Direct Line and Factory Options

[Dieselman]

Do insurance companies have VINs anyway?

The car has a registration number which is linked to the VIN.

I've just done a quote online for my car and not surprisingly, just from the reg number, the correct car details are supplied.

 

[John]

I Have had very good service from Admiral.

Me too.

Anyone who has been with Admiral I would have thought would be familiar with what was asked of the OP.

I clarified what they meant by declaring options and they categorically spelt out to me they meant anything over and above the standard car.

So in the case of our Juke, I listed out what we had specified on top of the basic car e.g. front centre armest.

If you do not do this, they claim they won't cover those options.

How much difference it makes in the scheme of things - who knows.

I don't use DL any more anyway ever since they told me they wouldn't insure a car with modifications (despite no increase in power) despite insuring someone on this forum with a car with similar modifications at around the same time.

Sounds like they've now applied the Admiral option thing too.

Bunch of.

 

[PenelopePitstop]

No one ever asked me about options on my car in Admiral, just modifications and I have no modifications from factory order.

 

[KillerHERTZ]

So an SLK200 with COMAND is an 'SLK200 COMAND'?

Do insurance companies have VINs anyway?

Any options fitted to a car when new are linked to the Datacard - (see all the threads which people ask for). so if for example the SLK200 you mentioned had a damaged dash and was orignally fitted with COMAND, the insurance company would replace it back to its orignal factory spec.
In the past when ive had a prang, the garage call up MB with my VIN number and ask for all the parts needed to fix whatever area is effected, I cant see how having a PP is any different.

MBenzNL who retrofits options is actually licensed to amend this information and add options to this database

 

[flowrider]

When dealing with insurance companies it is better to be safe than sorry. They will happily take your money and then refuse a claim if you did not disclose something. Basically insurance is all about risk, not their risk but yours, the onus is on you to decide what is relevant and declare it. If you make a mistake no matter how innocently then they have got you, claim refused.

David

 

[TDE1]

When dealing with insurance companies it is better to be safe than sorry. They will happily take your money and then refuse a claim if you did not disclose something. Basically insurance is all about risk, not their risk but yours, the onus is on you to decide what is relevant and declare it. If you make a mistake no matter how innocently then they have got you, claim refused.

David

I typed a post, but you put the point rather more succinctly than I.

Here it is anyway!


If I may, then. (As I see not everyone shares my caution when it comes to Insurance / safeguarding one's assets).

We'd like to think that common sense applies when it comes to assessing risk. Not always. A little anecdote..

I had a day-long row this year with a major UK insurer, when they refused to continue cover for a client who had tints (within the legal limits) applied to their side windows.

The member of staff stated that their underwriting manual excluded ANY form of tinted glass, whether standard or optioned (or after-market, though not relevant to this thread).

The argument began.

I eventually mentioned to the staff member that she probably had factory tinted glass in her own car - the answer was no, and neither did any of her colleagues. "What utter nonsense" said I ( much to the delight of my staff - they know when I'm on one). I suggested I might speak to the Senior Underwriter, in order that they could amend their manual. Upon being told it wouldn't make a difference, I suggested she try the white paper-against-window test, and let me have a prompt reply - as most of our book of motor business was potentially uninsured..

Mr Underwriter called me not long after. Some staff had been out to their cars, done the paper test to prove me wrong, and, of course every car they tried had a factory tint. Mr U/w acknowledged the weakness in their issued manual.

Cover continued normally for my client, and the underwriting manual has been amended to allow tints within legal limits.

The moral of my ramble is -

1) You'll normally be speaking to someone on the sales team who wouldn't know an AMG from an MG, let alone clear glass from tinted. As for the a PPP upgrade, well good luck with that.

2) Insurers do not like repudiating claims, but the remaining days of good-old-fashioned-common sense are few. "Computer Says No" mentality is the norm. Not only at quote stage, but during the claim process too.

3) I was not a single policyholder paying a few hundred quid - as a broker we place many millions of pounds worth of business with this insurer, so they pay attention when we're unhappy and we point out anomalies. As a single policyholder, the battle to see sense will be far greater.

4) Believe me or not, an insurer will take a far keener interest in the risk they are covering when a claim is presented than they do at quote stage. Assume that duty of disclosure, and the tenet of utmost good faith still applies to you specifically when getting a quote. Why, for example would voice stress recognition be used by (some) insurers - never at quote stage, but only at claim stage...?

5) Insurers aren't always the bad guys. It's a distress purchase for most of us, but if you've a car worth more than TPO cover, why on earth would one not be 'better safe than sorry'? Don't we all wash our bits when on a promise, or iron our shirts before someone can point out the creases?

6) None of our carriers use the VIN number to check a car's specs at quote stage, and the onus does not rely on them obtaining it and checking for significant upgrades before inception of cover. ABI number and Reg No are the norm, so don't rely on these alone.

Sorry - Pontification isn't what I'm about, but I wouldn't want to see anyone here caught out

 

[BTB 500]

Thanks TDE1.

So to confirm, insurers can't/don't retrieve the precise build spec. for an individual car from the registration number. Hence the onus is on us to declare any known additions to the standard specification for that model, if asked. Or risk a claim being rejected if the car gets inspected after an accident.

I'm assuming there will be a 'reasonableness' (?!) clause somewhere. I.e. an average person buying a 15 year old car (for example) wouldn't necessarily be expected to know that the particular alloys on it were an option all those years ago rather than standard fit, and would be unlikely to be penalised for failing to declare them. But at the other extreme, somebody buying a new (or nearly new) car would be expected to have a much better idea of what optional upgrades it has.

??

 

[IanA2]

Thanks TDE1.

So to confirm, insurers can't/don't retrieve the precise build spec. for an individual car from the registration number. Hence the onus is on us to declare any known additions to the standard specification for that model, if asked. Or risk a claim being rejected if the car gets inspected after an accident.

I'm assuming there will be a 'reasonableness' (?!) clause somewhere. I.e. an average person buying a 15 year old car (for example) wouldn't necessarily be expected to know that the particular alloys on it were an option all those years ago rather than standard fit, and would be unlikely to be penalised for failing to declare them. But at the other extreme, somebody buying a new (or nearly new) car would be expected to have a much better idea of what optional upgrades it has.

??

Bill, I think you've just opened another can of worms

 

[TDE1]

Thanks TDE1.

So to confirm, insurers can't/don't retrieve the precise build spec. for an individual car from the registration number. Hence the onus is on us to declare any known additions to the standard specification for that model, if asked. Or risk a claim being rejected if the car gets inspected after an accident.

I'm assuming there will be a 'reasonableness' (?!) clause somewhere. I.e. an average person buying a 15 year old car (for example) wouldn't necessarily be expected to know that the particular alloys on it were an option all those years ago rather than standard fit, and would be unlikely to be penalised for failing to declare them. But at the other extreme, somebody buying a new (or nearly new) car would be expected to have a much better idea of what optional upgrades it has.

??

That's about the size of it, BTB. I had hoped to have a play about on our software at work today to provide specific examples, but I had to, well.... work.

The reg no will throw up what's called an ABI number (not to be confused with the insurance group). I recall it‘s six or seven digits long. This is a number given to a specific make and model, and is the same for all examples of that specific make/model. For example all 2005 E55k's will have the same ABI number eg 534886.

Yes, there is a degree of reasonableness. Info must be given to the best of your knowledge, but the Ombudsman would be likely to overturn a repudiation if it believed that the policyholder had genuinely not known about a material fact.

Playing devil's advocate, it seems to me that many people are happy to claim that insurers will always try and wriggle out of paying by whatever means possible. Could not the same be said about some policyholders?

 

[TDE1]

In fact the ABI code for E55k's 2002-on is 32040401 (its been a quiet start ).

Tim