Like most other people here I've only ever been asked about worth, or value or some-such.
If you have a brand new car to insure you'll want to use the purchase price, unless you think you've done a stunning deal, in which case you may want to use a higher figure for what the car is worth.
I seem to recall that HJ says if you write a car off (or the insurance company does for you), you're entitled to be put back where you were before the accident: that's what insurance is for.
I'd be surprised if the cost of the insured vehicle were a really important variable in the premium calculation. Most of us drive around in cars costing less than £20k, so the driver and his risk profile is much more important because isn't that where the important variables are?
Where purchase price would come in is if you buy "back to invoice" gap insurance where the policy will pay the difference between your payment out and what your insurance company is prepared to pay you.
|
|
Liverpool Victoria's quote system has ranges for the value, and the lowest is £0 to £20K.
|
|
|
>Most of us drive around in cars costing less than £20k, so the driver and his risk >profile is much more important because isn't that where the important variables are?
I guess that most insurance payouts are for bent metal, not for damage to the driver. Hence an approx value for the car is the crucial thing.
|
|
For me, and interesting difference of approach by Insurance Companies. A fully-comprehensive cover here seems to be automatically for Market Value, regardless of price paid, and my annual renewal premium demand states the Company's idea of market value. No point in quibbling, because I find prices asked in the paper and on the yards are within a very few percent [ both ways ] of the Insurer's number. There is nothing to stop me nominating a lesser sum for the reduced premium and carrying some of the risk myself.
|
That's interesting. The company allows you to deliberately under-insure?
Isn't that a bit like only insuring half your house contents, but then claiming that by an amazing coincidence, those were the only items the burglar took?
|
Under-insure? Isn't he just carrying a substantial excess?
|
Under-insure? Isn't he just carrying a substantial excess?
That would depend. If he insured his car for say half its real value, and then incurred damage equal to the insured sum, would they pay 100% of the claim or 50%?
In my house contents example the company would say he was under-insured to the extent of 50% and only pay half the claim.
|
... In my house contents example the company would say he was under-insured to the extent of 50% and only pay half the claim. ... >>
Is that not just what Kiwi alluded about the car insurance available in Kiwiland?
>> >> >>
Why your multiple blank lines of >> ?
|
|
You can claim only up to the value that you nominate. I guess, in effect, you have taken a voluntary excess of 50% in the example above.
|
|
|
|
|
