Agreed Value?

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Sir,
Hopefully you will share my view concerning my experiences with “classic car agreed-value motor insurance” and will pass on via your letters page the quite outrageous situation I find myself in.

In the early Sixties I purchased, from a well-known racing driver, a HWM fitted with a Jaguar Type C. engine. In 1983 this car was comprehensively rebuilt over a ten-month period by a professional racing engineer. A fully detailed receipt for all the works carried out was produced by him and clearly, upon examination of the car, all that was listed had been done.

Shortly afterwards, the car was insured on an “agreed-value” policy with a “reputable” insurance company. This value was established thus: I read through all the magazines in which similar cars had been sold, and established an average sale price. I then proposed this average figure to the insurers, who had the car examined and then agreed it.

Five months later, whilst in transit to a show, the car and its transporter were stolen. Months of enquiry followed, including investigations by three police forces, loss adjusters and even the Department of Health and Social Security. Without my knowledge, even my private bank accounts were examined, and extensive enquiries made regarding me. My claim was rejected by the insurers.

Solicitors were therefore instructed to pursue my claim through the High Court. It transpired that the insurers are not prepared to honour the contract for two reasons: 1. That the car was not worth its agreed value. 2. That I had failed in my duty to supply all material facts known to me.

During the car’s rebuild, its engine had been totally rebuilt using the serviceable parts from its old engine, together with some from another Jaguar engine of the same vintage and some brand new parts. All this was listed on the receipt from the builder, but the insurers claim this rebuilt engine is now non-original, and the car has a lower value because of it. They also claim the receipt did not reach them. An inter-office memo discovered by the police in one of their files, however, clearly indicates that the insurers had recieved from me, together with the proposal form and the required photographs of the car, a bill from a restoration company. The insurers cannot now, for some reason, produce this, but only a photocopy which they claim is fraudulent.

Over the past two years this matter had been listed for a hearing in the High Court on four occasions. On the first the papers submitted by my counsel were “lost” by the court. On the last three listings the hearing has been cancelled “by the courts” days before the matter was due to be heard. The costs involved are huge, and furthermore there is always the considerable possibility in civil law that even the strongest case can fail on a mere technicality—should a judge, for example, consider that my rebuilt engine is not original. Sadly then a precedent would be set, and every old car I know of would become uninsured overnight.

If on the other hand my explanation were accepted by the courts, the insurers would still only have to pay the agreed value plus the interest on same. Since my car was stolen, car values have escalated, one similar to mine recently being offered at two-and-a-half times the insured value. Should I have won my claim today, then what the insurers would have to pay to me would only be a deposit on a replacement.

I believe we have a duty to inform all owners of this dreadful business, just to let them know what they could be up against in the sad event of them damaging or losing their car.

T Wright, Great Moulton, Norfolk

Related articles

Related products