Insurance write of Cats and damage.

[Keith66]

Hi All

Not really a TR thing, but it could be so do we have any insurance industry professionals on here?

I don’t have an issue but there does seem to be an insurance industry problem I don’t understand.

Now in my “other” car life I like messing around with old Rovers N MG’s. I say old but say 1990 to 2005 ish.

I was perusing the CoPart web site the other day, as you do, and came across this early 90’s 214 SEi. The notes said starts and drives and it had minimal looking damage, nice spec and its quite rare (84 taxed).

But the gobsmacking part is someone has decided WAAYYY to bad to repair.

So bad it’s a Cat B write off.

Now the definition of a Cat B write off is where the structural damage to the vehicle’s chassis and structural frame is deemed so severe that the are never permitted to return to the road.

I mean really? I suppose it could be a one off oddity, but there are 2 other Rover 25’s with similarly limited damage that are also Cat B’s.

Now I know they might be pointless to repair economically but that’s not what cat B means as the definition says it should be so bad structurally is can’t be safely repaired.

And how many of out TR's come under the catagory of an uneconomic restoration.

Oh by the way there were more pic's on CoPart and this was the only damage shown.

Any body with any idea what this is all about?

Cheers  Keith

 

[Macleesh]

Could it be something to do with the nature of the accident it was involved with, I believe any vehicle associated with an accident where someone dies may not return to the road?

[RobH]

I understand that this is due to the cursory way the survey is often done these days- basically just a tick-the-box form from a quick visual, sometimes even just from photos rather than a physical  check.  The person doing the survey is paid by the insurance company and time is money.

You don't have to accept what the insurance company says and can challenge the assessment but you would need to hire your own engineer to do another survey and prepare a report. I'm not sure how that would work if you don't actually own the car though. 

[DRD]

There may be unseen structural damage to the chassis or bodyshell. Once you have that then it's probably terminal. 

[Michael Mckiernan]

Used to be that when we had a car come to us for repair the insurance company would send a agent/engineer to check the damage.

Then with the advent of mobile phone camera's , we where asked to take a few pics and send them in.

Had a 7 year old seat that was hit in the o/s/r , bent the tail gate a bit and smashed the light unit.

Insurance said it was a uneconomical repair , paid the customer out , we bent the tailgate straight and fitted a new light

didn't even need any paint. 

Guy was well pleased. Used the car for a couple of years the gave it to his son to learn in....

[Keith66]

On 4/25/2024 at 2:28 PM, DRD said:

There may be unseen structural damage to the chassis or bodyshell. Once you have that then it's probably terminal. 

In reality no damage is ever terminal, uneconomic sure, but if its man made it can be repaired, though at a cost and as i said he many TR's have been restored from a far worse condition than the pictured 214SEi, mine certainly was way way way wores.

As was the bangers and cash Mini Cooper S pictured.

Cheers  Keith 

 

 

[John Bracher]

Anyone ever watched Graveyard Carz???

 

Where there's a will (or the $$) there's a way.......!!!

[Keith66]

On 5/2/2024 at 10:09 AM, John Bracher said:

Anyone ever watched Graveyard Carz???

 

Where there's a will (or the $$) there's a way.......!!!

And this is exactly the problem.

Cars are being written off as CAT B, ie ILLEGAL to repair for some pretty minor damage.

Now that might not be a problem for lots of cars but some interesting ones may go that way. I'd hate for my daily driver to go that way as thought it probably counts as an old banger to most its of interest to me and is one of only 31 left on the road. But if someone dings my rear quarter and the part is unavailable my car would be classed as a Cat B no matter how much i was prepared to spend to put it right.

Now my ADO16 is a complete wreck and will cost far more to restore than it will ever be worth and in the late 80's when it was a clapped out banger that no one wanted, no doubt it would have been a CAT B as new parts weren't available.

But now its old enough it counts as a Classic Car so Expressed Parts do make panels so you can get them, Though they are twice the price of TR panels. A half floor is over £400 and an inner wing is over £750, but they are made to order and volume must be very very low as there are so few cars left, way less than TR's even thought BMC/BL made about 2.5 million of them.

So now the reg are so much tighter where will classic cars come from tomorrow?

 

Cheers  Keith

[RobH]

if a car is said to be a cat B just because parts are not readily available that is clearly a mis-categorisation.  It is my understanding that you can engage your own surveyor to do a full survey and challenge it if warranted.  The categories should not be allocated merely on grounds of cost. 

For a classic car the current situation is encouraging one to notify the company for third party claims but not to make a claim of your own in case they do make a mis-categorisation.  Is cheaper TPFT insurance still available? 

[Keith66]

2 hours ago, RobH said:

if a car is said to be a cat B just because parts are not readily available that is clearly a mis-categorisation.

Well i'm only going on the ABI guidancefor the catagorisation that says where structural parts (so anything thats is part of the chassis (or monocoque on modern catrs) that are not available new the car should be a CAT B, although you can challenge it, at your own cost of course.

The reason given is so another cars will not stolen to provide the parts for a repair , which would cost the Ins industry even more for the cover on the stolen car, which they don't want and they really don't cars about individuals or cars.

But of course the system is a Code of Conduct for the Ins Co's, and guess what when it costs them they ignore it.

Not sure if anyone has seen the youtube video of Mat Armstrong restoring Marcus Rashfords written off Rolls Royce.

So its a £700k custom Rolls that got written off. The damage was a min CAT S and possibly a CAT B as Rolls won't supply parts (Mat had to buy another Rolls for £96k as a parts car). But the ins co sold the Salvage with NO CATAGORY!!

Why? well it meant they got a better price for the salvage, Mat paid £186k for the write off, so the ins co are £186k better off by not catagorising it.

Don't supose they care about the 200 quid value of the Rover 214SEi, but when its £180k back in their pocket they seem to so apply the rules err differently.

Cheers   Keith