shadowninja

Yeah AMI is good. State is trying to shake their reputation as the worst & ugliest kid on the block, but they've got a long way to go. I still recommend staying away from them too.

Carl, where the heck is the mountain in Petone???

I chew through around $150-200 per month. But I do get to claim 60% of that back from my work.

Not me. But it still doesn't seem right that 3/4 of the price of a pack of tumour sticks is government tax. sh*t if its so bad to smoke the suckers, and there are such huge health ramifications just outlaw it. A lot more people die every year in NZ due to smoking than from speeding.

Far out GI Joes were awesome. Coooobbrrraaaa! Hmm this thread is getting a bit random. I'd have no problems if gas prices went up in order to improve our roads. The majority of our prices at the pump are tax, but it all just goes into the coffers of ACC & the consolidated fund. Did you read on the front of the Dom Post how much money they get in tobacco taxes?? Over $800 Million per year!

Most insurance policies have a provision to cancel the cover for any reason with 14-days warning. If they don't have that clause then they can simply decide not to renew your cover when it 'expires' at the end of the year.

What it is really hammering home is the whole non-disclosure issue. If you don't tell your insurance company about modifications they don't have a chance to even consider the risk. If you are able to explain the mods in an even-handed way, and agree to cover terms then you're home sweet.

Yeah they are gutless, but if your primary motivation is saving on gas ... Get a vespa instead? :thumb:

Case Study No 4: finance and heavy modifications In August 2001, C insured a vehicle with P. In December 2001, the vehicle was stolen from outside C’s house. C made a claim to P for the loss. In the course of the interview with P’s investigator, C disclosed a 1997 claim for another vehicle. C had not disclosed finance on the vehicle at the commencement of the polic. C also told the investigator that the vehicle was heavily modified and had provided details of the modifications to P’s custumer services representative when he arranged the insurance with P. P avoided the policy and declined to consider the claim. C had provided a letter from P’s customer services representative, which suggested she was aware the vehicle had been restored, although she did not appreciate the extent of the modifications. The Case Manager noted that P was unable to produce a copy of the application questions asked or C’s answer to them. Therefore, the Case Manager was unable to determine whether C failed to disclose the 1997 claim or the extent of the modifications at the inception of the policy. As there was a lack of evidence, the Case Manager did not believe P was entitled to avoid the policy on the basis of non-disclosure of information on the application. Complaint Upheld.

Case Study No 3: CD wheels and sound In May 2000, C insured her vehicle with P. At the commencement of the policy, the vehicle did not have standard tyres and had mag wheels. By the first renewal of the policy, C had added a Momo steering wheel to the vehicle. By the second renewal, C had modified the vehicle with the addition of a Clarion CD player, two amplifiers and two speakers. In early 2003, the vehicle was stolen and C made a claim to P for the theft. P declined the claim and advised as follows: ‘As you were required to advise [us] of the installation of the stereo when it was installed… the policy will be voided effective 14 days from the estimated installation date… It is understood that an accurate installation date can not be determined, in light of this the policy will be cancelled effective 12 months prior to the vehicle being stolen (27th January 2003). Addition of 14 days notice is also required here making the policy cancellation date 12 February 2002.’ The Case Manager believed P could not retrospectively cancel the policy and nor could it void the policy mid-term, as it had purported to do in other communications with C. As a correct reason for declining the claim had not been communicated to C, the Case Manager believed P should meet the claim. The Case Manager discussed this with P and P agreed to meet C’s claim. Complaint Settled.

Case Study No 2 : special terms and conditions In March 2003, C arranged insurance for his vehicle with P. In July 2003, C’s vehicle was stolen. C reported the theft to the police and made a claim to P for the theft of the vehicle. P’s enquiries indicated that some modifications had been made to the vehicle in the two to three weeks prior to the theft. P avoided the policy from the date the modifications were made and declined to consider the claim. C argued that the non-performance enhancing modifications did not affect the policy and believed that P should have paid the value of the vehicle, excluding the modifications. When C took out cover, the bank officer asked him if the vehicle had been modified. The Case Manager believed that C’s attention had been drawn to the importance of information about modifications. C argued that he had intended to advise P about the modifications, but he had been very busy. The policy specified ‘if any relevant circumstances change or may change during the time we provide your insurance then you must tell us… if we are not told we have the option to decline any claim, or avoid this policy from the date of change.’ The Case Manager believed the policy did not require C to tell P about the modifications immediately and it was a question of what would be a reasonable period of time for the notification of changes. The Case Manager considered the fact that the modifications did not occur without some planning. Therefore the Case Manager believed that two to three weeks was more than enough time for C to have advised P of the modifications. The Case Manager found that prior to P knowing about the modifications, it had already imposed special terms, such as an additional $1,000 excess on C, and an exclusion of cover if the vehicle was driven by, or under the control of C’s father. Therefore the Case Manager believed that C was already aware that the insurance was subject to special terms and conditions. The Case Manager believed that P’s decision to discontinue cover, because of the modifications, appeared to be consistent with its previous underwriting decision when it decided whether or not to accept the insurance and, if so, on what terms. Complaint not upheld.

Case Study No 1: tyres & mags (Note C = Consumer, P = Participant Company) C’s vehicle was stolen from her property and she made a claim to P for the theft. P’s investigator interviewed C and her son, and they provided signed statements. The statements revealed that the vehicle, which was owned and driven by C’s son, had been modified. P avoided the policy from the commencement of cover and declined to consider the claim. P stated that C had not disclosed modifications to the vehicle, when C completed the proposal. C argued that the question on the proposal relating to modifications was ambiguous and related to a change in the structure of the vehicle. The Case Manager believed the policy provision relating to modifications did not impose a continuing duty of disclosure. Therefore because P was avoiding the policy ab initio, the only modifications which P could rely on were those which existed at the commencement date of the policy. On this basis, the only modifications which C could have disclosed when she completed the proposal were 14 inch Avanti mags (the mags) and the 205mm rotational tyres (the tyres). The Case Manager’s investigations established that the tyres and the mags were not factory standard for the vehicle. The Case Manager determined that the information about the modifications was material and should have been disclosed to P. Complaint not upheld.

From Australian and NZ Institute of Insurance & Finance Journal. “Modifications to Vehicles – New Zealand’s Insurance and Savings Ombudsman reviews the important topic of motor vehicle modification – with some interesting case studies.” When motor vehicle insurance is being arranged, insurers need to know whether the vehicle has been modified. There is usually a question on the proposal / application requiring details of modifications, and if cover is arranged by telephone similar information is requested. However what exactly does the term ‘modifications’ mean and what information do insurers really require of consumers in relation to them? The simple answer is that insurers want to know about changes to the vehicle which alter it from the manufacturer’s original specifications for the particular make and model of vehicle. The reason insurers want to know about modifications is to determine whether they wish to accept or continue insuring a particular risk, taking into account factors such as the type of vehicle, the nature of any modifications and the age and experience of the driver. Simply put, some modifications can substantially alter and increase the risk presented or as originally understood by the insurer. A powerful vehicle, which has been extensively modified in terms of performance, being drive by a young and inexperienced driver statistically presents a very high risk to insurers. Why, then are so many policies avoided for non-disclosure of modifications and, as a result, claims unable to be paid? What is a modification as referred to by an insurer? Modifications can be categorized as follows: 1. those which enhance the performance of the vehicle 2. those which are attractive to thieves and which affect the security of both the vehicle and any accessories within it. Problems for Consumers: Understanding what needs to be disclosed. Our experience is that, in considering the insurer’s requirement for disclosure of modifications, consumers only think in terms of those modifications which affect a vehicle’s performance such as a larger engine fitted, modified air intakes, exhaust system and racing suspension. Consumers often do not consider additions or accessories, which do not affect the vehicle’s performance as ‘modifications.’ Alterations and additions (such as mag wheels, spoilers, body kits and special paint jobs) make the vehicle more attractive to thieves and, therefore, a greater risk for an insurer. Special mention must be made regarding the fitting of expensive stereo systems, some of which are worth more than the vehicle itself. This is regarded as a very important modification, which increases the risk of theft of the vehicle. Most insurers specifically ask for details of expensive stereos over a certain stipulated value and failure to disclose such a modification is a clear breach of the policy. When modifications should be disclosed to an insurer- A further complication is that some people only think of disclosing some modifications, which they make to the vehicle, subsequent to its purchase. This is notwithstanding that the vehicle might have already been substantially modified when they purchased it secondhand. If a vehicle has been modified when insurance is being arranged, the modifications should be advised to the insurer at that time. If a vehicle is modified after commencement of the policy, the insurer must be advised at the following renewal of the insurance, unless the policy wording clearly indicates they be advised sooner. In our experience, very policies do so. The implications of not disclosing modifications- Many consumers do not realize that if they do not tell an insurer about the modifications to their vehicle any claim may be declined or the policy avoided from inception or renewal. For the consumer avoidance means that their policy is treated as though it never existed, which can affect other claims they may have made. Avoidance also carries with it a stigma, which often affects a consumer’s attempts to get insurance in the future. How can this be remedied? It is clear to us that some insurers could do a lot more to assist and advise their customers regarding the type of modifications they wish to know about. The question which is asked by telephone, or which appears on proposal/application forms, is usually very general and does not provide guidance about the type of changes to the vehicle, which should be disclosed. As already explained, there is a perception that only modifications which fundamentally change the vehicle’s original performance specification should be disclosed. We believe the nexus between some types of modifications, such as an expensive stereo system and mag wheels with the increased risk of theft as a result of fitting these items, should be explained to consumers. Best practice suggests that questions on modifications are for insurers to make clear and not for the public to try to interpret. Our experience is that insurers expect modifications to be advised when they are made, yet the policy wording does not convey this requirement. If insurers want modifications to be advised when they are made, as soon as possible or immediately we believe the policy should clearly state this requirement. If an insurer wishes to avoid a policy for non-disclosure (of modifications) the common law position is that avoidance is from inception or from renewal of the policy. However the common law can be over-ridden by very specific policy wording, which makes the consumer’s duty to disclose modifications more onerous, or imposes an ongoing duty through the period of insurance. Best practice suggests that insurers, as the parties wanting to obtain the information are in the best position to make it clear what they want to know and when, rather than relying on consumers to be proactive in advising of any modifications. It might also assist consumers by asking them to check with their insurers before making major modifications to ascertain if such modifications will change the terms of the policy. Some vehicles are ex-factory with so-called modifications already fitted – why is this different to a model which has modifications fitted later? The answer is that the insurer is always concerned about changes to the vehicle’s original specification. Modifications fitted at the factory are standard to the particular model. Clearly there are some changes involving fitting of accessories, which will not be material to an insurer and need not be disclosed, such as fitting a tow bar, monsoon shield, or headlamp covers. However our main concern is that consumers are sufficiently alerted to the need to disclose modifications. This is so that, if consumers are in any doubt about any aspect of modifications they can clarify this with the insurer concerned. (Ian Opray ANZIIF).

Howdy all, I have some case studies & an article about car modification from the NZ insurance ombudsman, will post them here if anyone is interested. Yea or Nay.

Get a Prius... they can't get enough of them in Japan. For some reason Clean Green Kiwis don't buy em.

Yeah stop complaining and just vote against Bush in the next election. (oh ... wait... umm) $50 to fill up?? That must a wussy little 40L tank. Costs me around $70 to fill up with 96-ish. Drink it up, we still have very low gas prices compared to much of the world.

Northern California (north of San Francisco) is full of these things. With those things you don't curb your rims, your rims take out the curb. At a complete tangent, the August volume of Autocar is out & has an interesting article about braking.

I knew a guy in the states with an F350, took up two whol carparks at the supermarket. Never seemed to get pulled over by the cops... mind you it could have been the gun rack in the rear window with the confederate flag.

... I gotta remember to turn off my traction control. M318iA whopping 105kW @ the fly

Damn you're a lucky boy. Chalk one point up for fate... even though you may not have broken anything there may be soft tissue damage, make sure you look after that hand eh.

Mmmm nice shiny plastic false wood dash trim. What kind of engine specs?? http://www.difflock.com/buyersguide/newcar...ford_F650.shtml (oh and the funniest thing is... Saddam didn't have an army, nor weapons, nor money and had complied with ALL the UN requirements for information & searches for these so called weapons. Did you see the newspaper the other day saying Bush wants to see if Iran had anything to do with the 9/11 terrorists?)

... and don't forget the ///M and Type R stickers on the back to add an extra 5kW each.

... Carl... sounds like you have some serious experience in this area.

Sh!t it guessed my crossbow.

Absolute pricks. Thieves I hate every MFing one of them. I've seen cars broken into for a lot less than $4k of stereo equipment. One of my clients cars had about $3k damage in order to get $1 worth of breathmints from under the handbrake. Thieves also aren't always very smart... this one will make you laugh. Another one of my clients had a VW Golf, thieves broke the side window & tried to jemmy open the "glovebox." They must have felt like right proper gits when they realised they were opening an airbag. With all the damage to the surrounds, the bag, dash, & window the car was a write-off. $8k worth!