OEM parts?

[GMB]

Hypothetical question. Your Lexus needs the worn out shocks and springs replacing for example. Lexus want stupid money to do it.

So you go to a suspension specialist and get the best quality replacements that do the job. Sounds Good up to now.

Then your insurance want to know if the car has been modified.

Is the answer: No, I just replaced the worn out suspension. Or is it Yes, I have bought 3rd party stuff that is not Lexus OEM but it costs less and does the job WTF.

In summary: If you replace parts with non OEM is it classed as "modified" and do you have to declare it?

Answers on a postcard please.......

[Cotswold Pete]

According to this web site - in theory any changes to bushes could constitute a mod

Insurance Mods

So if you used poly bushes instead of the originals then that might get you caught.  However if you ragged your car, slammed it into a wall and expected a pay out, I not so sure that they would be looking at the spec of the bushes or the springs unless you have tweaked to uprate cornering and it was obvious that the running gear was out of spec.

So I do not think it relates to non-OEM but what might be classed as modified specification to change the handling/road holding of the car.  

So if someone rear ends you, the car is a right off, I suspect they are not going to pulling the control arms apart to see what the bushes are.

[GMB]

The problem is that you have the chance that they have the opportunity to stuff you by saying that you put on Bilstein shocks or similar and we are not going to pay out.

It's a worry! It's the uncertainty when dealing with the insurance companies. I certainly do not trust any of them.

The stakes are very high.

[J Henderson]

If replacing OEM shocks with, say,  Bilstein B6, I would tell the insurance company nothing.

 

[Malc1]

“ reasonableness “ surely pertains 

OEM type / style replacements all ok whatever the make ….. surely 

changing air to coilovers ask specifically …… that wouldn’t affect the car mode or structure BUT I would ask to clarify 

Vide My personal issue and insurers tell me it’s OK  ……. 16” wheels in substitute for the original 15”  on my 91 Ls400 

…… hopefully sense prevails but if in doubt simply ask them ! 

Malc 

[GMB]

Then if they find out they can stuff you and say that you did not declare a modification and we are not paying.

[GMB]

1 minute ago, Malc1 said:

if in doubt simply ask them

And they put the price up 50%

 

[Malc1]

Just now, GMB said:

And they put the price up 50%

 

Risk dependent surely …… like my wheels …… zero price change 

Maybe it depends on the driver risk too 🤔

Malc 

[Linas.P]

50 minutes ago, GMB said:

Is the answer: No, I just replaced the worn out suspension. Or is it Yes, I have bought 3rd party stuff that is not Lexus OEM but it costs less and does the job WTF.

This is question which has been asked million times and I am sure will be asked million more times. 

It has been also answered million times, but there is no adequate answer to it. My view - anything that makes your car faster, more powerful, more dangerous is modification, anything that significantly increases value of your car and for which you want to be compensates is also a modification. 

Examples - you put supercharger, now your car makes 700hp, that is modification. You have tinted your headlights and tail-lights making them harder to see and for you harder to drive in the dark - that is modification (arguably illegal and invalidates insurance anyway). You have fitted £6,000 worth of custom wheels, and £4,000 worth of air suspension and in case your car is stolen you expect to claim £10,000 more for these parts on top of what IS-F normally costs - that is also modification. You have to declare these, as in the best case scenario you will not get compensated for them if car is written of or stolen, and in worst case scenario your cover may be invalidated altogether. 

Now if you have fitted different wheels which are still within reason and road legal, or if you have painted the callipers, or fitted braided brakelines, or fitted compatible replacement shocks, but you are happy to be paid normal market value in case your car is destroyed or stolen, then these are not modifications and don't need to be declared. If asked I would play ignorance and say I didn't know this is mod, or I acquired the car this way, before doing so I would make sure to read the T&Cs of my specific insurance to make sure there is enough wiggle room to make this claim. So far I have never seen any insurance in T&C requiring to use only OEM parts, this would be ridiculous! They just say something along the lines that car has to be "road legal" and within manufacturers specification. That is why one can replace rather excellent Michelin PSS tyres on IS-F to rather unbelievably dangerous Shaite Road TurboSpeed Crash ZPZF60000 form ones favourite chinesium supplier. In comparison fitting coil-over or aftermarket shocks has way less impact on car than tyre choice.

So my view - I will never be reporting anything, but most obvious mods to insurance and I am not going to be paying extra money for insurance scam. You may choose differently, whatever you do read your contract to make sure you understand what you can get away with and the risk associated.

Or you can as well call your insurance and ask this hypothetical question, I have done so in the past. I have fitted IS300h F-Sport 18" wheels on IS250 which came with 17" wheels, I called the insurance and without answering any questions or giving my name made this "hypothetical" question: "what if I fit 18" wheels from another Lexus, is that mod or not" and their answer was - "no that is completely fine"... "thanks bye!"

So answer to your question - it depends which game you want to play, secondly what your insurance actually written in their T&C. 

[Localhero]

I hope you all phone your insurance when you use V power or premium fuel because that supposedly makes your engine more  responsive 🤫 what does anybody think the insurance assesors actually do when they inspect your car after an accident ?

[GMB]

That's a good logical answer but you forget that the insurance companies just want a reason to shaft you. Logic and reason don't come into it. Your interpretations are irrelevant. It's what they can get away with to cheat you that matters.

Remember you are dealing with snakes and vipers not reasonable beings.

A friend of mine is still worried waiting for the insurance ombudsman to refute a refusal to pay a medical claim for travel insurance. £40,000  - No we are not paying - you made a mistake about pre-existing conditions.... Like I said The stakes are high.

[GMB]

6 minutes ago, Localhero said:

what does anybody think the insurance assesors actually do when they inspect your car after an accident ?

They took our car to bits until they found a superchip that had no relevance to the accident. Don't underestimate what the loss adjusters will do to save a few quid. It's their job.

[Malc1]

But might I ask, what was the purpose of that superchip ? 
Malc

[Linas.P]

That is why I will always get away with what I can get away with and not going to shoot myself in the foot declaring the basic maintenance to insurance companies.

I have written off few cars, both accidents were very minor, one car literally scratch on the bumper, but I used claims management company and they never looked any deeper into anything, not under the car, not under the hood, not behind the wheels etc. Now sure - some stuff just is just asking for trouble. If you have carbon bits dangling around everywhere, or bright coloured lime green brake lines... they will notice it and you may have to explain them. What usually happens, they just not going to pay any claims for any mods that were not declared, for them to invalidate the insurance would be radical step that they would have to justify. 

I guess limitation on my knowledge, I was never at fault for the accident and the insurance that was paying the damages never got to see the car, so they paid out on the claim made by my assessor. Their assessor may indeed have tried to find some brain in the place where shaite lives. So maybe little advise - if at all possible try not to let assessor of insurance which will be paying the claim anywhere near the car. 

[GMB]

11 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

But might I ask, what was the purpose of that superchip ? 
Malc

The bosch OEM system packed in and a replacement was £800. The superchip  ( £200 ) fixed the problem and made the car quicker, run better and more economical. The insurance company just saw the "go faster element".

It had nothing to do with running over an obstruction on the motorway at 65 mph along with about 5 other damaged cars.

They let us off anyway when I pleaded absolute ignorance about it and blamed the car electrics specialist company who repaired the computer fault.😚

[Localhero]

34 minutes ago, GMB said:

They took our car to bits until they found a superchip that had no relevance to the accident. Don't underestimate what the loss adjusters will do to save a few quid. It's their job.

I have had a chip on my Rav 4 for 16yrs in that time I have had 10 main dealer services and 5 inde services nobody has ever noticed my chip, I was once a black cab driver and my night driver had an accident rolling my cab over on a roundabout injuring 3 passengers he had a stroke at the wheel and died 5 days later (not as a result of the accident) I was at the garage when the assessor came, he had a very brief look at the tyres then declared it a write off and they paid me out, if you have a car with  brembo stickers and  bilstein shocks, and garret supercharger on your rear window then yes they will give your car another look but usually they want to value the damage and cost of repair in order to assess whether its a write off🤐

[Malc1]

Superchip / GoFaster chip or anything evident like that …… it’s inevitable the insurers will investigate further and ameliorate their financial responsibility ……. Surely any rational thinking insured person would understand that caveat limiting liability …… surely 🤔

Malc 

[Jgtcracer]

Regarding the initial question, I would suggest the use of non-oem parts is reasonable as they have been designed as direct replacements for original parts to a comparable specification.  If they have been designed with the intention of somehow changing this specification then that’s considered a modification, rather than like for like replacement.

I can only assume this is when insurers ask about ‘modifications’ rather than replacement parts.

[RONNIE W HODGEKINSON]

6 hours ago, Localhero said:

I hope you all phone your insurance when you use V power or premium fuel because that supposedly makes your engine more  responsive 🤫 what does anybody think the insurance assesors actually do when they inspect your car after an accident ?

Possibly have a Good Slug of the Petrol to see if its Premium Or Not..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GMB]

11 hours ago, Malc1 said:

Surely any rational thinking insured person would understand that caveat limiting liability

Just to clarify the point.

Yes nowadays I would not even chip a car or bike due to the modern complexity of the system and risk of upsetting the cars operation, what with all the error codes etc.

This incident was in 1985 when I was not a rational thinking person

In those days Insurance companies did not seem to be as fussy about modifications, or if they were it was not as obvious

It makes no sense for an insurance assessor to go inside the computer box to look for changes in the case of a simple accident unrelated to speed.

The superchip is not immediately obvious, it is inside the computer casing in this case - an integrated circuit replacing the bosch IC,  not an extra box with markings on it.

The point of my post:

Finally, I believe it is the insurance companies attitude in trying to evade responsibility by finding any excuse not to pay.

Look at personal injuries claims where they take 5 years+ trying to find any excuse not to pay the full liability.

My point is about insurance companies weaseling and wriggling out of their responsibilities that give me no confidence in them.

 

[Malc1]

Gray thank you for the clarity

Had you initially told us the Event was some 40 years ago I think most of would have been astounded ........  no normal insured driver with their own car would have thought about " superchip " anything other than from the Fish and Chip Shop !

Ordinary insured drivers these days are simply aware to advise their insurers of modifications and like me, even I cleared the prior owner's change over from 15" to 16" wheels on my Mk1 Ls400

I don't for one minute believe insurers are prone to avoiding their liabilities in valid situations ..  it's surely only when the insured try's to " pull a fast one " will they see red and be challenging

AND Personal Injuries Claims are often fraught with simple FRAUD and EXAGERRATION  and demonstrable Loss has to be shown often to the Court and their Professionals 

Malc

 

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, GMB said:

the insurance companies attitude in trying to evade responsibility by finding any excuse not to pay.

Look at personal injuries claims where they take 5 years+ trying to find any excuse not to pay the full liability.

My point is about insurance companies weaseling and wriggling out of their responsibilities that give me no confidence in them.

That is what they are doing, I have long said insurance is scam.

As well I believe insurance must always pay out right away, regardless what it is... then they can investigate and prove that somebody scammed them and claw back the money. And that would be just fair - when we pay for insurance we pay right away, we don't wait for a year to see if we like the cover or if we trust the company, nope we pay upfront, so they have to pay upfront as well. Obviously, scams happen, people exaggerate, overclaim invent stories and insurance should be able to recover the money in such cases, but they must never keep genuine claimants waiting, so settle first, then look for issues, unless it is obviously fraud on the face value. But it will never be like that - law protects multi billion companies, not the consumer!

As well insurance companies should not care for what they should not care, they should not care what your gender is, they should not care how many kids you have, whenever you own your home, where you work etc. As long as they going to ask these questions I am going to answer them in the way that benefits me. The only question on insurance quote should be vehicle registration number and car registration number... and when you want the cover to start and what cover you want. That is ALL! And it is not some sort of miracle, in most of Europe that is exactly how it works. They don't ask if you have mods or where you work, license and registration has all the information insurance would ever need - it tells them what car it is, what year, the power and they can figure out how much it is worth, they tell tell them information about the driver, how long they have license and how many points they have. Nothing else is needed. All extra information asked is there just to scam people - some are honest and get punished for that and some find the way to work with this scam and saves 30%+ (legally I must say, without lying obviously).  

And for all the reason above - I will always tell insurance only absolute minimum I can get away with, or only declare that works in my favour.

[GMB]

1 hour ago, Malc1 said:

AND Personal Injuries Claims are often fraught with simple FRAUD and EXAGERRATION  and demonstrable Loss has to be shown often to the Court and their Professionals 

Very true. Unfortunately, as Linas implies, the honest people suffer from the faults of the dishonest.

In short, a relative of ours is currently in his 5th year waiting for a large payout (he was brain damaged from a head injury) when a drugged driver who was prosecuted by the police T-boned his car at a junction. The insurance companies are saying that the accident was 30% his fault and playing a waiting game hoping that he will snuff it no doubt.

Why are they not paying out for something so obvious?

Because the airbags did not go off.  The car is still at the police inspection unit because the car manufacturer refuses to inspect it and answer why they did not go off.  The car was bought second hand from a franchised dealer with a warranty.

I must admit that he has had some interim payments because his solicitors fought very hard to justify it.

Believe it or not 20 years ago a family member had the same 5 yr plus wait for a settlement when he was severely injured. The Salvation army and relatives looked after him until the money came in.   You simply would not believe it!  Dealing with unpleasant people when you claim on insurance.

[Malc1]

1 hour ago, GMB said:

Dealing with unpleasant people when you claim on insurance.

that could be why so many claimants simply place all their dealings into the hands of Assessors / Claims Handling Companies to act on their behalf  ......  No Win No Fee is often the way to go !

When one instructs those professionals they will always give you a fair indication of your chances of success OR NOT !

Malc

[Linas.P]

1 minute ago, Malc1 said:

that could be why so many claimants simply place all their dealings into the hands of Assessors / Claims Handling Companies to act on their behalf  ......  No Win No Fee is often the way to go !

When one instructs those professionals they will always give you a fair indication of your chances of success OR NOT !

On injury claims they take 20-30% commission, in fact in my recent experience you can't even handle injury claim yourself. My girlfriend had accident when learning to drive (good driving experience! 😄), non-fault, guy just crashed into the side of her car, no real injuries just shoulder and back pain, she took probably 1 month of work, few packs of ibuprofen and few sessions with physio. There is statutory compensation in cases like this (I believe insurance companies sets away like £5000 by default). But when she checked how can she proceed with compensation, just fair amount, say £2000-3000 for lost income and inconvenience, the TP insurance didn't even want to deal with her and advised she has to get medical assessment and make a claim via claims management company (in theory you can do it yourself, but it is way too much work). Now on positive side it was under her instructor insurance so, so he was getting claims management company anyway, but right away they said - "for injury claims under we take £5000 30%, over £5000 20% commission + claim management fees". Just to better explain how this works - insurance company by law has to set away the claim management cost in case you use claims management company. I think that is £1170... and when I have used claims management companies for car damage they do not charge anything, they just get their £1170 and that is it, but when you do injury claim they still take £1170 from insurance company +20-30% of the compensation off you... which is kind of ridiculous. I would assume on larger sum like £50,000 maybe they would agree with 10% commission, but still why should you sacrifice any money that should cover damage to your health. 

Beside just the time it takes is ridiculous. The doctor assessed after maybe 1 month that recovery in this case should be considered 10 months + travel expenses + cost for basic medicine + cost of lost income for a month, there is calculator for that and I think it adds-up to £3280 and she would have settled that right away. But no - insurance company much rather pays £1170 to claims management company and she will get £2624 (because -20%, not 30% as instructor is getting the same and thus amount is over £5000) and it was already over a year and they still have not settled.

There is just no excuse for this - they know what claim is, why they are still not paid on it?