F30POST
F30POST
2012-2015 BMW 3-Series and 4-Series Forum
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BMW 3-Series and 4-Series Forum (F30 / F32) | F30POST > 2012-2019 BMW 3 and 4-Series Forums > Regional Forums > UK > Car insurance - it really does take the p*ss
European Auto Source (EAS)
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-17-2019, 03:00 AM   #67
4WDriver
Second Lieutenant
85
Rep
244
Posts

Drives: A4 Avant 3.0 TDI/F-Type 3.0
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: West Sussex

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaston View Post
Actually I have a tuning box with app control, so obviously I only turn it on when I'm not on a public road
WTF?
I'm on the fence here but when you get carted off in an ambulance after an accident that was totally NOT your fault but leaving your Chelsea Tractor to the recovery team they might just find the tuning box. What setting it was on will not be relevant. Car modified, giving it enhanced performance capability, not delcared = uninsured.

Now a remap might just be a different story which is why I'm a bit on the fence, but this would be easy pickings.
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2019, 04:08 AM   #68
RobUK
Brigadier General
RobUK's Avatar
United Kingdom
1471
Rep
3,970
Posts

Drives: 340i MPPSK
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sussex, UK

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Leaving aside the moral arguments that this thread has gone down, another interesting point came up and that is of the insurance company voiding your policy for undeclared modifications.

Scenario - you have a collision and make a claim after which the insurance company discover you have undeclared modifications, e.g. a set of Carlos Fandango Wonder Wheels and an extra turbo.

According to Patterson Law (2011) the insurance company can cancel your insurance from the moment they discover your deception, but they cannot cancel it retrospectively. Retrospectively there was a valid policy in place.

Source: https://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/faqs/...trospectively/

There seem to be other articles that support this and yes it feels weird because it suggests that the insurance company are on the hook for something they specifically draw attention to in their terms and conditions. Yes they may pursue you for fraud and it may affect any future insurance you try to arrange but it looks like they can only ever cancel from point of discovery forwards. Whether the insurance company would settle the claim and for how much is another point. Happy for anyone to produce evidence to the contrary

I have twice modified a car, once to respray a car a different colour and the other being the MPPSK on my current car. In both cases I declared the mod to the insurance.
__________________
Life is a state of mind
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2019, 06:36 AM   #69
gippy
Second Lieutenant
United Kingdom
74
Rep
228
Posts

Drives: F32 440i, pre-LCI, w/MPPSK
Join Date: May 2018
Location: UK, Leicester

iTrader: (0)

interesting thread this. I would prefer to err on the side of caution and declare absolutely anything - it does say clearly in my admiral policy document that any non-standard parts have to be declared.

However, it doesn't explicitly say (i did skim through and ctrl+f keyword search so maybe not read thoroughly enough) anything around where the law lies and what are the contractual obligations, in the event of a claim being made and whether performance modifications that were not declared would have any bearing on the outcome, if the accident had nothing to do with speed.

ive read through this thread and though a lot of people are like 'jesus you must declare your life depends on it!' (which is certainly the side of the fence i'm on!) - has anyone got any clear evidence or examples or can show that in their T's and C's on their car insurance whether it actually answers the questions this debate has brought up?

in any case, actually it would be irrelevant whatever the answer is.
lets suppose the chances of it not mattering are 5% Or even 50%....for the sake of a few hundred quid to cover yourself for an event that could cost thousands, tens of thousands.....it makes no sense to not declare.

declaring the MPPSK to admiral cost me precisely 19....which was the bloody admin fee.

EDIT: with regards to the OP....does seem a bit steep but i'm sure this depends so much on location and other factors as others have already mentioned so who knows what could be causing it?
if we knew exactly how their risk models worked it would certainly help us all!
I've held my license for 15 years, last 10 years of no claims/no offences, live in a fairly quiet suburb in leicester - Admiral came up best with 705 for this year for renewing with them.

Given that insurance companies are basically a cartel, and a bizarre model of it being a legal requirement with private monopoly power - and the end result is everyone else being screwed.

Last edited by gippy; 10-17-2019 at 06:49 AM..
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2019, 07:39 AM   #70
MarkH13
Private
United Kingdom
36
Rep
62
Posts

Drives: F32 440i MPPSK, Melbourne Red
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Folkestone, Kent

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gippy View Post
Given that insurance companies are basically a cartel, and a bizarre model of it being a legal requirement with private monopoly power - and the end result is everyone else being screwed.
But that's simply not true - most insurance companies are legally independent entities, who compete extremely hard with each other on price. To suggest that it is a monopoly - a market controlled by one company - couldn't be further from the truth.

It's also worth noting that insurance companies go through cycles of making losses for several years, at which point they then have to increase premiums to make compensatory profits.

Bottom line, it's a pretty tough, price-driven market sector, and the idea that these insurance companies are making sky-high profits by screwing us poor punters is just not true.
Appreciate 1
      10-17-2019, 09:35 AM   #71
isleaiw1
Brigadier General
1946
Rep
4,321
Posts

Drives: F90
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

I'll just leave this here....from The Insurance Act 2015, applicable to all policies from mid 2016...

Duty of fair presentation
Scope of the duty The 2015 Act replaces the existing duty on non-consumer parties to disclose all material circumstances (including any circumstances which it ought to know in the ordinary course of its business) to insurers before entering into an insurance contract.

Knowledge of the parties The 2015 Act specifies what both an insured and an insurer (a) know; or (b) ought to know/are presumed to have known.

Remedies for breach The remedy of avoidance for material non-disclosure will no longer be automatically available to an insurer. Instead, a tiered set of remedies will be available based upon the insured's intent for the breach (whether deliberate or reckless) and the insurer's appetite for the risk in the non-disclosed circumstance (whether the insurer would have still contracted even if on different terms or at a higher premium).

the duty of fair presentation under the 2015 Act and prohibition of "basis of contract" clauses only apply to non-consumer insurance contracts (because the duty of fair presentation and prohibition of basis of contract clauses already applies to consumer insurance contracts under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012); and
the application of the 2015 Act to consumer insurance contracts is mandatory and cannot be contracted out.

So my interpretation:

You have to tell them everyone that you know or should reasonably have known...

if you dont they have a tiered set of remedies - the first thing is whether you were reckless in not telling them and the second whether they would still have insured...

So if you dont tell them you have changed the grille, you will probably be covered.... If you dont tell them you have a switchable tuning box that you had fitted on a car you bought new they would probably claim that was willful and reckless on your behalf and would try to avoid liability and you may have to bring a claim via the ombudsman to test that.

Its not how I would want to be living post a serious accident... but each to their own.
Appreciate 1
      10-17-2019, 10:38 AM   #72
SantaEugence
Private First Class
12
Rep
153
Posts

Drives: F30 330d xDrive Auto
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by isleaiw1 View Post
I'll just leave this here....from The Insurance Act 2015, applicable to all policies from mid 2016...

Duty of fair presentation
Scope of the duty The 2015 Act replaces the existing duty on non-consumer parties to disclose all material circumstances (including any circumstances which it ought to know in the ordinary course of its business) to insurers before entering into an insurance contract.

Knowledge of the parties The 2015 Act specifies what both an insured and an insurer (a) know; or (b) ought to know/are presumed to have known.

Remedies for breach The remedy of avoidance for material non-disclosure will no longer be automatically available to an insurer. Instead, a tiered set of remedies will be available based upon the insured's intent for the breach (whether deliberate or reckless) and the insurer's appetite for the risk in the non-disclosed circumstance (whether the insurer would have still contracted even if on different terms or at a higher premium).

the duty of fair presentation under the 2015 Act and prohibition of "basis of contract" clauses only apply to non-consumer insurance contracts (because the duty of fair presentation and prohibition of basis of contract clauses already applies to consumer insurance contracts under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012); and
the application of the 2015 Act to consumer insurance contracts is mandatory and cannot be contracted out.

So my interpretation:

You have to tell them everyone that you know or should reasonably have known...

if you dont they have a tiered set of remedies - the first thing is whether you were reckless in not telling them and the second whether they would still have insured...

So if you dont tell them you have changed the grille, you will probably be covered.... If you dont tell them you have a switchable tuning box that you had fitted on a car you bought new they would probably claim that was willful and reckless on your behalf and would try to avoid liability and you may have to bring a claim via the ombudsman to test that.

Its not how I would want to be living post a serious accident... but each to their own.
Think that Act is pretty much entirely for non-consumer contracts only so wouldn't apply to usual personal car insurance?

As far as I've seen an insurer can 'void' the insurance (treat it as if it never existed) on the grounds of deliberate non-declaration of modifications.
Given it could be argued any tuning could contribute to the majority of accidents (unless you were parked and someone hit you) and therefore the insurer can void on non-declaration, especially if they wouldn't have agreed to cover the risk - eg my insurer cover no mods therefore if I claimed and didn't declare they'd argue they would never have accepted the risk in the first place and void it - why bother insuring beyond third party? I get the prices can get eye watering, but just from a selfish point of view if I crashed my expensive motor I'd be an idiot to knowingly under-declare as there's a very good chance they'd happily dodge the payout.

Given the very kind of accidents you want cover for - the ones where your car has suffered thousands in damage or is written off - are exactly the ones insurers will start utilising vehicle examiners in, its not worth it IMO.

Oh and you should see the level of inspection carried out if it's a fatal collision, your car will have every little bit examined and if you're already in the sights of the law for a driving offence, the nail in your coffin will be undeclared mods because that'll just be more evidence of recklessness. If they were unsure on fault this could also go against you same as being under the influence - the starting point is pretty much the drunk person was at fault.
Plus you'll get hit with no money for your motor and then being sued by the insurer for their losses in paying out which will bankrupt you and all your assets.
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2019, 10:56 AM   #73
isleaiw1
Brigadier General
1946
Rep
4,321
Posts

Drives: F90
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaEugence View Post
Think that Act is pretty much entirely for non-consumer contracts only so wouldn't apply to usual personal car insurance?

As far as I've seen an insurer can 'void' the insurance (treat it as if it never existed) on the grounds of deliberate non-declaration of modifications.
Given it could be argued any tuning could contribute to the majority of accidents (unless you were parked and someone hit you) and therefore the insurer can void on non-declaration, especially if they wouldn't have agreed to cover the risk - eg my insurer cover no mods therefore if I claimed and didn't declare they'd argue they would never have accepted the risk in the first place and void it - why bother insuring beyond third party? I get the prices can get eye watering, but just from a selfish point of view if I crashed my expensive motor I'd be an idiot to knowingly under-declare as there's a very good chance they'd happily dodge the payout.

Given the very kind of accidents you want cover for - the ones where your car has suffered thousands in damage or is written off - are exactly the ones insurers will start utilising vehicle examiners in, its not worth it IMO.

Oh and you should see the level of inspection carried out if it's a fatal collision, your car will have every little bit examined and if you're already in the sights of the law for a driving offence, the nail in your coffin will be undeclared mods because that'll just be more evidence of recklessness. If they were unsure on fault this could also go against you same as being under the influence - the starting point is pretty much the drunk person was at fault.
Plus you'll get hit with no money for your motor and then being sued by the insurer for their losses in paying out which will bankrupt you and all your assets.
That's true... see this bit....

the duty of fair presentation under the 2015 Act and prohibition of "basis of contract" clauses only apply to non-consumer insurance contracts (because the duty of fair presentation and prohibition of basis of contract clauses already applies to consumer insurance contracts under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012); and
the application of the 2015 Act to consumer insurance contracts is mandatory and cannot be contracted out.

But it was the easiest way to show what fair presentation and impacts are!

So it doesnt apply to consumer insurance as that was covered elsewhere but I only deal in non consumer policies at work and so the idiots guide to insurance act was available to me!
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2019, 10:59 AM   #74
SantaEugence
Private First Class
12
Rep
153
Posts

Drives: F30 330d xDrive Auto
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by isleaiw1 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaEugence View Post
Think that Act is pretty much entirely for non-consumer contracts only so wouldn't apply to usual personal car insurance?

As far as I've seen an insurer can 'void' the insurance (treat it as if it never existed) on the grounds of deliberate non-declaration of modifications.
Given it could be argued any tuning could contribute to the majority of accidents (unless you were parked and someone hit you) and therefore the insurer can void on non-declaration, especially if they wouldn't have agreed to cover the risk - eg my insurer cover no mods therefore if I claimed and didn't declare they'd argue they would never have accepted the risk in the first place and void it - why bother insuring beyond third party? I get the prices can get eye watering, but just from a selfish point of view if I crashed my expensive motor I'd be an idiot to knowingly under-declare as there's a very good chance they'd happily dodge the payout.

Given the very kind of accidents you want cover for - the ones where your car has suffered thousands in damage or is written off - are exactly the ones insurers will start utilising vehicle examiners in, its not worth it IMO.

Oh and you should see the level of inspection carried out if it's a fatal collision, your car will have every little bit examined and if you're already in the sights of the law for a driving offence, the nail in your coffin will be undeclared mods because that'll just be more evidence of recklessness. If they were unsure on fault this could also go against you same as being under the influence - the starting point is pretty much the drunk person was at fault.
Plus you'll get hit with no money for your motor and then being sued by the insurer for their losses in paying out which will bankrupt you and all your assets.
That's true... see this bit....

the duty of fair presentation under the 2015 Act and prohibition of "basis of contract" clauses only apply to non-consumer insurance contracts (because the duty of fair presentation and prohibition of basis of contract clauses already applies to consumer insurance contracts under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012); and
the application of the 2015 Act to consumer insurance contracts is mandatory and cannot be contracted out.

But it was the easiest way to show what fair presentation and impacts are!

So it doesnt apply to consumer insurance as that was covered elsewhere but I only deal in non consumer policies at work and so the idiots guide to insurance act was available to me!
The FCA apply similar principles under their handbook for consumers but deliberate or reckless non-declaration for something as serious as a mod increasing power by 20%, seems an easy out for any insurer. If they can show you knowingly didn't declare it as well, game over.
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2019, 02:34 PM   #75
gippy
Second Lieutenant
United Kingdom
74
Rep
228
Posts

Drives: F32 440i, pre-LCI, w/MPPSK
Join Date: May 2018
Location: UK, Leicester

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkH13 View Post
But that's simply not true - most insurance companies are legally independent entities, who compete extremely hard with each other on price. To suggest that it is a monopoly - a market controlled by one company - couldn't be further from the truth.

It's also worth noting that insurance companies go through cycles of making losses for several years, at which point they then have to increase premiums to make compensatory profits.

Bottom line, it's a pretty tough, price-driven market sector, and the idea that these insurance companies are making sky-high profits by screwing us poor punters is just not true.

compete extremely hard? really?
you realise most of them are subsidiaries of the same group company.
Because its mandated that we all have to buy insurance, they can basically do what they want.

Its the exact same reason drug prices in the USA are so high and what all the fuss is about healthcare over there now.

i googled around and found this from 10 years ago, i can only assume ownership is a lot more concentrated now, https://www.adrianflux.co.uk/blog/20...r-insurer.html
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2019, 02:59 PM   #76
Goneinsixtyseconds
Brigadier General
Goneinsixtyseconds's Avatar
United Kingdom
2059
Rep
4,408
Posts

Drives: X3 M40d
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Chesterfield

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gippy View Post
compete extremely hard? really?
you realise most of them are subsidiaries of the same group company.
Because its mandated that we all have to buy insurance, they can basically do what they want.

Its the exact same reason drug prices in the USA are so high and what all the fuss is about healthcare over there now.

i googled around and found this from 10 years ago, i can only assume ownership is a lot more concentrated now, https://www.adrianflux.co.uk/blog/20...r-insurer.html
Did you read the article to the bottom, there were 24 different groups owning numerous brands. Are you seriously suggesting that 24 companies are fixing prices? Hardly what you'd call a monopoly!
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2019, 03:56 PM   #77
MarkH13
Private
United Kingdom
36
Rep
62
Posts

Drives: F32 440i MPPSK, Melbourne Red
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Folkestone, Kent

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gippy View Post
compete extremely hard? really?
you realise most of them are subsidiaries of the same group company.
Because its mandated that we all have to buy insurance, they can basically do what they want.

Its the exact same reason drug prices in the USA are so high and what all the fuss is about healthcare over there now.

i googled around and found this from 10 years ago, i can only assume ownership is a lot more concentrated now, https://www.adrianflux.co.uk/blog/20...r-insurer.html
Sorry, none of that is true... I'm not an apologist for the industry, but let's not just make up stuff.

Some companies operate as subsidiaries of other companies, but there are also dozens of independent operations, all competing hard to get business, often writing policies at a loss.

And it's just nonsense to say that companies 'can basically do what they want' - this is a very heavily regulated industry, and there are strict guidelines as to what insurers can and can't do.

If you mean they can charge any premium they like, it may be true that there's no regulations governing what insurers charge, but this is a highly commoditised market, with most policies bought on price alone. Companies that charge uncompetitive premiums will not survive.
Appreciate 1
      10-17-2019, 04:33 PM   #78
Watsey
Major General
United Kingdom
2605
Rep
5,514
Posts

Drives: F31 330D sDrive M Sport
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Herts, UK.

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gippy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkH13 View Post
But that's simply not true - most insurance companies are legally independent entities, who compete extremely hard with each other on price. To suggest that it is a monopoly - a market controlled by one company - couldn't be further from the truth.

It's also worth noting that insurance companies go through cycles of making losses for several years, at which point they then have to increase premiums to make compensatory profits.

Bottom line, it's a pretty tough, price-driven market sector, and the idea that these insurance companies are making sky-high profits by screwing us poor punters is just not true.

compete extremely hard? really?
you realise most of them are subsidiaries of the same group company.
Because its mandated that we all have to buy insurance, they can basically do what they want.

Its the exact same reason drug prices in the USA are so high and what all the fuss is about healthcare over there now.

i googled around and found this from 10 years ago, i can only assume ownership is a lot more concentrated now, https://www.adrianflux.co.uk/blog/20...r-insurer.html
You clearly don't understand the economics of the pharmaceuticals industry, nor the motives of the private health insurance companies and political decision-makers.
__________________
Current : F31 330sD, DMS remap, Ohlins Road & Track, Millway Motorsports top mounts, SuperPro poly bushes, Quaife LSD, Stoptech BBK with Pagid RS4-2 pads, Birds ARBs.
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2019, 07:52 PM   #79
gippy
Second Lieutenant
United Kingdom
74
Rep
228
Posts

Drives: F32 440i, pre-LCI, w/MPPSK
Join Date: May 2018
Location: UK, Leicester

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsey View Post
You clearly don't understand the economics of the pharmaceuticals industry, nor the motives of the private health insurance companies and political decision-makers.
well thanks for your contribution there.
Its not hard to understand though, its basic monopoly pricing and lack of competition at the heart of it all, as well as lack of price controls.
Yes there are relatively lots of insurance companies out there compared to say - energy companies - but even then if you work in an industry where the consumer has to, by law, buy the product, it is a license to make huge profit margins.
The economics are not hard to understand...their objective is to maximise shareholder return, and lobby governments hard to create legislation that does not impact on that primary objective.

but please tell me what i'm not understanding in a PM - as its drifting off topic.
Appreciate 0
      10-17-2019, 08:02 PM   #80
gippy
Second Lieutenant
United Kingdom
74
Rep
228
Posts

Drives: F32 440i, pre-LCI, w/MPPSK
Join Date: May 2018
Location: UK, Leicester

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkH13 View Post
Sorry, none of that is true... I'm not an apologist for the industry, but let's not just make up stuff.

Some companies operate as subsidiaries of other companies, but there are also dozens of independent operations, all competing hard to get business, often writing policies at a loss.

And it's just nonsense to say that companies 'can basically do what they want' - this is a very heavily regulated industry, and there are strict guidelines as to what insurers can and can't do.

If you mean they can charge any premium they like, it may be true that there's no regulations governing what insurers charge, but this is a highly commoditised market, with most policies bought on price alone. Companies that charge uncompetitive premiums will not survive.
you contradict yourself in your own answer.
You first say "all competing hard to get business, often writing policies at a loss".

Then finish with "companies that charge uncompetetive premiums will not survive".

You also say its a heavily regulated industry, then acknowledge that "it may be true that there's no regulations governing what insurers charge" - which is surely, from a consumers perspective, a significant factor in the purchasing decision.

It is a zero sum game for them to continue to undercut each other, and some of the main insurance companies that we all use ultimately come under a larger conglomerate.

A simple way to test this is to go and look at the income statements of the largest insurance companies and check out how much they are making.....if it was genuinely the case that they were having to offer lower prices due to the competition, they would not be making the margins they are...
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2019, 03:40 AM   #81
Watsey
Major General
United Kingdom
2605
Rep
5,514
Posts

Drives: F31 330D sDrive M Sport
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Herts, UK.

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gippy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsey View Post
You clearly don't understand the economics of the pharmaceuticals industry, nor the motives of the private health insurance companies and political decision-makers.
well thanks for your contribution there.
Its not hard to understand though, its basic monopoly pricing and lack of competition at the heart of it all, as well as lack of price controls.
Yes there are relatively lots of insurance companies out there compared to say - energy companies - but even then if you work in an industry where the consumer has to, by law, buy the product, it is a license to make huge profit margins.
The economics are not hard to understand...their objective is to maximise shareholder return, and lobby governments hard to create legislation that does not impact on that primary objective.

but please tell me what i'm not understanding in a PM - as its drifting off topic.
I'm not going to PM you information and insights which you can research on Google.

I worked in Pharma for 15 years. The driver's behind drug pricing, drug purchasing, and patient treatment are a little more complex than you seem to want to understand.
__________________
Current : F31 330sD, DMS remap, Ohlins Road & Track, Millway Motorsports top mounts, SuperPro poly bushes, Quaife LSD, Stoptech BBK with Pagid RS4-2 pads, Birds ARBs.
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2019, 08:38 AM   #82
MarkH13
Private
United Kingdom
36
Rep
62
Posts

Drives: F32 440i MPPSK, Melbourne Red
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Folkestone, Kent

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gippy View Post
you contradict yourself in your own answer.
You first say "all competing hard to get business, often writing policies at a loss".

Then finish with "companies that charge uncompetetive premiums will not survive".

You also say its a heavily regulated industry, then acknowledge that "it may be true that there's no regulations governing what insurers charge" - which is surely, from a consumers perspective, a significant factor in the purchasing decision.

It is a zero sum game for them to continue to undercut each other, and some of the main insurance companies that we all use ultimately come under a larger conglomerate.

A simple way to test this is to go and look at the income statements of the largest insurance companies and check out how much they are making.....if it was genuinely the case that they were having to offer lower prices due to the competition, they would not be making the margins they are...
With respect, there's a big difference between you not understanding my points, and me contradicting myself...

Firstly you misunderstand the difference between loss-making and competitive premiums - they are not mutually exclusive. Competitive simply means premiums that are in line with others in the market, whether or not they are profitable or loss-making. There is no contradiction.

Please Google 'insurance cycle' which will give you a better understanding of this.

And regarding regulation, the industry is highly regulated (as it should be to protect consumers), and the premium charged by individual companies is unregulated (as it also should be in a free market economy).

If you understood how insurance worked, you'd also understand that the idea of regulating price in this market is a nonsense, and completely unworkable given the huge number of rating factors involved. (Essentially every applicant has a unique set of rating factors, and therefore has a unique price.)

Finally, in your original post you said that "most of them (insurance companies) are subsidiaries of the same group company" which isn't true, and which I corrected you on. Now in this post you say back to me "some of the main insurance companies that we all use ultimately come under a larger conglomerate" which is really not the same thing at all, and was essentially the same point I made to you in my reply!
Appreciate 1
xenon622.50

      10-19-2019, 06:06 AM   #83
t5pilot
Major
t5pilot's Avatar
United Kingdom
534
Rep
1,218
Posts

Drives: M4 CP
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Yorkshire - UK

iTrader: (0)

Well, this thread's escalated somewhat.
OP, you should, of course disclose mods. However, there seems to be some misconception as to what insurers can & can't do, and that they have some sort of magical powers.
I'll stay on topic, for clarity, in relation to a remap.
For a remap to have any chance of detection, the ECU must be interrogated. The ECU, as well as the car, is my personal property & contains data exclusively owned by me.
No one is plugging anything in without my express written consent - which would never happen. It really is as simple as that.
The very most an insurer can do, is assess it in terms of damage. That's it. They can not examine it. There is a very clear difference between the two.
The ONLY exception to this would be in the event of a fatal (or potentially fatal) road traffic collision. In which case The Police (not the insurers) would carry out a full forensic examination, which would include interrogation of the ECU.
This in itself would not show a remap. Certain data peaks & values may suggest more power delivery than normal values, but that's all it is.
In this worst case scenario, I'd suggest you'd be having more to worry about... Unless you're the fatality.
__________________
/// M-Power ///
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2019, 03:18 PM   #84
Wills2
Barge driver
Wills2's Avatar
United Kingdom
5367
Rep
9,642
Posts

Drives: G11 740d xdrive
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: West Yorkshire

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsey View Post
I'm not going to PM you information and insights which you can research on Google.

I worked in Pharma for 15 years. The driver's behind drug pricing, drug purchasing, and patient treatment are a little more complex than you seem to want to understand.
I'm sure, but Valiant is a great example of price gouging on a wholesale scale and a national disgrace to the US and it was nothing more complex than pure greed.
__________________
G11 740d xdrive/Z4C, Gone F80 M3/F10 M5/F31 335d/e92 M3 x 2/F10 520d x 2/997 C2S/e46 M3/e46 320d/SL320/Touareg 3.2V6/Audi allroad 2.7TDi
Appreciate 0
      10-23-2019, 04:12 AM   #85
ALBEE
Private
ALBEE's Avatar
United Kingdom
1
Rep
89
Posts

Drives: 440i Coupe Individual 96 M3evo
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hampshire

iTrader: (0)

Insurance!

Try Admiral, we've got all these 3 for 760 (just got new premium)

440i with 'M performance' bodykit/exhaust/wheels etc 'declared'
1996 M3 evo convertible (max 2k/year)
Peugeot 208 (by the way, that's the wife's!!!!)

Maybe worth giving them a call?
Appreciate 0
      10-23-2019, 04:21 AM   #86
330XDave
Major
408
Rep
1,024
Posts

Drives: 330d xDrive Touring
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Nottingham, UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALBEE View Post
Try Admiral, we've got all these 3 for 760 (just got new premium)

440i with 'M performance' bodykit/exhaust/wheels etc 'declared'
1996 M3 evo convertible (max 2k/year)
Peugeot 208 (by the way, that's the wife's!!!!)

Maybe worth giving them a call?
875. Hence the whole point of the title of this thread. It really does.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:17 AM.




f30post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST