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

[st13phil]

Every other company bar two approached by the brokers gave a categorical refusal to cover PPF.

That single sentence, in and of itself, is illuminating.

Unlike, say, 40 years ago much motor insurance risk assessment is automated so the default response from an underwriter to something not already in the rating system is to either decline or to offer a grossly unattractive premium. That the majority of the panel of insurers used by a specialist broker all refused cover suggests that either a) PPF is considered to be a risk that they're not prepared to underwrite (unlikely), or b) that even the specialist underwriters don't know how to rate it which is extraordinary, considering the popularity of at least partial PPF.

Thanks for the informative post, and glad you've "dodged a bullet".

 

[DGAMG63S]

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

Because it's expensive to apply, even a simple front end PPF covering bonnet, wings, bumper and side skirts. That cost is in addition to any bodywork or paintwork if you damage it.

On the point about a total body PPF, it's not so unusual, especially when you're dealing with the edges between covered and non-covered panels and looking to blend how it looks. Different subject, though.

 

[Will]

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

As insurance is based upon risk, it’s probably an algorithm that identifies PPF/wrapped cars as higher risk/more hassle to repair.

Perhaps PPF/wrapped cars are more likely to be driven with a greater degree of risk, aside from any cost of repair?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I have put PPF on the door sills to prevent the chrome strips being scratched. Maybe I should inform my insurance company?

 

[st13phil]

^ Strictly speaking, yes.

 

[oldguy57]

I assume then that, for example, putting plastic cheap seat covers on your vehicle would be treated the same by Axa and others. I still think it would be worthwhile referring to the Ombudsman, they will have looked at many cases where undisclosed mods have had no impact on the risk or indeed a claim, particularly if an Insured had no idea that a modification had been carried out by a previous owner. I suspect there will be legal case law as well.
In the case of property insurance the courts have decided several times that none disclosure of facts irrelevant to an incident can't be relied on to repudiate a claim. The Ombudsman has agreed. Obviously this does not affect the third party's liability.

 

[Slartibartfast]

^ Strictly speaking, yes.

I've just spoken to my insurer (First Central) who kept me on hold for about 10 minutes to check the "small print". I was then informed that providing the film does not change the colour of the car then it would not be classed as a "modification" and is therefore allowed under my standard policy.

 

[st13phil]

I was then informed that providing the film does not change the colour of the car then it would not be classed as a "modification" and is therefore allowed under my standard policy.

Good - and perfectly logical as it's just a localised film application. That said...

If you haven't already, I would make contemporaneous notes of the conversation, including the date and time, and file them somewhere safe just in case someone has a change of heart if you were unfortunate enough to raise a claim.

 

[st13phil]

In the case of property insurance the courts have decided several times that none disclosure of facts irrelevant to an incident can't be relied on to repudiate a claim.

While that is true, being pedantic, in the instant case AXA is not repudiating a claim, rather they're terminating cover which they say they wouldn't have offered in the first instance if the PPF had been declared.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Since the PPF was not relevant to the claim......

An argument that won't wash......you could reasonably argue that with any mod....how often do they cause the crash?....never? Eg.You tuned the car to 1000 brake....But crashed out at 30mph using perhaps 100 horse......in your argument you should be covered?....I think not.

 

[DGAMG63S]

An argument that won't wash......you could reasonably argue that with any mod....how often do they cause the crash?....never? Eg.You tuned the car to 1000 brake....But crashed out at 30mph using perhaps 100 horse......in your argument you should be covered?....I think not.

I'm inclined to agree with ALFA. Disclosure is pretty black and white and it's always well stated what can happen if you don't disclose. My issue (my fault?) was not even thinking that PPF was disclosable. I appreciate that if the car is stolen then the PPF has little bearing on someone choosing to steal it, but what if the car is damaged in the process? It's going to cost more to fix, which is the central issue with PPF; it's more expensive to put right than a standard repair. Full body PPF can be upwards of £4k, just a front end well into four figures. As an aside, it needs a good surface, so reputable outfits often paint correct prior to fitting, even on something brand new.

I think it's a poor approach by insurance companies not to offer cover (for which there's no obligation, of course), place a sensible premium loading on it or alternatively leave the PPF liability with the owner.

 

[markjay]

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

For the same reason that your occupation or your marital status etc could make a difference.

Underwriters have departments that specialise in calculating risk (just as bookies calculate odds), and all they need do is find a correlation, without being judgemental regarding the cause.

If some underwriters find that cars with PPF are statistically more involved in clams, then they will increase the premium or refuse cover. From memory, this used to be the case with 'go faster' stripes when they were in vogue back in the eighties...

The unspoken premise here is that people who do a, b, or c are more likely to drive fast or recklessly, and therefore more likely to have a claim, and as long as the insurers' claim statistics support this correlation, they do not need to explain it (and no one can argue with them).

In fact, this is also the reason why your premium goes up if you are involved in a no-fault accident - this is not a judgement regarding your driving, it is just a reflection of the fact that insurers find a correlation here, i.e. very careful drivers will be less involved in all accidents, at fault or no-fault. BTW, in some states in the US there's a rule that says that the party that had 'the last chance to prevent the accident' is at fault, regardless of the traffic laws - i.e. if you ram a car that should have given way but didn't, while you had ample time to stop, then you will be at fault.

 

[Will]

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.

It doesn’t work like that though. A bit like putting a bet on once the horses have come in.

If they allow that, everyone would be at it.

Using the logic above, if we all drive cars with modifications and don’t pay the correct premium we will be fine all of the years that we don’t make a claim and potentially defraud insurance companies out of money in premiums?

If you make changes to the vehicle or policy during the term you can of course usually pay the extra (if your insurer allows the changes) but you can’t cheat them out of the correct premium (intentionally or not) then expect them to play nice once you’re involved in a claim.

As said though, I appreciate the example in this thread seems minor but it’s for the insurer to decide on how to proceed (not wishful thinking!)

Perhaps they’re fed up with this sort of thing - I’m sure that many of the modified cars on the roads don’t declare everything, this is perhaps the tip of the iceberg. One thing is for sure though that they (AXA) do not seem keen on PPF wraps.

Insurance is basically a contract that you enter into and you are bound by the T&Cs of this.

 

[MYE63]

Hi All

Thank you for the messages

The final verdic is they are classifying it as a "wrap" and that it changes the specifications of the car

I rang directl line insurance and also Churchill car insurance who both said it's not classified as a modification rather a protection of the paint.

The insurance is "void" however its on the basis of fraud which also means I don't have to disclose it on some insurances for example Direcline there where not bothered that it was voided as I hadn't committed fraud

I will definitely be taking this to the ombudsman as its left me with a hefty bill going forward and potentially for a very very long time

 

[st13phil]

I will definitely be taking this to the ombudsman as its left me with a hefty bill going forward and potentially for a very very long time

I hope it works out for you.

Please come back and update this thread with any developments.

 

[Scooby_Doo]

Just had a look on ebay , there are hundreds of new listings for used AMG badges on there since this afternoon.

 

[oldguy57]

While that is true, being pedantic, in the instant case AXA is not repudiating a claim, rather they're terminating cover which they say they wouldn't have offered in the first instance if the PPF had been declared.

Yep I got that, merely commenting on what would happen in the event of an actual claim being turned down. I suspect that with the likes of ppf the decision is more computer says no rather than a reasoned analysis on a case by case basis. But that is what underwriting amounts to nowadays and it won't change any time soon.

 

[Petrol Pete]

From post #44

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

Anyone who has stuck an AMG badge on their non AMG car had better go peel it off !

But( (seriously) how does that work with AMG 'line' and 'R' line in the VW world and others that come out of the factory like that ? Just a small premium hike on the cooking version I suppose . Could be that the insurance companies assume that the crooks know the difference between a real AMG and a diesel with a badge stuck on it. ?

It's an interesting topic as there are many out there who try to make their cars look like something they are not (faster and more desirable) who seem to be risking quite a lot in doing so.

End of thread hijack.

 

[Petrol Pete]

I have put PPF on the door sills to prevent the chrome strips being scratched. Maybe I should inform my insurance company?

Do that . Then come back and let us know how that worked out for you.

 

[Petrol Pete]

How much would it cost the OP to peel this stuff off and move on. ?

I would take a guess that almost every super/hyper car out there has some element of PPF on it somewhere . I know people who own that kind of car tend to have a few bob but they don't like throwing it away . I wonder if they have all declared PPF ? I would guess that most use specialist insurance brokers though. .

Must say I am with the OP on the 24 hr thing . At least give the bloke a week .