'Gap insurance' for classics?

Not actually true - it is possible to insure for replacement value. Which is not, of course, necessarily the same as what you've sunk into the thing...

Reply to
Ian Dalziel
Loading thread data ...

Phileaus Leaius gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Thank you. Sometimes, I wish a few more people would master that basic skill.

I replied to one point only - the one which I left in. The other crap, the waffle and toy-throwing I snipped out - didn't deserve an answer.

Ever heard the phrase "Ask a stupid question..."?

Reply to
Adrian

Oh, right. So you agree that a subjective number is a better representation than an objective one? Hmmm, _odd_ theory, but I guess you have your reasons...

Yes, I have. Its very nicely debunked by an opposing phrase, that there's no such thing as a stupid question.

Reply to
Phileaus Leaius

It's a shame that this thread has attracted so much attention from some of the variously-challenged regulars, as I don't think it is a daft question at all.

I can't answer the OP's question, in the sense of pointing to a policy from a particular insurer, but the basic principle isn't unreasonable, as illustrated by two examples which many of us will have encountered.

Most house contents insurance policies are nowadays based on "new for old", with a few minor exceptions (clothes, etc), and require you to assess the total cost of replacing all your possessions with new, equivalent ones. A paperback book may only have cost a few pence from a charity shop, but in the event of a claim, even one unrelated to that book, an assessor would look at the cost of replacement with a new copy, not the amount you'd get if you put it on eBay. They assess the premium on that basis, and pay out on that basis. So it's not true to say "Insurers have and will only ever insure whatever is being insured for its market value"

I once a owned a rather splendid, large, Edwardian semi: nicely detailed, good quality joinery, ornate plasterwork, large, high rooms, and with a four-car garage. Unfortunately, it was also on a very busy road in one of the less favoured areas of Derbyshire, so its market value was around 60% of its rebuilding cost. My insurers calculated a premium based on its rebuilding cost, and did not include a "write-off" clause. Isn't this an exact analogy to the OP's requirement? Insurers have even thought of things like betterment, so the OP would have to cough up if he wanted the 7 cylinder engine put in his rebuilt Spagthorpe.

The only other glimmer of hope I could offer to the OP would be to look for a policy with a "Retention of Salvage" clause. I insure some classics with Richardson Hosken, aka RH Specialist Insurance, and if get an agreed valuation on one of the cars, then wrap it round a tree, I get the agreed value, _and_ I keep the bits, with no deduction for their "scrap" value. Not what the OP would ideally like, but better than seeing his car swinging from the Hiab.

Reply to
Kevin Poole

The rebuild formula is based on doing likely repairs after a major incident - fire or water damage etc - and restoring to as was. But if the house was 'totalled' would they pay more than market value for a similar one? Most would want to simply move under those conditions rather than wait for site clearance and the construction of a new house.

I'm in the opposite position - or was. I bought this Victorian house in the '70s and the rebuilding insurance value - set by the BS - was twice what I paid. Over the years this has been index linked but was recently only somewhat about 1/3rd the market value. And we wonder why there has been a property crash in some areas...

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I was being simplistic.

Reply to
Conor

Indeed, because there is no proof that he got good value for money in the rebuild. I've just finished (bar the hood) my Herald. Starting from a painted body on a rolling chassis I spent about a thousand pounds in parts and precisely zero in labour. I could, had I been rich, stupid and boring, paid someone to do it, in which case I'd estimate another =A35,000 in labour costs. Or =A310k if I'd persuaded a BMW main dealer to do it.

Ultimately all that matters to the insurance company, and to me, is "How much would it cost to get another one like it?"

Ian

Reply to
Ian

Are you saying that a car on which the owner has done 1,000 hours is worth =A325k less than an identical one on which a professional restorer has done the 1,000 hours?

Ian

Reply to
Ian

No, I'm saying that one of those cars has a bigger sheaf of bills that they can point at than the other.

Reply to
Phileaus Leaius

So what? How can the value of the car depend on anything other than the current condition of the car?

Ian

Reply to
Ian

Very good.

It's not your car, it's my scruffy old 2CV which I am, at your suggestion, insuring for whatever amount I like. In this case, one million pounds.

OK, so here's how they do the repair. They salvage a single wheel nut, and replace every other part of the car ... with a replacement bought for =A31,000. OK for them to charge =A310k for that?

But that's NOT what you're trying to do. You are trying to insure your car for whatever it has already cost to get it into a particular condition, and that will almost always be more than you'd have to spend to buy a car in that condition.

Let me give another example. An enthusiast fully restores two Morris Minor Travellers. It costs him =A310,000 to do each one, and at the end they are, to all intents and purposes, identical.

He sells you one for the market rate of =A35,000, ruefully accepting the loss. Two days later you roll it, resulting in a total loss. The other car is up for sale.

Should your insurance company pay you the =A310,000 to restore a car to the same condition as yours or the =A35,000 to buy a car in the same condition to yours?

Ian

Reply to
Ian

Thats okay, I dont _want_ to insure your scruffy old 2CV. I want to insure _my_ car, which is as stated above. So, that pretty much dispenses with your entire above para, then.

Again, no direct replacement exists for the car _I_ am talking about. So your scenario cannot apply

FFS, what part of this are you having a hard time understanding. YOU. CANT. BUY. A. CAR. IN. THAT. CONDITION.

I'm sorry, you obviously have a reading comprehension problem. May I suggest LearnDirect?

Reply to
Phileaus Leaius

Phileaus Leaius gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

OK, fine.

So let's say you have the last extant example of some unloved & low- valued '70s bit of yawnsville tin. It gets destroyed by fire.

Should the insurance pay out the market value of it (three rusty washers) or the cost of completely remanufacturing it?

Maybe it's the last remaining RHD version. Should the insurance pay for the cost of converting an immaculate LHD car?

Reply to
Adrian

Erm, no. You said I should be able to insure my car for whatever I liked, so I am starting from there and pointing out some consequences.

The arguments still apply. You simply cannot expect the insurers to cough up for the money you spent building the car, because there is no guarantee that you did that the most economic way.

You have already conceded, as I recall, that two identical cars build by amateur and professional labour would, in your scheme of things, be worth vastly different amounts of money. Well, given that a "cheap" version is possible, why should your insurers give you the money to do it the "dear" way?

That's because you seem to be defining the stack of bills as part of the condition.

It would be helpful if you could address the issue and avoid ad hominem attacks. Thanks.

Ian

Reply to
Ian

Then you'll have to argue the merits of your own particular case to whosoever grants you the policy. I'll argue mine, based on the facts above which are those that apply to my circumstance.

You're forgetting my initial question. Where can I buy an *additional* policy, over and above the standard level of cover. I want my insurance policy to pay out the agreed market value, of £11K, and my additional policy that I'm happy to pay extra for, to pay out the remaining £3K to recreate what I have.

He shouldn't. I haven't asked him to. I've asked him to pay the agreed value only. Then the secondary policy should pay out "to do it the dear way", because they accepted my premium in exchange for a promise to do so.

Not at all. I'm defining a particular standard, howsoever obtained, and a particular specification. If the insurance company can persuade someone to do that for five grand, hey, they're 'up' a nice contribution to their Christmas party. I dont give a shit how much it costs, I just want a particular result.

I pointed out that you have consistently failed to understand the question, and a possible solution to this.

Reply to
Phileaus Leaius

Remanufacturing. Because they accepted my 'bet' - I bet that I would need to claim within a period of less than the equivalent amount of premiums, and they bet that I wouldn't.

If thats their most cost effective way of replacing 'like for like', then I'd guess thats the method they'd choose. Its up to them - all I want is the resulting vehicle, by whatever method.

Reply to
Phileaus Leaius

Phileaus Leaius gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Fine. As I've already said... Go and find somebody who'll sell you that policy.

Nobody here knows of one.

If you can't find one either, then you've clearly got a nice little niche business opportunity. Good luck with it. Don't forget to advertise in the classic mags - I'm sure there's other people who'd agree with you that it's a policy they'll pay a bit extra for.

Reply to
Adrian

I've previously conceded that your view must be nearer right than my own, otherwise such policies would be visibly available. But the mere fact that it doesn't currently exist shouldn't be taken to read that there's something 'wrong' with the concept. As I implied previously, its all a question of odds, and where there's odds you'll always, but always, find a bookie. If he feels the odds are in his favour, he'll take any bet at all. There's definitely one who'll give me superb odds that my grandson wont be world snooker champion before he's 21. And I've not *got* a grandson yet!

Reply to
Phileaus Leaius

"Please do not feed the wild animals"....

Reply to
Jerry

"Please do not feed the wild animals"....

Reply to
Jerry

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.