PPF on the car have you declared it with insurance? INSURANCE VOIDED

[m80]

Just to say that the car is wrapped in the stuff.
It would involve extra cost to insurance in many circumstances, and they are reasonable to consider a higher premium because.

In the event they might have suggested that their responsibility is to return the car to factory spec', or the spec' of any declared modification, and any additional repairs of the film would be your own responsibility.

I imagine you have a cr*ppy attitude school leaver looking to flex his puny muscles. Then you have the challenge, and the debate is merely a game to them.
Is it possible to speak to a more mature person above them?

In truth the more you advertise this the more you help them by making people afraid of not declaring to insurance (and being charged extra). After all I haven't told them about my after market rear wiper motor, I hope it doesn't go up in flames, because I replaced the fuse also and that's not MB spec' either.

Anyone remember those that were charged extra when they declared fitting winter tyres?

 

[23 Romeo Tango]

PPF is pretty obvious too unless the driver is Stevie wonder....

You must have only witnessed seriously poor PPF jobs if you think it is pretty obvious………
I had PPF on a previous car………. I and everyone who looked at the car couldn’t see any difference in the appearance……….. The finishing edges were wrapped behind the panel and not visible…….…. Even with the bonnet/doors open it was very difficult to find the edge of the PPF as it was finished at a natural break or fold…………

Obvious or not, it doesn’t help the OP.

Personally, I wouldn’t expect any insurance to cover re-application of PPF, but IMO voiding cover is very harsh in this situation.

 

[markjay]

MYE63,

If a PPF car is nicked off the policyholder's driveway would AXA deny the claim citing PPF modification? Could cost the unaware mucho moolah.

Go on a social media blitz to, hopefully, shame AXA into changing their mind & also to alert other car owners how exposed they are if AXA is their ins. co.

I don't think that AXA are avoiding payment in this case, and by giving the OP 24 hours notice they are in fact confirming that the car is currently insured (and if it gets stolen before the 24 hours are out, then they would presumably pay). It's just that they won't insure the car going forward. And you are probably right if you are suggesting that they would have to show some connection between the undeclared mod and the insured event in order to avoid payment - e.g. that the car became more attractive to thieves etc.

 

[Mr. B]

‘Auto Express was also recently contacted by a reader who informed us the paint protection film applied to his cars was deemed to be a modification, and his insurer refused to renew his policy.’

Car modification: impact on insurance cover revealed | Auto Express

Exclusive investigation into car modification reveals that even innocuous upgrades can affect your insurance premium

www.autoexpress.co.uk

 

[ALFAitalia]

OP reckons the TP knew it was his fault, but that doesn’t mean the TP insurer has admitted/accepted liability.

They would not be liable even if it was the Third Parties fault. He had an undeclared mod, was therefore uninsured and therefore should not have been on the road to have the accident. That will be their get out I would think. Same as when my mate accidentally let his bike insurance lapse by two days and a bin lorry reversed into it whilst parked at the side of the road....didn't get a penny as it should not have been there.

 

[ALFAitalia]

You must have only witnessed seriously poor PPF jobs if you think it is pretty obvious………
I had PPF on a previous car………. I and everyone who looked at the car couldn’t see any difference in the appearance……….. The finishing edges were wrapped behind the panel and not visible…….…. Even with the bonnet/doors open it was very difficult to find the edge of the PPF as it was finished at a natural break or fold…………

Obvious or not, it doesn’t help the OP.

Personally, I wouldn’t expect any insurance to cover re-application of PPF, but IMO voiding cover is very harsh in this situation.

Not visually....(although you can see the edges in places)...But it feels very different....unless you never wash it!

 

[Will]

They would not be liable even if it was the Third Parties fault. He had an undeclared mod, was therefore uninsured and therefore should not have been on the road to have the accident. That will be their get out I would think. Same as when my mate accidentally let his bike insurance lapse by two days and a bin lorry reversed into it whilst parked at the side of the road....didn't get a penny as it should not have been there.

This I’m not so sure about, he had a policy in place just an undeclared PPF wrap. AXA have given him 24 hours notice before cancellation even being aware of the modification.

This does not affect TP liability and he has no contract with them, they have a duty to cover if found liable.

 

[markjay]

...This does not affect TP liability and he has no contract with them, they have a duty to cover if found liable.

I guess it's a mixed blessing, because had he not used his own insurer as an accident management company (which is what he did in effect), he would have never known about the issue with his current policy cover.

 

[st13phil]

He had an undeclared mod, was therefore uninsured and therefore should not have been on the road to have the accident.

This is incorrect (from knowledge gained as as a result of being on the winning end of a claim against a driver whose insurance company voided his policy).

In the event that a motor insurer voids a policy due to non-disclosure (or for other reasons), they cannot by law avoid liability to a third party. What they do is refuse to indemnify the errant policyholder, which means they settle the third party's claim against their policyholder and then sue that policyholder to recover their costs.

 

[markjay]

...In the event that a motor insurer voids a policy due to non-disclosure (or for other reasons), they cannot by law avoid liability to a third party. What they do is refuse to indemnify the errant policyholder, which means they settle the third party's claim against their policyholder and then sue that policyholder to recover their costs.

Exactly that

 

[st13phil]

I feel for the OP on this, and while if I were to be in his position I would explore all avenues of appeal, I fear he may be unsuccessful.

There is a prevailing attitude amongst many that changes they make to their vehicle "aren't really a modification" so they don't declare it to their insurer. Unfortunately, the insurer holds all the aces on this for it is they, and they alone, who determine what they class as a modification. The fact that some insurers don't class PPF as a modification while AXA do may well be the case, but the OP's contract is with AXA so their rules apply.

The argument between it being PPF or a wrap is somewhat undermined by the fact that the whole car is covered in the film, rather than just (say) the leading edges of a few panels susceptible to stone chipping. Had the latter been the case I suspect that the OP would have had a stronger argument with the Ombudsman but that's not the case. My view - which is an opinion and not fact - is that his only hope is that the Ombudsman takes the view (as he did when some insurers tried to void policies on the basis of undeclared modifications when cars were fitted with different style and size winter wheels) that the modification is trivial and that different insurers different stances on their fitment led to the reasonable belief that it wasn't a declarable modification. That said, my gut feel is that is unlikely as it is a whole body wrap.

I do think that AXA have been harsh in voiding the policy as it has massive consequences that are somewhat disproportionate, but what else could they do if they class a wrap as a modification and it was not declared?

 

[MYE63]

You must have only witnessed seriously poor PPF jobs if you think it is pretty obvious………
I had PPF on a previous car………. I and everyone who looked at the car couldn’t see any difference in the appearance……….. The finishing edges were wrapped behind the panel and not visible…….…. Even with the bonnet/doors open it was very difficult to find the edge of the PPF as it was finished at a natural break or fold…………

Obvious or not, it doesn’t help the OP.

Personally, I wouldn’t expect any insurance to cover re-application of PPF, but IMO voiding cover is very harsh in this situation.

This is exactly what I mean I don't expect them to pay for the PPF I haven't asked them to do so, happy to cover it at my own cost but to void the whole thing (even thought my insurance is not paying for repairs the TP i think it's unfair)

 

[ChrisPDuck]

...but what else could they do if they class a wrap as a modification and it was not declared?

Since the PPF was not relevant to the claim (i.e. it did not cause the accident), they could charge the OP the difference in premium between what he paid and what he would have paid had he declared it, and maintain cover. That would be the morally correct thing to do IMO. Voiding the OPs policy, with all its consequences, is an extreme and unwarranted reaction.

I have a limited mileage policy. I asked the insurer what would happen in the event that I inadvertently exceeded the allowed mileage then had to make a claim. They said they'd handle the claim as normal, but would deduct an extra amount to cover the difference in the premium for the higher mileage. I was pleasantly surprised by that, because in my previous experience the motor insurance industry is one where they will usually do their utmost to wriggle out of doing what you've paid them to do.

 

[st13phil]

Since the PPF was not relevant to the claim (i.e. it did not cause the accident), they could charge the OP the difference in premium between what he paid and what he would have paid had he declared it, and maintain cover. That would be the morally correct thing to do IMO.

Sadly, my experience of motor insurance is that "the morally correct thing to do" has little bearing on the insurance company's actions.

 

[m80]

but the OP's contract is with AXA so their rules apply.

I don't disagree with your post, but terms need to be fair.

Was it reasonable for the op to understand this is a mod'?
Do the terms of the policy clearly state what makes a mod' a mod'? Where is this line drawn, replacement non MB wheel centres, a seat belt extender in a non monitoring receiver, LED puddle lights.....?
Is their response proportionate to the omission, if it's reasonable that there is one.

It may be that Axa are making a stance on all because of arguments when other more extreme mod's have been fitted.

As an aside, like most wraps, can this film be easily removed?
Surely some temporary changes are acceptable. A mobile holder stuck on the screen sounds to have more potential risk for a couple of reasons.

 

[MrGreedy]

The third party insurance possibly shouldn't differentiate between the different costs of paint vs paint and PPF.
Any difference in costs (if this were an issue via at fault claim with OPs own insurance) is theoretically (on a pure financial basis) a discussion point.
But in this instance, the third party insurance should just get the car put back as it was, regardless of the level of cover of the OPs own insurance.

TBH I can't help think (being paranoid) that the OPs insurance is either a linked company to the TP insurer and they are looking to get out of the claim, or given the minor impact on cover generally available for the addition/declaration of PPF in the market place, that insurers look for any opportunity to do this and it's practiced industry wide (under some good practice guff) knowing the result is it can hike up premiums for 'offenders' to the benefit of the insurance industry (profits) in general. Much like the winter tyres issue.

 

[m80]

Much like the winter tyres issue.

Just to clarify,
I'm not sure of the outcome of the thread I remembered, but if the winter tyre size and spec' are listed in the mo mo's manual insurance can't have any issue.

 

[DGAMG63S]

This is exactly what I mean I don't expect them to pay for the PPF I haven't asked them to do so, happy to cover it at my own cost but to void the whole thing (even thought my insurance is not paying for repairs the TP i think it's unfair)

Firstly, genuine thanks for the original post which I saw late last night. I think you've helped me avoid a potentially expensive problem. I spoke to my insurers (Aviva) today and they confirmed with the underwriters that it is a straight "decline to insure" from them if the car has PPF. I have a BMW M850i with recent full body PPF and have run a Ferrari 599 with partial PPF for two years. To clarify the insurers exact position.

1) It's a clear (no pun intended) failure to declare a modification and will therefore void the policy if you don't tell them the car has PPF
2) They know it gives a level of prevention and damage reduction but they have no interest in that
3) They understand it is not a wrap, does not visually change the car or alter its performance etc.
4) That their systems and processes offer NO option to omit the PPF as something they are liable for i.e. they will not accept repair or replacement at the owners risk

By late morning I had re-insurance in place through the specialist side of a broker, the only slight downside being a requirement for an S5 Tracker on the BMW, unrelated to the PPF. I can live with that as the quote was sensible. Every other company bar two approached by the brokers gave a categorical refusal to cover PPF. The other quote to the one I accepted was for £11,000 on the BMW, simply because of the PPF and that they didn't want the hassle (basically a quote to tell me to take a hike).

I understand the logic when people say it's a crazy situation but I don't think anyone's going to overturn an insurance company's policy on this or beat "computer says no".

 

[BTB 500]

As already commented PPF is normally applied just to areas that are particularly prone to stone chips ... covering the entire car with clear film (seems an odd thing to do?) is no different to using a coloured one i.e. a wrap.

Unfortunately AXA are pretty clear about their stance on modifications:

Car modifications cover a range of things. Anything that was not originally in the vehicle when manufactured is a modification and must be disclosed to your insurer. This includes any changes that were made by a previous owner. If you’re not sure if any changes were made before you got the car, it’s best to check with the previous owner.

Almost all modifications will affect your insurance, no matter what type or what size, with most likely to result in your policy being cancelled

Do I have to declare modifications to my insurer?
In a word: yes. If you don’t tell us about any modifications, your policy will be declared void and any claims that you may have made will not be paid out.

What happens if I don’t declare modifications to my insurer?
Not declaring modifications to your insurer – even if it’s accidental – is usually considered fraud. This will result in your policy being declared void, and any claims you may have made will not be paid. Additionally, if your insurer has to pay a claim made against you by a third party, they have the right to recover these costs from you. Voided policies are also updated on a national database, which may make it more difficult to get insurance in the future. Don’t risk it; declare your modifications in plenty of time, so we can be here for you when you need us.

Effects of car modifications on your insurance policy | AXA UK

AXA’s guide to how car modifications can affect your premium.

www.axa.co.uk

Worth challenging of course, but as also mentioned it does seem they hold all the cards here.

 

[m80]

Why is this stuff such a no no, to some insurance companies?