'Gap insurance' for classics?
in [Classic Cars]
|
From: Adrian on 9 Dec 2008 14:00 Phileaus Leaius <whos(a)prettyboy.then> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Again, no direct replacement exists for the car _I_ am talking about. So > your scenario cannot apply > FFS, what part of this are you having a hard time understanding. YOU. > CANT. BUY. A. CAR. IN. THAT. CONDITION. OK, fine. So let's say you have the last extant example of some unloved & low- valued '70s bit of yawnsville tin. It gets destroyed by fire. Should the insurance pay out the market value of it (three rusty washers) or the cost of completely remanufacturing it? Maybe it's the last remaining RHD version. Should the insurance pay for the cost of converting an immaculate LHD car?
From: Ian on 9 Dec 2008 14:24 On 9 Dec, 18:54, Phileaus Leaius <w...(a)prettyboy.then> wrote: > Ian wrote: > > 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. Erm, no. You said I should be able to insure my car for whatever I liked, so I am starting from there and pointing out some consequences. > > 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. The arguments still apply. You simply cannot expect the insurers to cough up for the money you spent building the car, because there is no guarantee that you did that the most economic way. You have already conceded, as I recall, that two identical cars build by amateur and professional labour would, in your scheme of things, be worth vastly different amounts of money. Well, given that a "cheap" version is possible, why should your insurers give you the money to do it the "dear" way? > > 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. That's because you seem to be defining the stack of bills as part of the condition. > I'm sorry, you obviously have a reading comprehension problem. May I > suggest LearnDirect? It would be helpful if you could address the issue and avoid ad hominem attacks. Thanks. Ian
From: Phileaus Leaius on 9 Dec 2008 14:55 Adrian wrote: > Phileaus Leaius <whos(a)prettyboy.then> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >> Again, no direct replacement exists for the car _I_ am talking about. So >> your scenario cannot apply > >> FFS, what part of this are you having a hard time understanding. YOU. >> CANT. BUY. A. CAR. IN. THAT. CONDITION. > > OK, fine. > > So let's say you have the last extant example of some unloved & low- > valued '70s bit of yawnsville tin. It gets destroyed by fire. > > Should the insurance pay out the market value of it (three rusty washers) > or the cost of completely remanufacturing it? > Remanufacturing. Because they accepted my 'bet' - I bet that I would need to claim within a period of less than the equivalent amount of premiums, and they bet that I wouldn't. > Maybe it's the last remaining RHD version. Should the insurance pay for > the cost of converting an immaculate LHD car? If thats their most cost effective way of replacing 'like for like', then I'd guess thats the method they'd choose. Its up to them - all I want is the resulting vehicle, by whatever method.
From: Adrian on 9 Dec 2008 15:24 Phileaus Leaius <whos(a)prettyboy.then> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Again, no direct replacement exists for the car _I_ am talking about. >>> So your scenario cannot apply >>> FFS, what part of this are you having a hard time understanding. YOU. >>> CANT. BUY. A. CAR. IN. THAT. CONDITION. >> OK, fine. >> >> So let's say you have the last extant example of some unloved & low- >> valued '70s bit of yawnsville tin. It gets destroyed by fire. >> >> Should the insurance pay out the market value of it (three rusty >> washers) or the cost of completely remanufacturing it? > Remanufacturing. Because they accepted my 'bet' - I bet that I would > need to claim within a period of less than the equivalent amount of > premiums, and they bet that I wouldn't. >> Maybe it's the last remaining RHD version. Should the insurance pay for >> the cost of converting an immaculate LHD car? > If thats their most cost effective way of replacing 'like for like', > then I'd guess thats the method they'd choose. Its up to them - all I > want is the resulting vehicle, by whatever method. <shrug> Fine. As I've already said... Go and find somebody who'll sell you that policy. Nobody here knows of one. If you can't find one either, then you've clearly got a nice little niche business opportunity. Good luck with it. Don't forget to advertise in the classic mags - I'm sure there's other people who'd agree with you that it's a policy they'll pay a bit extra for.
From: Phileaus Leaius on 9 Dec 2008 15:31
Adrian wrote: > Phileaus Leaius <whos(a)prettyboy.then> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >>>> Again, no direct replacement exists for the car _I_ am talking about. >>>> So your scenario cannot apply > >>>> FFS, what part of this are you having a hard time understanding. YOU. >>>> CANT. BUY. A. CAR. IN. THAT. CONDITION. > >>> OK, fine. >>> >>> So let's say you have the last extant example of some unloved & low- >>> valued '70s bit of yawnsville tin. It gets destroyed by fire. >>> >>> Should the insurance pay out the market value of it (three rusty >>> washers) or the cost of completely remanufacturing it? > >> Remanufacturing. Because they accepted my 'bet' - I bet that I would >> need to claim within a period of less than the equivalent amount of >> premiums, and they bet that I wouldn't. > >>> Maybe it's the last remaining RHD version. Should the insurance pay for >>> the cost of converting an immaculate LHD car? > >> If thats their most cost effective way of replacing 'like for like', >> then I'd guess thats the method they'd choose. Its up to them - all I >> want is the resulting vehicle, by whatever method. > > <shrug> > Fine. As I've already said... Go and find somebody who'll sell you that > policy. > > Nobody here knows of one. > > If you can't find one either, then you've clearly got a nice little niche > business opportunity. Good luck with it. Don't forget to advertise in the > classic mags - I'm sure there's other people who'd agree with you that > it's a policy they'll pay a bit extra for. I've previously conceded that your view must be nearer right than my own, otherwise such policies would be visibly available. But the mere fact that it doesn't currently exist shouldn't be taken to read that there's something 'wrong' with the concept. As I implied previously, its all a question of odds, and where there's odds you'll always, but always, find a bookie. If he feels the odds are in his favour, he'll take any bet at all. There's definitely one who'll give me superb odds that my grandson wont be world snooker champion before he's 21. And I've not *got* a grandson yet! |