By the look of it, not many members are ordering bog standard cars - whether it is adding something as minor as the black pack/heated seats right through to a sunroof.

 

Without wanting to get anyone into trouble, have/will you tell your insurance company about the extras?

 

I guess I am a cautious person and would go down the disclosure route, but I see this as an administrative hassle and an excuse for the insurance company to whack up the premium.  Plus, it makes it harder to search out insurance quotes where they don't allow you to enter factory options online.

 

I wouldn't want heated seats to cost hundreds when you factory in additional insurance premiums!

 

Thoughts?

If it's fitted by the factory the insurance company doesn't need to know it's only mods that are done afterwards I believe.

Depends on insurance company I think - by for some you definitely do need to tell them as some do class everything over and above standard spec as modification.

 

I'm with Direct Farce, sorry Direct Line and I told them about the extras - didn't add any extra to the policy but did cause a load of pain because apparently a headed windscreen isn't a standard extra so they had to add it to the notes (ie my policy doesn't show it on the docs).

 

The big issue I has was if there was a smash I'd not get the full value of the car or if there was a glass claim they'd not pay for the heated screen (v.expensive glass).

 

However I will not be going with them again, stuck with them until the end of my policy because of a "fault" claim on my insurance (other driver drove off so it was my fault).  They're completely useless, they were useless with the claim and they're useless with the change of car and I'm now paying 2x per month as I could be with other companies because they have me over a barrel.

 

Skoda Insurance thought I was nuts when I asked them on the 7 day policy if I needed to declare the extras.

Edited 14 December, 201312 yr by gullyg

Please do declare all options. Most insurers now require to be in informed of any changes to standard spec.

I've had 3 new RenaultSport vehicles, each fitted with a variety of optional extras and I've always told the insurance company. I have never been charged extra.

Why would you declare factory fitted options? Surely the only thing that matters is the value of the car. The insurance are only interested in modifications outside of the manufacturers safety tested equipment. However seeing as 50% of the options are safety related do you think they would give a discount? I think not.

If you have say a vRS with extras they won't cover any of the extras above vrs spec.

How does the Skoda sold gap insurance stand then?

In my experience, insuring with a range of large and well known companies underwritten by the main insurance providers, they want to know. If they dont charge extra for it then why wouldn't you tell them, just to be safe.

It could be easily argued that a vRS fitted with options such as 19's, sunset glass, full leather etc is more attractive to thrives, especially to break for parts. I'd rather declare these things upfront and not run the risk of disputes in the event of a claim.

How does the Skoda sold gap insurance stand then?

If the dealership sold it, they'll have declared the additional cost over std spec but I'm sure in their terms it'll say you must declare all factory extras to your insurer in order to remain valid.

From my experience - it is the value of the car - if purchased new, you will have a document describing all the additional and the cost (e.g. 25K for a vRS with X, Y and Z).  This can be used to prove to your insurance company what you paid for.   I declared my car at it's list price as it was band new.

 

Any factory fitted extra will bump the price up from a standard spec - but in the event of a theft, you can prove the full spec of the vehicle.

 

If it's a modification, then this will bump the price up - as it's either more desirable, or more likely be involved in an accident if you can push the car harder / faster - e.g. upgrading the engine without upgrading the brakes.

 

Working in an insurance brokerage - you don't need to declare factory standard fit equipment - as this would be tested and within tolerance of the vehicle specifications.

 

Upgrading things afterwards (whether it be engine, suspension or even simply a light cluster), the insurance company need to take into account that you may be modifying the vehicle with under specified equipment (e.g. dimmer lights) in which case you are more likely to be involved in accident because of the underrated modifications.  How many people have tuned / chipped their engine to get more HP out of it and not upgraded the brakes to stop?

 

I'm not saying all people do this - or even this could be a factor in an accident - some mods are perfectly safe. But the insurance company need to know and weigh up the risk of those mods.

 

I am sure that different brokers and insurance companies will have different rules - If one or more of the insurance sponsors could come back with their regulations on it - I'm sure it would set a lot of people's mind's at rest.

When I insured my new one they didn't once ask if it was even modified never mind I there's any extra.

To me if it's as it left the factory then it isn't modified

I declare everything. I've worked briefly in the industry, heard lots of stories and have also been the victim of insurers trying to shaft me before. Insurers go to a great deal of effort to find reasons to dispute claims or to reduce any pay out made. They employ people to do just that. Saying oh had you informed us that your vehicle had x, y and z as factory fitted extras we would have charged a premium of a, b or c. If you're lucky they'll just try to take this 'difference' out of any claim but there are plenty of cases around, particularly with younger drivers where the insurer says actually, we wouldn't have sold you the policy had we known about the extras therefore you're not covered.  I approach insurers with great distrust and I'd urge others to do the same. Once bitten, twice shy, cover your back  and so on and so forth

I declare everything. I've worked briefly in the industry, heard lots of stories and have also been the victim of insurers trying to shaft me before. Insurers go to a great deal of effort to find reasons to dispute claims or to reduce any pay out made. They employ people to do just that. Saying oh had you informed us that your vehicle had x, y and z as factory fitted extras we would have charged a premium of a, b or c. If you're lucky they'll just try to take this 'difference' out of any claim but there are plenty of cases around, particularly with younger drivers where the insurer says actually, we wouldn't have sold you the policy had we known about the extras therefore you're not covered.  I approach insurers with great distrust and I'd urge others to do the same. Once bitten, twice shy, cover your back  and so on and so forth

 

But they DID sell you the policy and their failure to ask about such factory fitted "modifications" is their issue.

 

That's like you buying a kitchen knife from Tesco and them declaring "if they had known you were going to accidentally cut yourself with it, they wouldn't have sold it you".  It's a risk they take insuring people - Their risk is that you are not likely to have an accident, which is where demographic profiles come in.  They cannot reasonably analyse every policy holder, so they base their decision on risk assessments.

 

Let's just say you were in an accident where something heavy was shunted forward in the cabin and causes severe injury, a claim was made - would they refuse to pay out because you didn't declare you were carrying heavy items in the vehicle? No - they insure you based on a risk assessment of you, the area, the vehicle, etc.  Their job is to minimise the risk - be that increase premiums in an area, a driver age group a vehicle type, so they spread the risk..  Recent floods in North wales will have lots of payouts on insurance policies - if single insurance company insured all of North Wales - they WILL be going out of business.

I don't disagree hotrod. Your arguments make perfect sense. However, sadly, the world in which we live does not.

 

The emphasis in some companies has shifted from them extracting information to buyers providing it.  Many insurers state in their small print that the policy holder needs to declare all 'non-standard' items. Items for which an extra payment has been made are by their nature non-standard. Many even state that the policyholder must inform them immediately of 'significant factors that may have a bearing upon the policy or the policyholder'. So if you have an argument in the street do you need to tell them? Clearly insurers could argue that there could be a significant increase in the likelihood of your car being vandalised following this.

 

Whilst I think it's crazy to have to declare every extra that has been added, to protect myself in the mine field that is insurance, I will do exactly that. Of course, you're right, lots of companies are not interested and that's great.  But as long as I've offered the information that the car does have a selection of factory fitted extras and I've asked if they'd like me to list them then I'm happy. For me,  those few moments have been well spent as it makes it more difficult for the insurers to suggest that I have somehow attempted to withhold information. It's a real belt and braces approach.

I don't disagree hotrod. Your arguments make perfect sense. However, sadly, the world in which we live does not.

 

The emphasis in some companies has shifted from them extracting information to buyers providing it.  Many insurers state in their small print that the policy holder needs to declare all 'non-standard' items. Items for which an extra payment has been made are by their nature non-standard. Many even state that the policyholder must inform them immediately of 'significant factors that may have a bearing upon the policy or the policyholder'. So if you have an argument in the street do you need to tell them? Clearly insurers could argue that there could be a significant increase in the likelihood of your car being vandalised following this.

 

Whilst I think it's crazy to have to declare every extra that has been added, to protect myself in the mine field that is insurance, I will do exactly that. Of course, you're right, lots of companies are not interested and that's great.  But as long as I've offered the information that the car does have a selection of factory fitted extras and I've asked if they'd like me to list them then I'm happy. For me,  those few moments have been well spent as it makes it more difficult for the insurers to suggest that I have somehow attempted to withhold information. It's a real belt and braces approach.

 

But they explicitly ask for any after market modifications - whereas they do not ask for any factory standard optional extras.. I would class a factory fit optional extra as just that and not a modification (certainly not an after market modification).

 

The small print does indeed hold a mine field of legal context, but when I took out the policy, I answered ALL of their questions truthfully and honestly to the best of my knowledge and I doubt it would stand up in court if they failed to payout because I had a factory optional extra - they are the experts in insurance and not the consumer, therefore they have onus to ask all of the right questions when submitting me and my vehicle for a policy.  If they asked me for any factory options, I would answer them. if they asked for modifications and I lied saying none - they would have substantial grounds to cancel my policy because I lied on the application.

 

The same thing applies when buying a second hand car - how are you to know what is standard equipment and what's an optional extra?  If you could visibly see that the wheels were bigger on your Fabia than all other Fabia's then you may be held to suspect a modification has been made.  That's like asking your average driver to check all aspects of the vehicle to find modifications - it's just not possible for most people, so as long as you state "no modifications to my knowledge", they cannot hold that against you.

 

They can only refuse to pay out if they believe you have lied on application, been unsuitable to drive (drink, drugs or other significant factor) or not declared anything you should have when they asked you.

 

The onus is on the insurance specialists - not the average Joe/Jane in the street. Therefore it's up to them to prove you are at fault.  If you are honest in answering their questions, you cannot legally be held responsible.  Where would this end?  the paint colour is an option you get when buying and red cars have a higher rate of accident than other colours (or used too) do you declare this?  Alloys are sometimes in a choice of  trim - is this to be declared?

 

They are quoting you for a product - it's up to them to decide what matters in quoting for that product and what does not.

 

At the end of the day - if they repair your vehicle to the standard specification and not the optional extra's that's their decision and I'm sure you can take it through all the fine print and legal jargon with them.

 

You are quite right - if you declare all options, they have no legal leg to stand on.  e.g. replacing privacy glass for regular glass is not acceptable if they know about it.

 

At the end of the day - if they wish to charge you more to insure your car because of the options, then that is their choice.  Insurance companies will (and do) hike prices to dissuade people from purchasing, it's all back down to the risk they take.

 

SWMBO's previous £600 Fiat Punto came in at £28,000 (yep that's right 28K) to insure with one company.  They can't discriminate against you - they can only hike prices or refuse to quote.

Fully agree with HotRod.

 

Only the first owner will know if it's not standard, after that how do subsequent owners know that on the car they're buying from a dealer that a heated windscreen wasn't standard (especially when they've looked at a couple of petrol Octavia's and one had it and one didn't..... same as one having front assist and one not).  Manufacturers change the spec all the time - how many times have Skoda changed things in the first 9 months of the Octavia's life?

 

'After market modifications' says it all.

 

Although not to disagree with myself but if someone spec'd a £20K car up to £30K that might be fun explaining why the insurers should give you an extra £10K on a total loss.

 

I love the range of quotes you can get from Compare the Meerkat (you know what I mean) and the like, from £180 to £12,000 (Kawasaki ZX-12R) for the same level of cover... Some insurers just don't want your money.

From Financial Ombudsman website, to paraphrase, if you want a full insurance payout, not reduced or rejected, tell them.  Loss adjusters are there for a reason - adjust the loss one way only.

 

 

the Financial Ombudsman Service approach

Taking account of the law and good industry practice, we approach non-disclosure/misrepresentation cases in three stages. We summarise these three stages below, before describing each one in a little more detail.

1. When the customer sought insurance, did the insurer ask a clear question about the matter which is now under dispute-
2. Did the answer to that clear question induce the insurer; that is, did it influence the insurer’s decision to enter into the contract at all, or to do so under terms and conditions that it otherwise would not have accepted-
3. Only if the answers to both (1) and (2) are "yes", do we go on to consider whether the customer’s misrepresentation was an honest mistake, a dishonest attempt to mislead or due to some degree of negligence.

1. clear questions

The insurer must first provide evidence that it asked the customer a clear question when the customer asked to take out or renew a policy. The insurer may ask questions via a traditional proposal form, which records the answers.

In many cases the transaction will have taken place over the telephone. If there is no evidence, such as a call recording and/or a copy of the statement of facts that the insurer has sent the customer, then we will have to decide what is likely to have happened. If the customer gives a credible account of events, we may find it more likely than the insurer’s version.

A similar statement of fact would be required for internet sales; as would some evidence of the questions asked during the website process,as it existed at the time of the application.

In order for non-disclosure to occur, the insurer must show that it asked clear questions.

2. inducement

Legally, the insurer must establish that the non-disclosure or misrepresentation "induced"(or influenced) its decision to enter into the contract. This was established in Pan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd (Reported [1994] in Volume 3 of the Weekly Law Reports at page 677).

If the insurer cannot prove inducement then the policy will remain valid, even if the non-disclosure was deliberate. The burden of proving inducement will not be high in clear-cut cases. For example, if a customer fails to disclose that their house has serious cracks, we are likely to believe the insurer would not have offered them full buildings insurance.

However, it is rare for cases to be this clear-cut and we will usually require evidence that inducement took place. This may be in the form of a statement from the underwriters and/or a copy of the underwriting manual.

3. the customer’s state of mind

Not all instances of non-disclosure or misrepresentation breach the duty of "utmost good faith". We have identified four types of non-disclosure (deliberate, reckless, innocent, and inadvertent) to help us decide whether, with regard to all the available evidence, the customer acted in breach.

It is possible to deliberately non-disclose without being fraudulent. While dishonesty is one of the essential criteria for fraud, there must also be deception, designed to obtain something to which you are not entitled. For example, a customer might deliberately withhold information they are embarrassed about. Although, in doing so, they are acting dishonestly and deliberately, they are not acting fraudulently because there is no deceitful intention to obtain an advantage.

Only where there is clear evidence of fraud should the insurer retain the premium. In all other cases of deliberate or reckless non-disclosure, the premium should be returned, not least so as to protect the insurer’s position. Retaining the premium could be interpreted as an intention to affirm the contract and/or waive the right to "avoid". Our experience is that most insurers return the premium in any event.

deliberate

Customers deliberately mislead the insurer if they dishonestly provide information they know to be untrue or incomplete. If the dishonesty is intended to deceive the insurer into giving them an advantage to which they are not entitled, then this is also a fraud and – strictly speaking – the insurance premium does not have to be returned.

reckless

Customers also breach their duty of good faith if they mislead the insurer by recklessly giving answers without caring whether those answers are true or false. An example of recklessness might be where a customer signs a blank proposal form and leaves it to be filled out by someone else. The customer has signed a declaration that "the above answers are true to the best of my knowledge and belief", but does not know what those answers will be.

innocent

Customers act in good faith if their non-disclosure is made innocently. This may happen because the question is unclear or ambiguous, or because the relevant information is not something that they should reasonably know. In these cases, the insurer will not be able to "avoid" the contract and (subject to the policy terms and conditions) should pay the claim in full.

inadvertent

A customer may also have acted in good faith if their non-disclosure is made inadvertently. These are the most difficult cases to determine and involve distinguishing between behaviour that is merely careless and that which amounts to recklessness. Both are forms of negligence.

Inadvertence occurs when the customer unintentionally misleads the insurer. This can occur just by failing to read and check the questions and answers thoroughly enough. When this happens there is no breach of the duty of utmost good faith.

For example, a policy application may contain a clear question about motoring convictions and penalty points. The customer discloses a careless-driving conviction but fails to disclose that they have three penalty points for speeding. In that situation, we might believe that the customer genuinely overlooked his conviction. The customer clearly did not intend to mislead the insurer because he disclosed the more serious offence; he simply failed to realise that penalty points were also part of the question. So the insurer should act as it would have done if it had been in possession of the full facts.

Where there has been inadvertent non-disclosure or misrepresentation, we expect insurers to rewrite the insurance. This should be done on the terms they would originally have offered if they had been aware of all the information. In some cases this may result in a proportionate payment; in others it may result in no payment at all. This is because the inadvertently-withheld information would, if disclosed, have led to the firm declining the application altogether.

Everything turns on the individual circumstances. Customers will find it more difficult to prove that they acted inadvertently if they answered several questions badly. To get one or two questions wrong may be regarded as inadvertent; to get several wrong starts to look like recklessness.

I too am with Direct Line & when I told them about my change of vehicle I was asked specifically if the car was the standard spec. The only factory extra was cornering fogs but they did say that any extra fitted above standard spec needs to be declared. It made no difference to the premium. If they know all the facts there is no wriggle room later.

As I ordered the car I know what was extra, however any subsequent owner could well not know as spec does change. Just look at how many changes there have been to the Octavia & Rapid since launch. My car came with standard Front Assist but then that was dropped so how would a new owner know that?

Edited 15 December, 201312 yr by kalpat

Even the comparison sites will request modifications INCLUDING factory fitted extras.

Even the comparison sites will request modifications INCLUDING factory fitted extras.

Just had a look at comparethemarket and it states the following: So if its a mod that's done from the factory, it need not be declared? 

 

A car is modified or adapted when the specification of the car has been changed or upgraded from the manufacturer's specification. Any non-standard modifications need to be disclosed such as changing the car's paintwork or adding alloy wheels, a roof rack or a tow bar.

Skoda Insurance didn't care when I pointed out my factory fitted options. That coupled with the fact they were £100 cheaper than all the usual places meant I went with them.

If you fit anything that improves performance then you MUST declare it to your insurers. With regards to any alterations, performance or otherwise it is always best to notify your insurers. If in doubt do so as insurers will use almost any excuse not to pay up.

With regards to Gap insurance this refunds "to invoice price" so will include any factory fitted or dealer fitted extras shown on the original sales invoice. Kit fitted later won't be coverered.

Copied from AXA site

 

 

Modifications at manufacture
We cover cars which have been fitted with any standard optional extras by the manufacturer or their approved garage before the car was bought for the first time, as long as these modifications do not enhance performance.

Modifications after manufacture
We also cover cars which have had the following modifications at any time, as long as they have been professionally fitted:

• Alarms, immobilisers and trackers
• Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) conversion
• Reversing/parking sensors
• Stainless steel exhaust
• Tow bar

Modifications because of disability
Any modification which has been professionally made to the car solely to enable a disabled driver on the policy to drive legally will be covered - and does not affect the price of the car insurance in any way.

Modifications to audio systems
Cars which have been modified with audio systems valued at up to £1,000 will also be covered, although there is a £500 limit in the event of a claim on audio systems which were not fitted as standard by the manufacturer.

Modifications you can do yourself
Your car will be covered if you have safely fitted a roof rack, roof bars, bike rack or top box to your car yourself.


Tinted windows
Cars which have had tinted windows fitted to the front half of the car after manufacture will not be covered.

Windows tinted at manufacture
Cars which have had any tinted window fitted at the time of manufacture will be covered. If any of these legally tinted windows need to be replaced because of a claim, we will replace them with the equivalent legally tinted window.

Windows tinted after manufacture
Cars which have had tinted windows fitted to the rear passenger sides and rear windscreen after manufacture will be covered. These windows will be replaced with untinted glass in the event of a claim. 
 

Skoda Insurance didn't care when I pointed out my factory fitted options. That coupled with the fact they were £100 cheaper than all the usual places meant I went with them.

Same here - I found Skoda Insurance amazingly good value. The added benefit of using manufacturers sponsored insurance is if you are ever unfortunate enough to have an accident genuine OEM spares are always used and repairs carried out in a Skoda approved repair facility. I know you have the right to insist where your car is repaired but if you do so and it isn't your insurers choice they can refuse to pay for courtesy car etc.

The key to all of this is to truthfully answer all questions asked. Then you won't have a problem. However in the world of online insurance its all too easy to scan read and not look closely at fine print or the listed "assumptions" upon which insurers build qoutes.

In 2007 my house was flooded (storm damage technically) when much of Hull and East Riding went under. Upon arriving at my house to see the damage the very 1st thing my loss adjuster did was check the status of the locks on my front and back doors. I asked "why, I've been flooded not burgled" to which he replied "my job is to minimise or if possible prevent the amount of money my company will pay out in the event of a claim, if you have lied or misled us in anyway I won't pay out..."

My wife had to hold me back as I was understandably upset having seen the ground floor of my home destroyed.

I hadn't lied, they insurance did all they could to minimise there payout. It cist them £72k to repair my home in the end. Imagine if they had found wiggle room!

I could go on with insurance horror stories which family and friends suffered from the same flooding but I'd be here all day. But know this, declare everything and always tell the truth and ask if unsure. Oh, and pick insurance by reputation and experience and not to save a few quid as just like it did in my case it may prove to be the most important purchase you ever make!