular mod, especially for high risk cars. But because they couldn't fit the mod into one of their broad categories, and didn't understand the technicalities, they were unable to quantify a charge. Same with the wheels, but the converse. They had a great deal of statistical data of 'wheel mods', none of which applies to my circumstance, or the area I live in (which hasn't seeen a wheel theft or car theft to my knowledge in recorded history). The idea the increased risk of wheels being stolen because of a hue change (the risk is actually lessened, being a limited edition the refurbed wheels changed to non-standard are actually worth less) is simply wrong.