I would have guessed that unless the vehicle has been changed sufficiently to make it non compliant with type approval, or changes made affect power or safety, the doctrine of "de minimis non curat lex" (the law does not concern itself with trifles) would apply. So minor changes, like choosing from the makers option list, are often insignificant. Chipping, suspension hoisting, hare-brained mods like wide wheels etc, loud exhausts might well be significant if undeclared. It might be argued they indicate a desire to race, show-off etc. Thus the insurer is unable to compute the risk because an important aspect of the car AND the driver is concealed.

Edited by nortones2 on 30/05/2010 at 10:54

Quotes for insurabce from Admiral include the proviso: "The Motor Policy does not cover any non standard parts (Modifications). Manufacturers optional extras are only covered if they have been declared and we have agreed to cover them.'

As Rattle pointed out in the general forum that includes car mats which are categorised as 'interior decorative changes'.

The interesting issue is when a failure to declare a modification might reasonably comprise a "material fact" and might lead to a claim being rejected.

We are dealing with an insurabce claim at the moment where there is a refusal to indemnify after an accident because the insurer's assessor found there were tints on the vehicle which had not been declared.

The tints were perfectlly legal as the light transmission on the windscreen and front side windows was within VOSA guidelines and although the rears were heavily tinted the law says these are irrelevant.

But the client had not declared them.

The car is a write off in a fault claim on which the tints could not be shown to hve any bearing.

Our contention is that the insurer would thus have no liability for the added value (if any) provided by he tints but that the claim is fundamentally sound.

The insurer is contending that this was a failure to declare a material fact and is refusing to indemnify.

The question is where the line is drawn? Natural justice would suggest that had the client added a turbo and not declared it then the refusal to indemnify might be reasonable. However a refusal on the basis of additional car mats would not be.

We will assert that legal tints are on the "car mats" side of the line but where would other mods such as wheels, altered suspension, a different exhaust, neons etc fall?

Would the courts rule they were sufficient to invalidate a motor insurance policy?

Was the tint added as an optional extra? Even if it was, was it material to the claim? The Financial Ombudsman has a view on this

www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombuds...m

www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombuds...m

Search for other cases

www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/index....m

Edited by Max Headroom on 31/05/2010 at 23:12

A "material fact" would be one that, had they known of it, would have changed their treatment of the risk at inception.

So ask; "if you had known of the tinted windows, what would you have done ?"

If the answer is "refuse to insure you" then you have a problem which you probably can't escape.

If the answer is "charge an additional premium" or "increase the excess" then you'll need to deduct that from the claim.

If the answer is that they would have not taken any action, then there you go.