Supra insurance 'Market value'

[MV8]

What is the Supra Market value? What do insurance consider a Twin Turbo BPU insurance value at?

Any recommended companies who do agreed valuations?

[pistonbroke]

Too many variables to come out with a number mate. You'd need more specific details of the car.

[Josh]

Was told by someone on here their UK TT6 was valued at £9k by Admiral.

 

So probably not enough.

[Gaz6002]

Market value is all over the place right now as people really struggle to sell their cars.

 

Not many companies do agreed value these days either. If you do find one you're going to have to prove to them that your car is worth what you're insuring it for, so find decent cars on Pistonheads, Autotrader or Ebay that match the spec so you can prove your car's value.

[Matt H]

Not many companies do agreed value these days either. If you do find one you're going to have to prove to them that your car is worth what you're insuring it for, so find decent cars on Pistonheads, Autotrader or Ebay that match the spec so you can prove your car's value.

 

How does that relate to the cost of rebuilding a car with heavy mods? Obviously most owners with big spec cars will be selling their vehicle at a loss, but if someone comes and smashes in to it, then they would need to be paid out a lot more than they could sell it for to be truely compensated for their loss.

[Gaz6002]

How does that relate to the cost of rebuilding a car with heavy mods? Obviously most owners with big spec cars will be selling their vehicle at a loss, but if someone comes and smashes in to it, then they would need to be paid out a lot more than they could sell it for to be truely compensated for their loss.

 

It doesn't, it relates to how much a company will insure your car for. For instance, mine has an agreed value of a certain amount, but I've spent over five times that amount on the car since I bought it.

 

If an accident does happen, the insurance company will decide whether the cost of the repairs is more than a percentage of the agreed value of the car. If it's more than this percentage, it's a write-off.

 

However, as I said, companies don't like to give agreed values anymore (I've had my policy for a while which is why I got one).

[Attero]

My insurers told me that I can put any value I like onto my policy. They said it's how much I value my own car.

[Safely Insured]

How does that relate to the cost of rebuilding a car with heavy mods? Obviously most owners with big spec cars will be selling their vehicle at a loss, but if someone comes and smashes in to it, then they would need to be paid out a lot more than they could sell it for to be truely compensated for their loss.

 

No, if that was the case there would be fraudulent claims left right and centre.. modifying a car is a mugs game... dont take that the wrong way, I have spent £10K+ on modifications for my 1988 Toyota, in reality the car is worth about £4000 tops and I would be happy with that in the event of a claim.

 

Ollie

[Chris Wilson]

Very honest and sensible reply.

[Matt H]

No, if that was the case there would be fraudulent claims left right and centre.. modifying a car is a mugs game... dont take that the wrong way, I have spent £10K+ on modifications for my 1988 Toyota, in reality the car is worth about £4000 tops and I would be happy with that in the event of a claim.

 

Ollie

 

So you're saying that if someone crashes into me, then I'm not entitled to get back what I owned based on adequate proof of what it would cost to build a car back up to the same standard? i.e if I had a GT35r turbo in there, I'm not entitled to a replacement GT45r turbo? When an insurance companys says like for like modifications, they're actually lying?

[AndrewOW]

Unless it's agreed value, then I can only assume that you only get what the insurance company is willing to pay out.

[Safely Insured]

So you're saying that if someone crashes into me, then I'm not entitled to get back what I owned based on adequate proof of what it would cost to build a car back up to the same standard? i.e if I had a GT35r turbo in there, I'm not entitled to a replacement GT45r turbo? When an insurance companys says like for like modifications, they're actually lying?

 

Matt, no insurance company is going to add the market value of your car without modifications + what you have spent on modifications and give you that figure.. if the car is damaged and is not deemed a write off then if you have your modifications covered like for like then they will be replaced like for like. Are you modifying the car to increase the value? I know I'm not. You'll also find that a standard Supra will more often than not carry a higher value than a modified Supra.. at the end of the day not everyone wants garish bright bodykitted Supras with the bling bling wheels etc

[Matt H]

Matt, no insurance company is going to add the market value of your car without modifications + what you have spent on modifications and give you that figure.. if the car is damaged and is not deemed a write off then if you have your modifications covered like for like then they will be replaced like for like. Are you modifying the car to increase the value? I know I'm not. You'll also find that a standard Supra will more often than not carry a higher value than a modified Supra.. at the end of the day not everyone wants garish bright bodykitted Supras with the bling bling wheels etc

 

What I've spent or whether someone else would want the car is obviously irrelevant. I'd find it quite odd if I had a letter from my insurance company offering me £2k because they didn't like the style of the car. What I'm refering to is in the event of a collision without me being at blame. I'd consider it logical that the other insurance company would have to pay out for what it would cost for you to get back what you had - nothing more, nothing less.

[Gaz6002]

What I've spent or whether someone else would want the car is obviously irrelevant. I'd find it quite odd if I had a letter from my insurance company offering me £2k because they didn't like the style of the car. What I'm refering to is in the event of a collision without me being at blame. I'd consider it logical that the other insurance company would have to pay out for what it would cost for you to get back what you had - nothing more, nothing less.

 

...they have to decide whether the repairs are financially viable first. If they aren't, they'll just write your car off.

[mwilkinson]

This is why I will always pay for an agreed value policy where I can. I then know what my car is worth to my insurer. Modifying a car is a mugs game if you believe you add value to your vehicle. Just look at Autotrader and you will see that the price difference between a single turbo Supra and a good condition stock or mildly modified supra is only about £5K, yet the outlay is often double that. In fact recently I have seen single turbo Supras going cheaper than stock Supras!!

[Tyson]

market value is if you were to sell your car now what would you realistically get for it not to be confused with what you hope to get. Would you expect a buyer to pay for your car + all the money in mods ... I think not. Obviously every year the market value of your car would have to re-agreed and will most likely go down.

[stevie_b]

market value is if you were to sell your car now what would you realistically get for it not to be confused with what you hope to get. Would you expect a buyer to pay for your car + all the money in mods ... I think not. Obviously every year the market value of your car would have to re-agreed and will most likely go down.

 

Matt, I can see your point but the bit in bold above is the key here I think. Let's say you've spent £35k in total on your car, including the initial purchase. Let's also say that you put it up for sale again and it sold for £20k. Had you not sold it and someone had crashed into you, you would get £20k, not £35k. The insurance company would argue that you wouldn't be out of pocket because you could buy a similar spec'd car to replace it with your £20k insurance payout. If there isn't one of exactly that spec for sale, you'd have to settle for a lesser model by spending less than the £20k, or buy a better model by chipping in some money of your own to add to the £20k.

 

Here's the important bit: you'd get what it would cost to buy a similar spec'd car, not what you've spent on your car.

 

And that's why modifications are a bad monetary investment (note, I'm not saying they're bad per se): once fitted, they add much less to (and sometimes detract from) the eventual sale value of the car compared to what they cost to buy and fit.

 

Here's a tricky bit: what if there isn't a car for sale that's got exactly the same spec as yours? Well, the insurance companies have to extrapolate/interpolate based on similar-ish cars for sale.

Edited December 23, 2010 by stevie_b (see edit history)

[SupraAyf]

at the end of the day not everyone wants garish bright bodykitted Supras with the bling bling wheels etc

 

.............................because SKY is not able to insure them!

[Matt H]

I don't know why everyone is thinking I'd expect to get everyone penny back I've spent on my car, nor do I understand why people are assuming I modify my car to increase it's value I think everyone needs to take a step back and actually read what I've been saying, rather than some of the tangeted replies.

 

I'm saying, that in the event of incident that is not my fault, I am legally entitled to be compensated for my loss so I am in the same position as I was before hand i.e I have the same or similar car as before the event of the collision. If things cannot be righted by rectifying the problem physcially, then people usually recieve momentary compensation for their loss i.e, whip lash - it can't be righted physcially per se, so they recieve a momentary sum to compensate for it. The actual value of what it would cost to put me back in that situation is not what I'm refering to, it could be little. If I could go out the day after an incident that resulted in a write off and buy my exact same car for £10K then that's what I would get paid out, because I could buy that car and be in the exact same position as I was before the accident - fine. But that is unlikely to be the case with such a bespoke car, which is why it would get complicated, but at no point along the line should the innocent party be in a 'worse' position than before the incident - please note that I am refering to being the victim of a collision, not the person that that causes the crash and is claiming of his / her own policy which might be a decent agreed value one of soemthing basic perhaps?

 

Let’s just consider why vehicles get written off in the first place. It’s simply because it is cheaper to put someone back into the exact same position they were in before the collision (by funding a replacement car) than it is to provide repairs to reach the same objective (putting them back in the same position as they were before the collision).

 

One of the reasons I pay (as with many others) an ample premium on my daily driver slow diesel, is not to provide me with more than ample cover, it's to cover other people, because who know's.. one day you may fall asleep at the wheel and end up driving onto a raileway line is Selby.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Matt H (see edit history)

[David P]

What you propose makes perfect sense to me, which is most probably, why you will most probably find that it has been circumvented within the small print.

 

Don’t for one moment think that any insurance company exists to do you any favours.

Their aim is to generate maximum profit for shareholders and employee bonus payments.

Edited December 23, 2010 by David P (see edit history)

[colsoop]

I think if the accident was not your fault and the third parties insurance accepted the blame then aren't you entitled to be put back on to the road to the same standard as before the accident ?

[Matt H]

I think if the accident was not your fault and the third parties insurance accepted the blame then aren't you entitled to be put back on to the road to the same standard as before the accident ?

 

That's exactly what I'm saying, Col.

[Matt H]

What you propose makes perfect sense to me, which is most probably, why you will most probably find that it has been circumvented within the small print.

 

What you need to understand is I'm refering to collisions that are not the first parties fault. In such situations the limitations or 'small print' of your own policy don't take precedence. That's what I was refering to in para.5 of post 19. It's a shame that was misunderstood from my first post

[stevie_b]

--------------------

EDIT: just read your previous reply: if someone else has crashed into you then their insurance company can't write off your car without your permission IIRC. In this case, your car would be repaired no matter what the cost as long as your mods are declared and insured.

 

What I've written below assumes that you allow the third party's insurer to write your car off (which they will probably want to do).

-------------------

 

I don't know why everyone is thinking I'd expect to get everyone penny back I've spent on my car, nor do I understand why people are assuming I modify my car to increase it's value I think everyone needs to take a step back and actually read what I've been saying, rather than some of the tangeted replies.

It's post #10 that threw me I think, which I've quoted below for completeness:

So you're saying that if someone crashes into me, then I'm not entitled to get back what I owned based on adequate proof of what it would cost to build a car back up to the same standard? i.e if I had a GT35r turbo in there, I'm not entitled to a replacement GT45r turbo? When an insurance companys says like for like modifications, they're actually lying?

 

Quoting part of post 10 again:

So you're saying that if someone crashes into me, then I'm not entitled to get back what I owned...

Yes. You are entitled to get back what you owned. As you said, you should be in the same financial position as before the imaginary crash.

...based on adequate proof of what it would cost to build a car back up to the same standard

No. It won't be calculated based on cost to rebuild. It'll be calculated based on what it would cost to buy the same car complete. If no such car is available to buy (as would be the case with your car), the insurers would extrapolate based on other modded cars for sale. It gets tricky when the insurers cost up the differences between your car and the "available modded reference cars" in a different way to how you would cost them.

 

All AFAIK. I'm not an insurance expert nor do I work in the field.

Edited December 23, 2010 by stevie_b (see edit history)

[Matt H]

If someone else has crashed into you then their insurance company can't write off your car without your permission IIRC. In this case, your car would be repaired no matter what the cost as long as your mods are declared and insured.

 

No. It won't be calculated based on cost to rebuild. It'll be calculated based on what it would cost to buy the same car complete. If no such car is available to buy (as would be the case with your car), the insurers would extrapolate based on other modded cars for sale. It gets tricky when the insurers cost up the differences between your car and the "available modded reference cars" in a different way to how you would cost them.

 

I think there's a significant difference in the principle used between those two scenarios. In the first instance, the cost is as you say, 'unlimited' for repair. We all know that some damage is beyond repair, or even beyond want of repair. If someone significantly damages my car, i.e chassis damage etc, as much as I don't want to see it happen, I would think twice about whether or not I'd want it back as a repair.

 

In that case, it's a write off, but your second post then insinuates that if you're in the write off bracket, you're at the mercy of the other parties insurance company and therefore you could 'not be in the same position as before the crash'. There's two scenarios I'd imagine would come about in the write off event. The first would be a payout for the purchase of another car as similar as possible that you would be happy to accept as a replacement. The second and more likely choice for the victim would be a pay out to have a car built back to the same spec. Whether this is payment to the company undertaking the work or payment up front I don't know. Obviously, if fraud was to be avoided, payments should go directly to the car builders?

Edited December 23, 2010 by Matt H (see edit history)