Its obviously a bit of a grey area. I don't imagine the insurance ombudsman would clear it up either.

Perhaps we need a poll.......

If you have the following modifications to your car, have you declared them?
a) Decals
b) Upgraded the stock speakers
c) Aftermarket wheels
d) Aftermarket air filter
e) Taken the airbox lid off
f) Suspension upgrade
g) FI

 

[QUOTE=ukphil78,Jun 1 2007, 11:07 AM] You also need to factor in likelihood of success. If they spend

 

Hmmm..........thats a bit of an eye opener......doesn't sound like that expensive a claim either.........were you not claiming off the other persons insurance?

What insurance company was it with?

 

(e) doesn't require notification (not least because you could always just put it back on in the event of a claim!) and, arguably, (b). If it's just a filter (as opposed to a complete new intake), probably not (d) either.

The rest would all (at least IMO) give an insurer a reasonable basis to reject a claim (or at least reduce the payout) if you had failed to notify them. Decals aren't performance-enhancing but they do change the appearance of the car and so, it could be said, make it more of a target for thieves.

 

The total amount was about

 

Tread depth.........so can they refuse a claim if your tyres are illegal?

 

I suppose that comes under the "roadworthy condition" (of which an MOT isn't a guarantee).

 

believe it or not

they can refuse a claim if you leave your keys in the car

gold bullion on the passenger seat

and simply go shopping

amazing, isn't it?

I don't know how they've got the nerve

 

Would be a lot simpler if the insurance company had to prove the modification (or unroadworthy condition) contributed to the accident.........would also seem to be common sense.......but hey, since when did law and common sense mix..

Be interesting to see how they'd claim bald tyres contributed to the accident if you were stationary.

 

gadaffi - I take you point, but in your examples clearly the problem (keys, gold bullion) contributed directly to the claim.

In Bibbs example, if his tyres had been bald, it would have had zero to do with the claim.

Thats my point...........

Unfortunately ultimately pointless though as it sounds like thats not how the law works!