'Gap insurance' for classics?
in [Classic Cars]
|
From: Adrian on 10 Dec 2008 10:19 Phileaus Leaius <whos(a)prettyboy.then> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> What you are asking, basically, is "Can I get insurance to cover the >> cost of rebuilding my car, even if that exceeds the market value?" It's >> a reasonable question ... but the reasonable answer is "no". > Thank you for that answer. It would have saved fifty-odd posts if that > could have been the *initial* response, but hey, it was an interesting > thread anyway. Thank you also for agreeing it was a reasonable question, > despite the posts earlier in the thread that suggested it was a stupid > one and that I obviously knew nothing about insurance, or classics. The question is reasonable. The same answer - "No, you can't" - was given in the first handful of responses. Everything since then has been an expansion as to why it's a stupid _idea_
From: Ian on 10 Dec 2008 10:23 On 10 Dec, 14:39, Roger <ro...(a)nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote: [Disappointing personal abuse snipped] > Rebuilding costs have frequently been in excess of the open market value > of the property. In some special cases that may happen. In general, however, and for very obvious reasons, it costs more to buy a house than it does simply to build it. > Insurance companies protect themselves by not offering > a write-off option and no doubt rook their customers by insisting that > they will only pay out to build a house to the original specification > and require the captive customer to pay the extra... In exactly the same way that the OP's insurance company is reluctant to allow him to insure to have every bump, ding and shiny bit he has put in over the years recreated at their expense. > And new for old contents insurance is now so common it must be difficult > to actually get the old fashioned 'subject to average' type insurance. Indeed. It's still a market value, though. Ian
From: Ian on 10 Dec 2008 10:27 On 10 Dec, 15:08, Phileaus Leaius <w...(a)prettyboy.then> wrote: > Still, as we've all agreed now, it isn't available. Shame, but > thems the breaks The best route is to push hard at agreed value time. I know of one super-concours (think autistic levels of anal retention) Citroen DS which is insured at an agreed value of £80,000. That's four times more than you'd pay for a superb one ... Ian
From: Adrian on 10 Dec 2008 10:28 Ian <ian.groups(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > The best route is to push hard at agreed value time. I know of one > super-concours (think autistic levels of anal retention) Citroen DS > which is insured at an agreed value of £80,000. That's four times more > than you'd pay for a superb one ... True, but I know he's turned down unsolicited offers of close to that in the past.
From: Roger on 10 Dec 2008 12:31
The message <c0863228-4d56-45dd-9338-1d63ffff377b(a)g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com> from Ian <ian.groups(a)btinternet.com> contains these words: > On 10 Dec, 14:39, Roger <ro...(a)nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote: > [Disappointing personal abuse snipped] But you said: "I think it was pointed out to you that house insurance covers rebuilding costs precisely because they are LESS than the market value." Which is absurd and saying so in not personal abuse. > > Rebuilding costs have frequently been in excess of the open market value > > of the property. > In some special cases that may happen. In general, however, and for > very obvious reasons, it costs more to buy a house than it does simply > to build it. It might have been getting that way in the recent past but historically total rebuilds (which of course include the cost of clearing the site) for houses would often exceed the the OMV of the property before total destruction. Even today outside the property hotspots like London the value of the land is a relatively small proportion of the typical house. And you have to insure at a realistic rebuild cost otherwise you will get crucified on a partial loss which is far more common than a total rebuild event. > > Insurance companies protect themselves by not offering > > a write-off option and no doubt rook their customers by insisting that > > they will only pay out to build a house to the original specification > > and require the captive customer to pay the extra... > In exactly the same way that the OP's insurance company is reluctant > to allow him to insure to have every bump, ding and shiny bit he has > put in over the years recreated at their expense. I suspect that the real reason for not finding such a policy is that the demand for it is so small that the insurance company can't rely on statistics to predict the extent of claims and with such a small potential market can't be bothered to even quote an inflated premium to cover the lack of predictability. > > And new for old contents insurance is now so common it must be difficult > > to actually get the old fashioned 'subject to average' type insurance. > Indeed. It's still a market value, though. It is difficult to see how getting a new piece of kit costing �1000 to replace something several years old and worth say �500 has anything much to do with the market value of the original piece. -- Roger Chapman |