'Gap insurance' for classics?
in [Classic Cars]
|
From: Phileaus Leaius on 8 Dec 2008 18:54 Ian wrote: > On 7 Dec, 19:59, Phileaus Leaius <w...(a)prettyboy.then> wrote: > >> No, plenty of bits of paper to prove. In fact, I'd suggest that the >> *value* is the "notional number", since its nothing more than a >> subjective guesstimate - you can never KNOW a value until someone offers >> you that much for it, and since its now gone in some way thats not going >> to happen. The *cost* is OBjective, since you have bills to demonstrate it. > > Are you saying that a car on which the owner has done 1,000 hours is > worth �25k less than an identical one on which a professional restorer > has done the 1,000 hours? > No, I'm saying that one of those cars has a bigger sheaf of bills that they can point at than the other.
From: Phileaus Leaius on 8 Dec 2008 19:00 Leroy Curtis wrote: > In article <EYpD$HGDXaPJFwm3(a)baram.demon.co.uk>, Leroy Curtis > <leroy(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> writes >> >> The other form, known as fiancee > > Aren't spell checkers a wonderful thing :-( This should read "finance" > Yeah, well, we got that. Unless there's a policy to protect your car from irate girlfriends? :)
From: Ian on 9 Dec 2008 09:17 On 8 Dec, 23:54, Phileaus Leaius <w...(a)prettyboy.then> wrote: > Ian wrote: > > Are you saying that a car on which the owner has done 1,000 hours is > > worth £25k less than an identical one on which a professional restorer > > has done the 1,000 hours? > > No, I'm saying that one of those cars has a bigger sheaf of bills that > they can point at than the other. So what? How can the value of the car depend on anything other than the current condition of the car? Ian
From: Ian on 9 Dec 2008 09:26 On 8 Dec, 23:53, Phileaus Leaius <w...(a)prettyboy.then> wrote: > Ian wrote: > > The problem, you see, is that you are not insuring againt a particular > > event: you are insuring against a whole range of events. I insure my > > 2CV, following your suggestion, for One Million Pounds (sharks with > > frikkin' laser beams included). Now, think about the following > > situations: > > > 1) I smash a read wing, as above. Total cost of repair, £150. How much > > should I be able to claim? > > £150. Then you have your car back as it was pre-accident. Very good. > > 2) I smash the whole rear end. Total cost of repair, £3,000. Cost of > > replacement car, £1,000. How much should I be able to claim? > > £3000. Because no "replacement car" exists. The car has been built to my > specification, and is thus unique. The cost of sourcing a 'candidate' > car of sufficient quality to match the damaged car, plus the cost of > modifying it to match the spec of the vehicle it is to replace, will > greatly exceed the cost of repair. 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. > > 3) I smash, roll and burn the whole car. Total cost of repair, > > £10,000. Cost of replacement car, £1,000. How much should I be able to > > claim > > £10,000. See above. 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 £1,000. OK for them to charge £10k for that? > Why the sodding hell cant I insure > my car for what it would cost to get another car into the same condition > - what is it, rocket science or something? 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 £10,000 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 £5,000, 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 £10,000 to restore a car to the same condition as yours or the £5,000 to buy a car in the same condition to yours? Ian
From: Phileaus Leaius on 9 Dec 2008 13:54
Ian wrote: > On 8 Dec, 23:53, Phileaus Leaius <w...(a)prettyboy.then> wrote: >> Ian wrote: > >>> The problem, you see, is that you are not insuring againt a particular >>> event: you are insuring against a whole range of events. I insure my >>> 2CV, following your suggestion, for One Million Pounds (sharks with >>> frikkin' laser beams included). Now, think about the following >>> situations: >>> 1) I smash a read wing, as above. Total cost of repair, �150. How much >>> should I be able to claim? >> �150. Then you have your car back as it was pre-accident. > > Very good. > >>> 2) I smash the whole rear end. Total cost of repair, �3,000. Cost of >>> replacement car, �1,000. How much should I be able to claim? >> �3000. Because no "replacement car" exists. The car has been built to my >> specification, and is thus unique. The cost of sourcing a 'candidate' >> car of sufficient quality to match the damaged car, plus the cost of >> modifying it to match the spec of the vehicle it is to replace, will >> greatly exceed the cost of repair. > > 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. > 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. >>> 3) I smash, roll and burn the whole car. Total cost of repair, >>> �10,000. Cost of replacement car, �1,000. How much should I be able to >>> claim >> �10,000. See above. > > 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 �1,000. OK for them to charge �10k for that? > Again, no direct replacement exists for the car _I_ am talking about. So your scenario cannot apply >> Why the sodding hell cant I insure >> my car for what it would cost to get another car into the same condition >> - what is it, rocket science or something? > > 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. > FFS, what part of this are you having a hard time understanding. YOU. CANT. BUY. A. CAR. IN. THAT. CONDITION. > Let me give another example. An enthusiast fully restores two Morris > Minor Travellers. It costs him �10,000 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 �5,000, 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 �10,000 to restore a car to > the same condition as yours or the �5,000 to buy a car in the same > condition to yours? > I'm sorry, you obviously have a reading comprehension problem. May I suggest LearnDirect? |