Insurance refused payout due to modified exhaust?

[The Red One]

So you think because you have insurance you’re covered?

This BRZ owner had to fight to get his claim filled for his totalled car just because he had upgraded his exhaust.

https://driving.ca/subaru/auto-news/...his-sports-car

I find that harsh, I can see the insurance not wanting to reimburse for expensive upgrades that are not divulged by the client but a whole car?

He finally did get the insurance to cover his loss.
Anybody from here?

My biggest claim I had with my insurance was theft and I needed to be patient and willing to fight for a few months to get a fair amount.

They were giving me a quote for a base civic and I had to do some “shopping” to prove what my SIR market value was going for at the time.
15 for sale listing later to show, I Got 45% more than their 1st quote…

I presently have good relations with my insurance agent and she always has new questions for both House & cars come renewal so no hidden clauses to surprise.

[soundman98]

not that specifically, but my family friend had his pickup truck parked out in front of his house that got hit.

a chick with one of those 'we cover anyone for $10/mo!' insurance policies rounded the corner way too fast and hit his truck. pushed it 30' forward, and bent the frame and bed to the point that his fiberglass bed topper was 6" too long, and 12" out of square. the spare tire that used to be mounted between the rear frame rails behind the rear axle was now above the rear axle.

her insurance said it was his fault(liability through his insurance, and because she had insurance, his 'uninsured motorist coverage' couldn't count). he talked to a couple lawyers, and they all told him companies like that depend on never paying out, so they'd intentionally wrap it up in the legal system for decades if need be so they don't have to...

[Sapphireho]

My insurance denied my claim because one of my testicles hangs lower than the other. Look for the "testicle" clause.

[RToyo86]

Seems like the person in charge of that insurance file was having a bad day.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by RToyo86

Seems like the person in charge of that insurance file was having a bad day.

That is like literally there job to deny claims and take money.

[EAGLE5]

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

My insurance denied my claim because one of my testicles hangs lower than the other. Look for the "testicle" clause.

Testicle Clause stalked my nightmares after Mom made me sit in his lap at the mall.

[TommyW]

They’re in the business to take in money and not to pay it out especially some of those fly by night companies

[Tcoat]

That is the exact same insurance company I have.
I have had discussion with them about coverage for modified cars.
They have no issue with covering mods as long as you let them know so they can adjust the premiums.
They would only pay out book value for the car no matter what you did with it if you didn't report them though.
They had zero issue with paying for my repairs when the FRS got hit by the flying LCA on the highway.
They had zero issue paying the truly exuberant bill when my wife rear ended some guy with her year old Outlander Sport (RVR in Canada) and caused damage at about 70% of the value of the vehicle.
There is either more to this story than we are being told or somebody at the insurance company simply screwed up and it took some pushing to get them to admit it.
The insurance system in Ontario is a no fault type so it doesn't matter who caused the accident your own company is who is paying out. It is also very, VERY strongly regulated and monitored so getting payouts is not usually an issue. There really are none of the shady fly by night operations you get in some states. Companies that just take in money and don't pay it back out would not be around long here!

[The Red One]

This is a reputable insurance company, has been around for quite some time, far from being fly by night.

Wonder what the real story is here that caused the claim to be refused
or was it some misunderstanding that just escalated ..

I have a hard time with the amount of his yearly dues.
Knew the rates were higher in Ontario but astounded by how
much a young driver has to pay.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by The Red One

This is a reputable insurance company, has been around for quite some time, far from being fly by night.

Wonder what the real story is here that caused the claim to be refused
or was it some misunderstanding that just escalated ..

I have a hard time with the amount of his yearly dues.
Knew the rates were higher in Ontario but astounded by how
much a young driver has to pay.

Totally depends on their record and exactly where they live far more than the car but yes they are high. They are high because the payouts for their age group are high.
My 18 year old grandson is a great example. He has his dad's old 2010 Mazda 5 registered in his name. When he lived in the Kitchener-Waterloo area his insurance was $420 a MONTH! When he moved to our house in London to go to College it dropped to $360 a month. Still high but that is a substantial drop just for moving to a different city. The closer you get to Toronto the higher rates you pay.
One time we checked what a FRS would cost him and it was only $340 a month. This didn't make sense so we checked with the broker and it turns out the Mazda 5 cost so much more because it is classed as a multi passenger (seats 7) vehicle and the claims against it for the age group were huge compared to the FRS.

In my particular case the insurance on my 2003 Lancer Rally dropped from $700 a year to $650 a year when I moved two blocks away. Apparently I crossed a dividing line from two different section of the city.

[daiheadjai]

Read the article this morning and from the information that's been given, I'd say the insurance company has a case for rejecting the payout of the exhaust, but to try and reject the entire car is excessive in this case (an exhaust is unlikely to be the cause of the wreck).

Do Ontario insurers need to prove modifications were the cause of an accident to deny a claim? Vaguely remember reading that this is the case in some places.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

Read the article this morning and from the information that's been given, I'd say the insurance company has a case for rejecting the payout of the exhaust, but to try and reject the entire car is excessive in this case (an exhaust is unlikely to be the cause of the wreck).

Do Ontario insurers need to prove modifications were the cause of an accident to deny a claim? Vaguely remember reading that this is the case in some places.

If they can prove that a mod was the direct and only cause of the accident they may deny coverage. It would be almost impossible to prove though.
The bigger thing is undeclared mods where people expect to get paid. They really frown on that!

It also depends on exactly what coverage and policy you have. There is not really a one rule policy and you can get more or less coverage (to the basic requirements) depending on what you pay for. For example I pay for replacement value coverage. Costs me about $50 a year but if my car is totaled they don't just pay out book value they buy me an equal car one year or more NEWER than mine.

Here are some excerpts from a "typical" Ontario policy that show how they could not pay out. People really should actually sit down and read their damned policies!

"You agree to notify us promptly in writing of any significant change of which you are
aware in your status as a driver, owner or lessee of a described automobile. You also
agree to let us know of any change that might increase the risk of an incident or affect our
willingness to insure you at current rates.
You must promptly tell us of any change in information supplied in your original
application for insurance, such as additional drivers, or a change in the way a described
automobile is used."

You agree not to use or allow anyone to use the automobile in a race or speed test or for
any illegal trade or transportation. (THIS may be why he was originally denied since we have no idea what the accident involved)

Property Not Covered
Under this Section, we won't cover claims for damage to property carried in or upon the
automobile,

"Limitations on Your Coverage
intentionally failed to notify us of any significant changes as required
were convicted of a criminal offence involving the operation of an automobile".

https://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/f...ms/1215E.2.pdf