I don't want to trample on and derail the other insurance thread which is currently running, but this appears to be an issue which affects a great many members of this particular Forum - which insurers take a pragmatic view of modifications?

By which I mean insurers who adopt the attitude that a proposer who is a member of an enthusiasts car club who adopt a mature attitude to the ownership, driving and enhancement of their cars (as opposed to the "other" type) is likely to be a reasonable risk and the type who looks after their car and drives with a degree of awareness and skill? Do we, indeed, have any affiliation to a more enlightened insurer or broker who doesn't take the attitude that fitting braided stainless steel brake lines is just an opportunity to hike the premium?

I'm insured with Admiral, largely because they offered me a good multi-car deal on my S2000 and daily Golf. I insured the S2000 for 7500 miles per year initially, but soon felt that this wasn't going to be sufficient, so I called them and they agreed to increase this to 8500. At the same time I informed them that I had fitted a dash camera and a K&N filter (the straight replacement for the standard filter, not the intake kit). I was relieved of an additional £25 for all of this, part of which was naturally an admin fee, although they didn't actually have to undertake much in the way of manual labour to make the changes.

I looked at my policy on-line yesterday, and they have a section for you to "add modifications", which would no doubt attract a concomitant hike in premium. This started me thinking - how many drivers have done something or added something to their cars which their insurance company would consider to be an undisclosed modification in the event of a claim, thereby giving them the opportunity to void the policy and decline the claim? In other words, how many are driving around in blissful ignorance that their insurance may not pay out in the event of an accident, or have taken the conscious decision not to disclose modifications and take a chance?

I realise that some of you will be thinking "Adrian Flux", but I've seen and heard of several occasions where they have fallen short of expectations. Granted, some of these have been via Pistonheads, and alternative harbours of internet-based tin-foil hattery are available, but not all of them.

Car enthusiasts, by their vary nature, will work on their cars, and try to improve them for a variety of reasons. Insurance companies will try to find means to avoid paying a claim if it is deemed that the insured has withheld what they can argue to be a material fact. What constitutes a material fact is open to debate, and while a different suspension setup may be considered a change to their risk, what about a change which doesn't increase performance but improves reliability (I'm thinking here about something like a Ballade Sports TCT - the insurance company might argue that the engine has been modified because it's no longer standard).

Do we have any insurance underwriters on the Forum who can give us a definitive answer as to how insurers evaluate their risk and how do modifications affect risk and premium? Equally importantly, what are the guidelines given to claims assessors, and how do they treat undisclosed modifications?

 

imc
I work for a mainstream Insurance company.

Our attitude towards modifications has changed somewhat in the last year or so. In fact I am working on a project that looks at exactly this issue. Although I don't expect to be able to give a "definitive" answer that covers all Insurer, I'll discuss with my UW colleagues this week and post up some advice.

Andy

 

Aviva have been good with me.

Lowering springs - additional cost zero.
Induction kit - additional cost zero.

Asked them about other stuff like manifold and decat and they said there would be no additional cost as long as the power does not go above 250bhp. I asked how I would prove that and if they would want a dyno print out. They said it wouldn't be necessary and my word would be taken in good faith! They just asked me how much the parts cost in each instance and if it was professionally fitted (again no proof required).

 

It varies from insurer to insurer.

Admiral have been the cheapest for me (at least with a low excess) for the last few years. I have a couple of modifications declared (coilovers) and it makes little to no difference on the premium.
However, it is worth noting that they will only pay for replacement of OEM items in the event of damage. (A bit of a moot point as any crash on my car will mean a write-off).

Insurers' claims experience shows that modified cars have a worse claims record than non-modified cars.

In the same way, 17-year olds have a worse claims record than 40 year olds.


That's why premiums are higher. If it were the other way around, premiums would be lower.


The types of things which are material are alloys, noisy intakes, exhausts, coilovers, body kits and so on.
It's also worth noting that if the insurer does cover like for like replacement, then they will have to pay out more in the event of a claim, thus premiums are higher.

Just to address a few other points made in the original post.

• Having seen much driving by various members of this forum over the years, it varies from careful to downright reckless (I'm somewhere in between ). Indeed, at the Ace Café on Sunday, a couple of people were driving like idiots on the road past the Café, showing off the noise of their exhausts in a vain effort to impress. Some of the driving inside the carpark itself wasn't the best either.
• Fitting braided brake lines or a Ballade TCT will not lead to any change in premium and nor will it lead to insurers "not paying out". It's no different to fitting non-OEM brake pads, discs or tyres - things which are done my millions of car owners.
• It is very rare for an insurer to "not pay out" in the event of a claim - in most cases, it will lead to a partial payout and/or additional premiums to be paid to make up the difference.

 

Some good points made by LG here. However keep in mind modifications do not just affect loss rations in accidents. There are other considrations that UWs have to take into account e.g.
- the attractiveness of the car to theft
- the attitude of the driver - there are clear correllations between having performance modifications and driving responsibly. I wasn't at ACE but this is a good example of it.

Insurers are regulated on these things and it is not simply a case of looking for a way out of paying claims. The modification generally would have to be material to the accident to avoid paying out completely. Rememeber, the assessment of the risk for any vehicle is based on the speciofication and way it looks when its driven off the dealer forecourt. A more likely scenario is that they would recover the costs of the lost premium where they can.

 

I'm about to hit Aviva with my annually updated mods list. This one will be interesting so I'll feedback the result, but generally they have been excellent on coverage and pricing. (I have three cars insured for less than £500)

 

I have always declared my mods on my cars, for the exact reason you stated. Voiding insurance.

Right now I'm in the middle of building a turbo charged s2000, but before I went ahead with the build I spoke to Sky Insurance who told me that my premium would only increase by around 10%

They told me they work off a "tick box" system and that they just tick the mods which you have for your car and it adjusts the premium accordingly. For example, Intake +2%, aftermarket exhaust +3%.


I used to have a b18 turbo converted Charade GTti running 350hp. I told them everything that had been done, and they shocked me with my premium. I was expecting near on £1500+ as the standard charade puts out 99hp. My premium came to £765. Strange how they work things out lol.

 

I found Admiral/Elephant really difficult with mods, I wanted to declare simple things like a CAI and uprated ARB and they had no way of categorising the ARB and CAI had to go as "Air Filter".

This was a few years ago and got fed up so switched to Aviva then and stuck with them. Their website is great for adding mods mid-policy - they have all the descriptions of pretty much everything you want to add plus they charge a reasonable premium for those mods.

 

To the OP, I would have thought a dash cam is an accessory not a mod so wouldn't need to be declared, in fact as an added security device should reduce your premium. And as LG said as the K&N filter is just a replacement for the standard Honda filter again would not need to be declared. I would say Admiral have just fleeced you out of £25 for the sake of a phone call, shocking behaviour from your insurers.

 

Insurers seem divided over dash cams - some will offer a reduction in premium, as they can provide evidence to support or disprove a claim, others take the rather disappointingly negative view that they attract the light-fingered.

Thanks to everybody who has responded so far. Insurance of modified cars can be a minefield, and I'd be very interested to hear Andy's response. I have a "wish list" of modifications which I would consider on my S2000, but I need to balance this against any additional running costs, one of the largest of which is insurance.



Ian