Insuring a modded car - disclosure?

So true! How an insurance company actually works as a business:

• Take peoples' money under the pretense of offering a product
• Refuse to provide that product when called upon to do so
• Set up the most ridiculous and asinine set of rules possible to give best chances of weasling out of providing the product
• Sit down with all the other insurance companies and fix your terms & prices, or just buy each other all out
• Make record profits
• Whine to the government that profits are low so that they pass anti-competitive legislation in your favour, ensuring a captive market forever

The world would be a better place if more people had a good concept of the insurance industry. It's so misunderstood!

Yeah, that sophistry is about the level most people ever want to grasp how insurance works. ;p

Apologies, I also forgot the part about being the only industry in the world legally allowed to discriminate based on gender, race, and whatever other criteria they want by claiming individuals will rigidly adhere to statistical behaviours that barely even apply to large populations. Never mind that that's been considered a grievous fallacy in sociological sciences for the last fifty years at least.

Edit: this isn't helping the OP much, so I'll stop. Trust me, I can rant about this for hours.

madmallard wrote: Blah, blah, blah....

Interesting you snipped my complete comment to make your point. I do pay way more then what I should. I have not had one payable claim with my current company of 3yrs, yet when I moved to a different part of the state, my premium DOUBLED and continually fluctuates every few months. Only reason I stay is the other options aren't any better, either go with a company that screwed my wife over on her Monte or pay $800-1k/6mo for similar coverages on a 15yr old vehicle.

I don't expect to get every dollar back out of the premiums I pay, when when I do have a claim, I shouldn't have to pull teeth to get what I think is a repair or value representative of my loss, perceived or not.

<pulling thread back onto the original topic>

Talked to the insurance agent, they definitely have to talk to the underwriter before I can get any sort of quote.

Fingers crossed, this was one of the few decent cars I've seen recently. Apart from an unmodded '86 Starquest, which happens to be choice #2.

Jay wrote: Edit: this isn't helping the OP much, so I'll stop. Trust me, I can rant about this for hours.

I bet you could. ;p Its what most people do, too. It easier than unravelling the details.

Ranger50 wrote: Interesting you snipped my complete comment to make your point. I do pay way more then what I should. I have not had one payable claim with my current company of 3yrs, yet when I moved to a different part of the state, my premium DOUBLED and continually fluctuates every few months. Only reason I stay is the other options aren't any better, either go with a company that screwed my wife over on her Monte or pay $800-1k/6mo for similar coverages on a 15yr old vehicle. I don't expect to get every dollar back out of the premiums I pay, when when I do have a claim, I shouldn't have to pull teeth to get what I think is a repair or value representative of my loss, perceived or not.

Yeah, the particular use of 'fair share' kinda stuck out like a bent nail. Paying more than you should is different from paying more than your fair share. I completely empathise with you if you think you're paying too much, but paying more than a 'fair share'... even when used as a turn of phrase I really balk when i read/hear that.

but more to the point. Are you buying collision coverage on a 15 yr old vehicle? O_o? Even if the coverage premium is down to $400 a year, I can't imagine that being a good investment on such an old vehicle.

but yeah, most insurance companies will jump at the chance to offer you 'additional coverage' but beware of how they may chose to evaluate what that 'additional' means.

If you're modding, get an inventory with documented cost of the stuff you want to make sure is covered, and come to a total. Then find out how they are going to set values and compare them.

madmallard wrote: but more to the point. Are you buying collision coverage on a 15 yr old vehicle? O_o? Even if the coverage premium is down to $400 a year, I can't imagine that being a good investment on such an old vehicle.

I pay nearly $700/6mo right now, 100/300/500/250 coverages, dropping to liability still costs $550/6mo. I used to pay that for all the coverages before my move.

Eh...fool. money. separated. I'm a sucker.

MadInsurer, I had video of the accident. It showed the jeep get hit; first impact, then it showed it hit the tree. The vid was from the back and didn't show the bumper "contact" the tree, just the abrupt stop caused by, uh, something??? This isn't enough to fight a scam though. The insurance company will always find a way to scam you. If the camera had been in the front of the Jeep, they would have said, well, the vid doesn't show the Blazer hit the Jeep, so we aren't covering anything but the bumber. See how that works?
No, I don't expect to get every penny back that I pay out, but I do expect them to uphold their end of the bargain when it comes time to pay.
The issues with my flooded basement are not with the structure, it's with personal property lost. Let's say, for instance you had a crib ruined. The crib was $500. I don't need the crib anymore since my kids are beyond that stage. Why would you hold back 40% of the "value" of the crib till I purchase another crib? The point is, I had something damaged (crib, computer, Olson Twins memrobilia collection, Zamphir Pan Fluid recordings, it doesnt' matter) and it was damaged I should get the money I have coming to me. If I decide that Zamphir sucks and want to buy a Celine Dion dress instead why does that matter? It doesn't in an honest business world.
And, it's not a scam untill the businesses lobby to make it a law to buy their product.

Ranger50 wrote: ...

oh my.

well, liability, since its required/mandated in all states now, is the fault of your local government regulation the most as far as costs.

i can't imagine needing comprehensive for a car that old unless you're just worried about injury & other issues.(i mean, what kind is it?)

But, if you have decent health plan, you don't have to drive in a high volume area, and you're honest with yourself about the way you drive, then i'd reconsider having a comp package on that one...

YMMV, but I just spoke with my current agent about this topic without specifically mentioning this thread. With his company, I get $5k in "customization" coverage. I switch wheels, covered. Do a E36-302 swap, covered to the balance of the $5k with wheels or $5k. He also said I can just get additional riders above and beyond the "standard" coverages.

Ranger50 wrote: YMMV, but I just spoke with my current agent about this topic without specifically mentioning this thread. With his company, I get $5k in "customization" coverage. I switch wheels, covered. Do a E36-302 swap, covered to the balance of the $5k with wheels or $5k. He also said I can just get additional riders above and beyond the "standard" coverages.

Correct. Lots of policies do this. The key here is documentation. Keep receipts. Without receipts, you won't get much.

I don't want the thread to go down the toilet...well...any more than it already has. But one of the biggest problems in this whole thing is misunderstanding and misconceptions. I'm speaking to auto insurance, I'm not an expert on medical.

For instance, the notion of insurance companies making record profits, etc... Well, do you know where the profits come from? Investments. Not from pure premium income. Insurance companies invest your premium and hope for good returns. From the premium standpoint, an insurance company that spends $1.00 for every $1.00 it takes in is said to be doing fairly well. So the profit is from investing, not taking your money. Or the notion of "I pay my premiums, so they owe me the money." This isn't a bank. You're buying services, so if you have an accident, you're covered. It's no different than if you buy monitoring service for a home alarm. If you never have a break in, do you call ADT and say "I want all my money back for the past 5 years?" Same principal here.

I could go on and on. From one car fanatic to another, as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow (unless you live in the north Pole ) I can absolutely tell you it's not a "scam", insurance claims people are not told to try to with hold payments, and other such nonsense. In fact, the truth is that insurance companies often times pay things they really shouldn't, for fear of the state department of insurance or other bad things.

DrBoost wrote: MadInsurer, I had video of the accident. It showed the jeep get hit; first impact, then it showed it hit the tree. The vid was from the back and didn't show the bumper "contact" the tree, just the abrupt stop caused by, uh, something??? This isn't enough to fight a scam though. The insurance company will always find a way to scam you. If the camera had been in the front of the Jeep, they would have said, well, the vid doesn't show the Blazer hit the Jeep, so we aren't covering anything but the bumber. See how that works?

Not trying to agitate you, but to walk you and everyone else thru the hoops so they in the future can get what they need out of their insurance.

Did the accident video have a shot of the bumper undamaged in the same clip?

Unless your video showed the Jeep in the same situation with an undamaged bumper before, then the adjuster has no way to connect the damage to the occurence.

They have absolutely no proof that it wasn't already damaged in an unrelated matter.

This SHOULD be the same defense that the other party would use against you in a civil case trying to keep their costs down, so there's nothing unusual about that...

No, I don't expect to get every penny back that I pay out, but I do expect them to uphold their end of the bargain when it comes time to pay. The issues with my flooded basement are not with the structure, it's with personal property lost. Let's say, for instance you had a crib ruined. The crib was $500. I don't need the crib anymore since my kids are beyond that stage. Why would you hold back 40% of the "value" of the crib till I purchase another crib? The point is, I had something damaged (crib, computer, Olson Twins memrobilia collection, Zamphir Pan Fluid recordings, it doesnt' matter) and it was damaged I should get the money I have coming to me. If I decide that Zamphir sucks and want to buy a Celine Dion dress instead why does that matter? It doesn't in an honest business world.

Well... it does actually, because you're either making a claim for the item itself, or a claim for its replacement value. You don't have "money coming to you" in an insurance claim, you have conditional coverage. If the insurance company is ever audited, they have to show where their claim money went to diflect charges of fraudulent claims, money laundering, etc. If they say they paid out replacement value, then they have to provide proof docs of the known replacement value at the time of loss. If they helped replace the item, then they have to keep receipts for helping you replace it.

But I've never heard of witheld depreciation on non-structural loss, at least not in the residential sector. Thats raising an eyebrow around here.

And, it's not a scam untill the businesses lobby to make it a law to buy their product.

Ah, Obama already took care of that with congress's help. ;p

Yes, you are right. There are rules to protect the insurance company so they can not pay out. That is not a scam, it's a business. I am wrong for hoping to be able to collect on the policy I pay money for. And I should really have a 360 degree walkaround view of my vehicle, house, colon or what ever taken daily in case the unforseen every happens.
I am sorry and regret ever questioning the insurance company, since they are always so straight with us all.
But, back (waaaay back, sorry folks) to the OP. Make sure you understand all the ins and out of the policy. It was not written for you to understand, it was written to protect the insurance company.

madmallard wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: ...

oh my. well, liability, since its required/mandated in all states now, is the fault of your local government regulation the most as far as costs. i can't imagine needing comprehensive for a car that old unless you're just worried about injury & other issues.(i mean, what kind is it?) But, if you have decent health plan, you don't have to drive in a high volume area, and you're honest with yourself about the way you drive, then i'd reconsider having a comp package on that one...

It is just a plain V6 2wd Dakota. But I have lowered it 2", soon to do a 5 lug conversion and dumping the bench for some Corbeau Clubmans I got for almost free. So slowly, I am just making it a target for theft.

As for the rest, it isn't my driving I worry about, it is everyone else that can't berkeleying drive! Until you come upon a coal truck rolling overweight and 70mph, you just won't understand.

DrBoost wrote: There are rules to protect the insurance company so they can not pay out. I am wrong for hoping to be able to collect on the policy I pay money for.

What rules? Can you name some? If you actually look into it with any, and I mean any, state's Department of Insurance, you will find that the converse is true. There are countless rules written by the state so that insurance companies DO have to pay out. In some states, there are more rules around that than you can fathom. And I can tell you without a doubt that the state DOI does not play games. The "rules" you may be referring to are probably the exclusions written in the policy. Yes, they're there to protect the insurance company. They reference things such as intentional acts (you drive your car into a wall on purpose) and racing. They're clearly spelled out in the policy. Would you want to collect a couple grand premium then have to pay out a million bucks if that person was playing "Fast and Furious" and killed a family coming home in their minivan? Not a good investment.

if you guys looked into it further, you'd find that even in seemingly open and shut cases with people scamming workers comp for hundreds of thousands of dollars with tons of video evidence of them not actually injured, the jury will still side with the insured because "the insurance company can afford to pay"

that said, i have met people that have quit one company because the adjusters were given "spiffs" for having the most denied claims in a month

honestly getting money from insurance companies has never been a problem for me. since ive had my car ive gotten 3 to 4k in hail damage 8 times. ive also come out to find a front fender crunched 6 times by some one in a parking lot normally involving a headlight. every time its just pay my 250 and move on... btw fender headlight and paint generally runs 2800 at my body shop. they always give me the money i need to ix my car tho..... my 6 month premium on the 6 and the tribute is 605 for both of them.

It appears that SF is giving me the runaround, the underwriter is now asking for photos, which is a new requirement and hasn't been mentioned before.

Whereas the local Allstate agent just mentioned that they don't see a problem insuring the same car without even having to refer it to their underwriters.

What's Allstate like in case you need to put in a claim?

BoxheadTim wrote: What's Allstate like in case you need to put in a claim?

I never had any problems with them with my Eclipse radio that got stolen once. Or the time I played tag with a guardrail in a blinding snowstorm. Just paid the difference for the Ford front fender out of pocket. It was only $40 more then the E36 M3ty taiwan tin fender.

BoxheadTim wrote: It appears that SF is giving me the runaround, the underwriter is now asking for photos, which is a new requirement and hasn't been mentioned before. Whereas the local Allstate agent just mentioned that they don't see a problem insuring the same car without even having to refer it to their underwriters.

The local Allstate agent may not understand what your asking.

It -is- standard practice to have an inspection in person for evaluation, or send in photo of the goods you want to insure for a greater value than stock replacement. They may even ask for receipts to verify its value and that you're buying enough additional coverage for that item.

It would be more unusual if they didn't want proof you had what you were trying to get insured... thats usually a frontline fraud deterrent for people who never actually put a shiny chrome bumper on the truck and then total it.

Actually I made it clear to both agents that I didn't want to insure the car for greater value than stock but to avoid any "discussions" later on I disclosed that there are some aftermarket parts on the car.

The problem's just solve itself anyway as the owner of the DSM is understandably not willing to wait any longer for me to deal with the insurance. Fair enough, I wouldn't want to do that either so I'll be looking for another car again .

oh~~was misunderstanding your goal.

For others in the future tho; you SHOULDN'T have any problem at all.

Heck, if you didn't care about full coverage on the custom parts, and none of your customs circumvent safety features, and you're okay with getting stock parts for repairs instead, I don't think i'd bother mentioning anything to your insurance...

...but thats just me.

Tim,

To answer a few of your questions. As far as Allstate and their claim handling, you'll find variations with any company. You'll find people who say they suck and some say they're the greatest. Frankly, it depends on the skill of your particular adjuster when/if you have a claim. Like any other company, you'll have some really good ones and some not as good. Most important thing is to read your policy carefully so you know what's covered.

And regardless of which company you do go with, the agent can't make the final decision. It will go through underwriting. An agent has binding authority, which means they can write a policy on the spot, but it still then goes to underwriting for review and final approval.

If the DSM guy does decide to wait, I can't imagine you wouldn't be able to get coverage just because it has some modifications.