MODS - an insurance warning, you will be shocked!

[nobull]

So I was getting my other bike MOT'd last week by a one man band mechanic I've been going to for a few years, and he told me a shocking/scary story of events that had occurred a few months ago. Before I say any more, I should point out that i'm pretty sceptical on the whole, but from past experience I know this man to be honest and if anything understated, certainly not a billy bullsh***er!
As my bike was pretty far from standard, he proceeded to tell me about a customer he'd known for over 20 years (with a chequered accident history for whom he'd repaired a bike once a year on average). He turned up with a fairly lightly modded bike that had been crashed for a repair quote for the insurers, which the mechanic duly did. Assessor arrives, mechanic offers him the repair/quote details, and before he's even laid eyes on the bike assessor says he wont need them. He proceeds to nit pick every tiny modification (eg polished standard levers!, not to mention power commander etc), before walking out. Mechanic hears nothing from anyone for a week, cant get in touch with owner. Then insurers are on the phone, saying they'll collect bike in the morning, and aren't paying the owner out. Mechanic says no, its not your property to take, and immediately tries without success to get the owner on the phone. 5 mins later phone rings again - insurers saying we'll be there with police & bailiffs in morning for the bike, & if its not there mechanic will be hearing from solicitors. True to their word recovery truck arrives, but agent pushes the lightly damaged bike onto its side, attaches a chain to it, drags it with winch onto flatbed then ratchet straps it down - mechanic videos this, every component from engine to swingarm, frame forks & wheels seriously damaged in the process.
Then the owner gets in touch, confirming they aren't paying out & aren't returning whats left of his bike ( I don't know how they can do this legally but the mechanic did try to explain it to me, something about breach of contract & small print). BUT the even worse news is, ALL of his insurance with DIFFERENT insurers have been instantly cancelled and he can no longer get cover!!! So he cant use any of his vehicles (which included a work van and a car). He'd been with the same insurer for 5 years.
I'm so glad I have declared all of my mods for both my bikes this year!!! What bas***ds these companies are, I hope nobody else has been treated this way (and to those who are going to say its his own fault, I don't agree they should merely have refused to cover the cost of repairs and cancelled his policy, at worst). I hope this helps to prevent anyone else suffering a similar fate

 

[martinw]

I can believe this. Insurance companies will do anything they can not to pay you out. If you modify your bike and don't tell them, always make sure it's back to factory spec before they come to take it away for assessment/repair.

 

[foxracer]

I'd love to know which insurance company this was...

 

[sdrio]

Whenever I do insurance, there's always a question about whether the bike is modified.

Having said that, knowing a bit about insurance law, I'm very dubious about the story. It's certainly got a bit mangled on the way.

If the bike was extensively modified, in a way that would effect the performance / safety, and the insured hadn't informed the insurers, then I can see this happening. It is a question of risk - a faster bike is a bigger risk. Altered handling characteristics can be a bigger risk, as can expensive add ons, which might make it more attractive to thieves.

Polished levers? If they could be shown to be less efficient than the standard items (eg they were much shorter), possibly they'd cause a problem, but if they worked as well as the originals the insurance co could not use it as an excuse to refuse a claim. An insurance policy is a contract of utmost good faith - that is in a legal sense - nitpicking to avoid a claim wouldn't work, no reputable underwriter would even try.

Police and bailiffs swiping the bike? Rubbish. Unless they were collecting it as evidence of fraud, of course.

I think it's half a story. No disrespect to you, nobull, but your mechanic mate is either embellishing, or only knows part of what was going on.

 

[Noggie]

in my country unless they can prove the mod is at fault of the accident, they are not getting away. they may get away with a slightly reduced payout if its illegal or not road safe.
If I have a bike with an illegal Turbo or something obviously not stock, or even illegal, and I get hit by a car standing still at a traffic light or something, the turbo was not the cause of the accident and they can't refuse to pay you.
If I rear ended a car 100m after said traffic light at "lightspeed", the Turbo could be blamed.

 

[Nuggets]

Whenever I do insurance, there's always a question about whether the bike is modified.

Having said that, knowing a bit about insurance law, I'm very dubious about the story. It's certainly got a bit mangled on the way.

If the bike was extensively modified, in a way that would effect the performance / safety, and the insured hadn't informed the insurers, then I can see this happening. It is a question of risk - a faster bike is a bigger risk. Altered handling characteristics can be a bigger risk, as can expensive add ons, which might make it more attractive to thieves.

Polished levers? If they could be shown to be less efficient than the standard items (eg they were much shorter), possibly they'd cause a problem, but if they worked as well as the originals the insurance co could not use it as an excuse to refuse a claim. An insurance policy is a contract of utmost good faith - that is in a legal sense - nitpicking to avoid a claim wouldn't work, no reputable underwriter would even try.

Police and bailiffs swiping the bike? Rubbish. Unless they were collecting it as evidence of fraud, of course.

I think it's half a story. No disrespect to you, nobull, but your mechanic mate is either embellishing, or only knows part of what was going on.

The T&C's on my insurance are ANY modification doesn't matter if it has an effect on the performance or not, as sdrio points out the agreement is one of "utmost good faith" which means the applicant is under a fundamental duty to disclose all material facts and surrounding circumstances that could influence the decision of the insurance company to enter the agreement. Non-disclosure or a partial-disclosure makes such agreements voidable. Whilst it may be seen as trivial to us, when faced with a pay out (or worse a pay out and a personal injury claim) what insurance company wouldn't use any modification we make as a defence to deny a claim, lets not forget they are in this business to make money needless to say I wouldn't want to test an underwriter in this situation, reputable or not which is definitely why every mod should be disclosed (even if it did add a painful 15 mins to my phone call to Swinton, after I politely explained to the lady that changing my suspension doesn't increase the BHP)

As for the rest, well I can only imagine the bailiffs would be involved if the bike was on finance but who knows, as sdrio suggests sounds like half a story.

 

[sdrio]

The T&C's on my insurance are ANY modification doesn't matter if it has an effect on the performance or not, as sdrio points out the agreement is one of "utmost good faith" which means the applicant is under a fundamental duty to disclose all material facts and surrounding circumstances that could influence the decision of the insurance company to enter the agreement. Non-disclosure or a partial-disclosure makes such agreements voidable. Whilst it may be seen as trivial to us, when faced with a pay out (or worse a pay out and a personal injury claim) what insurance company wouldn't use any modification we make as a defence to deny a claim, lets not forget they are in this business to make money needless to say I wouldn't want to test an underwriter in this situation, reputable or not which is definitely why every mod should be disclosed (even if it did add a painful 15 mins to my phone call to Swinton, after I politely explained to the lady that changing my suspension doesn't increase the BHP)

As for the rest, well I can only imagine the bailiffs would be involved if the bike was on finance but who knows, as sdrio suggests sounds like half a story.

It can be a bit of a grey area, modifications. Which is why these things often have to be resolved by a court - the policy isn't always clear.

You also have to ask - what is a modification? A rack? New tyres? Vinyl wrapping? In reality, if an underwriter could deny a claim for things like that, not a single one of us would really be insured.

I can guarantee though, using the example given - fitting a set of standard but polished levers on the bike would not allow any underwriter to avoid a claim. Mine has heated grips, those wouldn't have any effect either. Unless it can be shown they were incorrectly fitted, they simply have no effect on the risk.

As Noggie said in the post before yours, there has to be some sort of link between a modification, and the cause of a claim. Aftermarket suspension for example won't increase BHP, but it will have an effect on the handling. The underwriters might try to avoid an accident claim, even if logic says the suspension improves the bike. A better handling bike might have been going faster, etc.

What is probably true is that the more tweaks you make, the more likely you are to have problems if you don't declare them.

Ref the bailiffs thing - I was thinking about that yesterday, you're probably right. Might be that there was some other issue such as unpaid finance, and there was a repossession action going on - it was just coincidence that the bike was repossessed at the same time as the unsuccessful claim was being made.

 

[Noggie]

As Noggie said in the post before yours, there has to be some sort of link between a modification, and the cause of a claim. Aftermarket suspension for example won't increase BHP, but it will have an effect on the handling. The underwriters might try to avoid an accident claim, even if logic says the suspension improves the bike. A better handling bike might have been going faster, etc.

In Norway all suspension changes has to be put into the bike/cars registration papers, these must come with a TÛV or equivalent certification for that specific vehicle.
If this is then approved after an inspection and put into the vehicles papers it has no effect on the insurance.
Also the use of non-oem replacement parts, i.e exhaust, springs, bearings, gears ect. has no effect on the insurance.
If your shock says Yamaha, Nitron, Ohlins, Sparxx, Monroe, or Bilstein makes no difference if it is a replacement for the OEM part.

So unless the part fitted has a purpose to alter the vehicles performance/handling in any way or is a safety hazard (i.e sharp fairings that will cut up pedestrians ect.) they have no case against you.

 

[DJP]

Sorry, but I call Bullshit.

It's half a story at best: An insurance company only owns the bike if they pay out following a write off. Otherwise it remains the property of the owner and the Ins Co have no right to touch it. (Although, clearly the insurance can refuse to pay out for the damage to the bike if there are undeclared mods but in that case it will remain the property of the owner).

Of course, if someone hasn't kept up finance payments then the finance company can hoik the bike away because it's their bike until it's paid for - which sounds more likely in this case (assuming that any of this is true at all).

 

[robodene]

I feel obliged to report mods, whatever. I do not want to find myself without insurance for any reason. I want to fit my crash bungs and rear spindle thingy. So I phoned Bennetts and was told it would raise the premium by £32 (I only pay £83!). That's what I object to in these matters. So I emailed a complaint to Bennetts about charging for the footling but protective mods, and received the reasonable response - 'no charge'. Turns out the extra was mostly for admin but I consider that this is one of the inequities of insurance these days. So all's well in the end.

 

[sdrio]

I feel obliged to report mods, whatever. I do not want to find myself without insurance for any reason. I want to fit my crash bungs and rear spindle thingy. So I phoned Bennetts and was told it would raise the premium by £32 (I only pay £83!). That's what I object to in these matters. So I emailed a complaint to Bennetts about charging for the footling but protective mods, and received the reasonable response - 'no charge'. Turns out the extra was mostly for admin but I consider that this is one of the inequities of insurance these days. So all's well in the end.

This is something more and more common with insurers - it's caused by the shift to comparison sites, and the subsequent thinning of profits. They need to make money by scalping you after you've taken insurance. I moved house a while back, called Bennetts to tell them, was told 'OK, so the premium is £38 cheaper, but we charge a £50 admin fee. As a special gesture, we will waive the difference, and only take the £38. Aren't we wonderful?'. Or words to that effect.

In reality, you might see 50 quotes for insurance, but there are only 5 or 6 underwriters behind them, and maybe the same number of brokers actually doing the business. Chances are, the top 5 prices you see will all end up with Swinton as insurer, via Bennetts.

 

[nobull]

I'm guessing none of the doubters saw the national news story recently about the god squad bumper sticker ladys insurance claim being refused then? The backlash led to the insurance company backing down of course. I'm sorry, but read the T&Cs & smell the coffee, any insurance company will use any excuse to get out of any payment, least of all a moderately modded bike. I should know I deal with the claim making process of pet claims on adaily basis, & have done so for 16 years. Some will use ANY excuse not to pay, and always quote T&Cs in the process.

 

[sdrio]

I'm guessing none of the doubters saw the national news story recently about the god squad bumper sticker ladys insurance claim being refused then? The backlash led to the insurance company backing down of course. I'm sorry, but read the T&Cs & smell the coffee, any insurance company will use any excuse to get out of any payment, least of all a moderately modded bike. I should know I deal with the claim making process of pet claims on adaily basis, & have done so for 16 years. Some will use ANY excuse not to pay, and always quote T&Cs in the process.

The truth is out there somewhere.

Not in the original post though.