Insurance for convertibles

A warning to convertible owners - a lot of insurers seem to have put in a clause in their policy under "theft" that the car is not covered if left with the top down or the doors not locked.

This is a bit tricky with my MGA which does not have door locks, and as putting the hood up and down is a long business, I often leave it for short periods with just the toneau on.

Talking to my broker they have agreed to put in a clause that if locks were not originally fitted they need not be used but are adamant that whenever the car is left unattended the hood must be up. In the extreme, this makes buying petrol a lengthy business if I have to put up the hood every time I go to pay and, is it insured if left in the garage with the hood down? These might be extremes but how much do you trust them not to try and wriggle out of a claim.

So, check your policy.

Malcolm

Reply to
Malcolm
Loading thread data ...

I would think the toneau is the same as a hood - neither off much protection from theft.

My suggestion would be to talk to the insurance company directly and get it clarified in writing what they have to say.

If you can't get any satisfactory answers then its time to seek another insurance company.

Its not that you want to have your car stolen and I think also if you take other measures to protect your car (or ask what measures from the company) that would ensure it harder for it to be stolen then that should suffice and exclude the other provisions in your policy.

My policy does not contain anything like that but you have to own a vintage, classic or limited edition to have insurance with them. Started by people, who looked after there cars and appreciate what they own (classics), who were over charged or refused insurance. They found there was a lower risk factor with this group of people.

The company was bought out by a major insurance group but still maintain the basis of what it was setup to achieve.

Insurance companies and new car warranties stink and only there protect those companies able to afford good legal advice not the consumer. Most policies only work one way.

Next time I buy a new car, the warranty terms will be mine, not there's. If they don't like that they can keep the car.

r
Reply to
Rob

It's not only convertibiles that produce silly clauses and conditions from insurance companies. I'm currently having great fun with insurance quotes for a Range Rover. A lot of the big companies insist that before they will insure it that it must be fitted with a Thatcham Cat2 equivalant imobiliser.

Now this would make sense if it was a new range rover. It's not. It's a 1989 RR TDi which is probably worth £1500 at best, and this one is certainly not in best condition. Far from it, it's a tatty off-roader. But, because its a "prestige" vehicle it's gotta have an imobiliser.....

Mind you, as the big companies unerringly produce the most expensive quotes anyway, I shall not be using them. Just for reference, a certain premier insurance firm which claim not to be fleecing you because they don't deal via middle men produced a quote double that of the cheapest offer i could find. And Norwich Union should be ashamed of the £1081 the quoted me, over 4 times the best quotes.

Alex

Reply to
Alex

Seems a nonsense to me. The hood - and door locks if fitted - on this sort of car offer f**k all protection against theft. Anymore than the ignition switch does. It could be argued that mechanical protection (crook lock type of thing) would be all the more obvious with the hood down and deter a thief.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Where are you? I'm central London, on street parking only, and got a decent quote from DL which I accepted on an SD1 with the same engine as the Range Rover. But worth rather more. Actually cheaper than my previous classic policy *and* without the restrictions on use.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

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.