Hi,

It's all total guff, just another scam to get out of paying out, stand your ground, they'll cave.

What next, will they refuse to pay because of the pack of juicy fruit in the glove box and the tissues in the armrest,because it wasn't factory specification ?

A. Fuji White / Jet 2012 4.4 TDV8 Westminster

I wonder how fitting AT tyres to our vehicles affects the insurance cover? Or L405 wheels to an L322?

You see lots of D3's/D4's/ Fatties with AT tyres with an 'H' speed rating which in many cases is less than that specified in the owner's manual. Speed ratings have changed over different years I've noted, although some L322's for example, specify 'H' rated, some are 'V'.

I realise 'H' rating (130 mph) is faster than a lot of these vehicles will even go and way beyond the National Speed limit, but the manuals often state that tyres of the same speed rating specified or higher should be fitted.

The same goes when fitting L405 wheels to an L322, the wheels have a different offset and L405 tyres are a different sidewall profile depth (if keeping original L405 rubber). A picky insurer could cancel insurance on this. Not knocking anyone who does this, I've run L405 wheels & tyres on my L322, if anyuthing the ride was better on the taller sidewalls!

I do note that the magazine article mentions the poor sod whose insurance got cancelled was in regard to a 'six figure' potential claim! So maybe it depends on the size of the claim as to just how picky the assessor gets?

Either way, I'd be telling them about any modification - just checking my build sheet now!

Jon 1992 RR Classic 3.9 efi Vogue
2014 Disco 4 HSE
===================
Both my fatties now gone...
Previous: 2011 L322 4.4 TDV8 Vogue SE /// 2002 L322 4.4 V8 HSE /// 2009 Discovery 3 2.7 TDV6 XS /// 2004 Defender 90 TD5 /// 1993 110 V8 Snatch Landrover /// 2005 Discovery 3 2.7 TDV6 SE (Aus) /// 1990 110 Isuzu 3.9 County (Aus) /// 1976 Series III Trayback (Aus)

AndyRoo wrote:

Hi,

stand your ground, they'll cave.

good luck with that  2012 TDV8 Vogue (L322)

When I've enquired about tyre changes they were not interested and only said a notification was neccessary if the actual wheel size changed from stock so 21" wheels on an L322 would require this. There was a similar discusson a while back regarding fitting winter tyres but I can't remember the outcome but likley worth notifying your insurer. 2012 TDV8 Vogue (L322)

V8 Bob wrote:

Some say modification to factory standard so how do you stand with all the potential expensive extras added to the vehicle when new…..these can of course include a tow bar?

D3Jon wrote:

I wonder how fitting AT tyres to our vehicles affects the insurance cover?

p38arover wrote:

My build sheet shows AT tyres were factory-fitted.

Hi Ron

I was more thinking of the insurance implications of fitting an H rated tyre when V rated (or higher) is specified on the tyre placard or in the owner's book. This would impact later L322's and almost certainly all L405's.

It's a common sight to see the likes of H rated BFG AT's or General Grabbers fitted to Rangies and Disco's, which require a V rated (or higher) tyre.

Just wondering if people tell their insurance companies, given the discussion here about a removable tow-bar invalidating someone's insurance cover, leaving him with a six figure bill!

Jon 1992 RR Classic 3.9 efi Vogue
2014 Disco 4 HSE
===================
Both my fatties now gone...
Previous: 2011 L322 4.4 TDV8 Vogue SE /// 2002 L322 4.4 V8 HSE /// 2009 Discovery 3 2.7 TDV6 XS /// 2004 Defender 90 TD5 /// 1993 110 V8 Snatch Landrover /// 2005 Discovery 3 2.7 TDV6 SE (Aus) /// 1990 110 Isuzu 3.9 County (Aus) /// 1976 Series III Trayback (Aus)

Re the tyre, OK Jon. Ron B. VK2OTC
2003 L322 V8 Auto
2007 Yamaha XJR1300
Previous: 1983, 1986 RRC; 1995, 1996 P38A; 1995 Disco1; 1984 V8 County 110; Series IIA

For peace of mind it's probably worth telling the insurance company anything you think may not be the original spec. I would concider AT tyres an increased risk due to their poorer grip on wet tarmac irrespective of their lower speed rating......  2012 TDV8 Vogue (L322)

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/exclusive/36...ins-payout 2012 TDV8 Vogue (L322)

JayGee wrote:

For peace of mind it's probably worth telling the insurance company anything you think may not be the original spec. I would concider AT tyres an increased risk due to their poorer grip on wet tarmac irrespective of their lower speed rating......

Wise words - I agree.

Just checked the build sheet on my Disco 4 (Fattie-less just for now) and even the roof rails it's fitted with are optioned on there, but worryingly, not the mud flaps! Unless they're part of 'Exterior Upgrade Packs - Exterior Upgrade Pack [032DE]' - I must get on to my insurer immediately

Jon 1992 RR Classic 3.9 efi Vogue
2014 Disco 4 HSE
===================
Both my fatties now gone...
Previous: 2011 L322 4.4 TDV8 Vogue SE /// 2002 L322 4.4 V8 HSE /// 2009 Discovery 3 2.7 TDV6 XS /// 2004 Defender 90 TD5 /// 1993 110 V8 Snatch Landrover /// 2005 Discovery 3 2.7 TDV6 SE (Aus) /// 1990 110 Isuzu 3.9 County (Aus) /// 1976 Series III Trayback (Aus)

JayGee wrote:

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/exclusive/365458/driver-whose-towbar-voided-his-insurance-wins-payout

Phew, thank goodness for common sense in this particular case. The poor bloke must be relieved!

Thanks for posting the link to the update jayGee

Jon 1992 RR Classic 3.9 efi Vogue
2014 Disco 4 HSE
===================
Both my fatties now gone...
Previous: 2011 L322 4.4 TDV8 Vogue SE /// 2002 L322 4.4 V8 HSE /// 2009 Discovery 3 2.7 TDV6 XS /// 2004 Defender 90 TD5 /// 1993 110 V8 Snatch Landrover /// 2005 Discovery 3 2.7 TDV6 SE (Aus) /// 1990 110 Isuzu 3.9 County (Aus) /// 1976 Series III Trayback (Aus)

JayGee wrote:

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/exclusive/365458/driver-whose-towbar-voided-his-insurance-wins-payout

Rob99 wrote:

Common sense prevails (as it always should have done in this case!!)

Just as an aside, I'm sure I read some time ago that insurers weren't allowed to decline claims on the basis of undisclosed information if it was of little or no relevance. Whatever happened to that, or did I dream it?

Just to add a different slant….how do you stand to removing factory fitted items ie deployable steps which often fail and are removed as the least cost remedy. Has the vehicle been modified?
Perhaps we should join together with other motoring groups and “out” those companies that try and wriggle out of claims, low ball write off valuations. 2012 tdv8 Westminster arrived Jan 19 gone Dec 23

200 TDi discovery bobtail gone
RR classic v8 bobtail gone
300 tdi Discovery 3 dr gone

It's hard enough getting RR insurance at all these days.

Insurance contracts as a matter of law are contracts of "ultimate good faith" so the person seeking the insurance has an absolute obligation to notify anything that might be relevant. Tell the insurer if there are changes. Some have drop-down lists of things that don't need to be notified. Things like towbars and steps etc are relevant to value so will be priced in when premia are set, it's not just about chipping and performance enhancements.

One thing that surprised me at my renewal with NFU Mutual this year was that insurance cover is excluded if one is driving in breach of drink or drug driving laws, so any third party claim is against the Motor Insurers Bureau (which covers losses caused by uninsured drivers), the insured has no claim in respect of their own loss and they can be prosecuted for driving without insurance as well as for the drink/drugged driving offence. They did not elaborate on whether the MIB would seek to recover from the drink/drug driver's personal assets for money they had paid to the third party, but I expect they would have that right. Is that change being made elsewhere? Only Range Rovers since 1988