Insurance information straight from the source!

[mr bruce]

Kit car companys have liability insurance?

[Bill Wells]

too many insurance co's have claims exposure experience with Cobra replicas, and obviously by their not writing new policies, or reducing coverage on grandfathered policies etc their exposure has not been good.

as the owner of a major collector car insurance co told me last summer : "Cobra replicas account for 8% of my insured portfolio yet account for 40% of my claims".

guess that kind of sums it up for some others too.

it is all the brass era cars, high value/little driven/slowly driven collector type cars that they enjoy virtually no claims on (by comparison anyway) that are in reality allowing replicas to be covered. so ,when you go to a car show of 400 cars and there are 10 Cobra replicas there you better look at the owners of the 390 cars and say 'thank you'.

rice burners/ ricer rockets and pimple faced kids cars...doubt too many of those are getting covered by the collector car insurance companies, due to the newness of the car and the drivers age (and driving record too ?) of the owners...they instead get buried in the data of the masses from civilian car insurance coverage...but overtime they too will have an impact. hey, they might even be the Cobra replica owner of the future, assuming they (and we) can get insurance on them .

bill.

[klayfish]

Cobrashoch, I don't take your opinions as flaming. I hear what you are saying. However, you don't specify what you mean by putting together a package consumers can use. If you mean claims history, I don't think insurance companies do it for any type of car. I didn't ask our people for a detailed claims history, because that would just be a pain in the butt to put together and I had other work to accomplish. But keep in mind they aren't just "picking" on Cobra owners because they don't like us. There is a reason they are afraid to insure Cobras, and a valid one. As for your personal experiences, you didn't say why your experiences were bad, and that's probably a discussion for another time and place, but I think many people have misconceptions about what insurance is and what services it provides.
I agree 100% that the kit producers need to start getting involved, because it is their livelyhood. I hope that I can make contact with people at FFR, A&C, and other pure "kit" makers to talk to them about it.
I hope I can be a help in solving the problem, but remember, I am just one employee at one insurance company. I have little overall influence on the industry. But I think we can all be of help to each other.
I think DV is right. I think it would go a long way to getting some kind of standard for safety in the construction of the cars. It doesn't mean airbags and such. But just some way to ensure that a home built kit is assembled properly and isn't a hazard on the road. I know for sure that would help insurance companies write the risk.
Turk, I don't know much about the car that was said to have split in half. I don't know if it split due to the impact or poor construction, or both. Yes, it may be product liabiilty, but that would be fought out later, AFTER the insurance company paid their millions to settle the fatalities. So why would the insurance companies want to get involved in that in the first place? It goes back to what Cobrashoch said, and it somewhat true. They don't know everything about the collector car industry. They do know more than you think, but to them a Cobra is a Cobra. They don't know the difference really between FFR, Superformance, etc... It's hard to expect them to. Think about how many different cars they'd have to know about. Not just Cobras, but street rods, and all kinds of other cars that have hundreds of different builders. It's nearly impossible. But they have said they are willing to listen and learn about the Cobra. It is not a promise of insurance or anything, but an opportunity.
Remember, you can't compare motorcycle insurance, or general auto insurance, to collector car insurance. They are drastically different. Collector car insurance is typically 75% less than standard auto policies, and is designed for the Sunday drive. When one loss hits them, they feel it hard. As stated here, the motorcycles and Civics get lost in the crowd. But I can bet you that if those kids start wrecking the Civics and such, the rates will start to go up quickly. In fact, if I recall, I looked at a Civic a few years ago, and it's insurance rates were higher than the Accord.
DV, I hear what you are saying. That is why I caution that I am only one person who happens to both work in the specialty division of an insurance company AND own a Cobra, so I have duel interests. I want to help as much as I can, and will do so, but I won't stick my neck out far enough to get it chopped off. I have bills to pay and a wife who likes to shop. But as an enthusiast, I think we need to start helping ourselves and see what we can come up with. If I can act as a liason, I'd be happy to do so.
Bill is exactly right, just too many Cobra claims given the small number of Cobras out there. I'm not interested in pointing fingers, but I do not believe it is the insurance companies fault for our problems. There is no conspiracy theory here, ladies and gentlemen. They haven't singled us out for the hell of it. We can change this, and I hope to be a part of that.

Steve

[wilf leek]

One thing that calms the fears (to a degree) of the UK insurance companies is the fact that all home-build cars must pass an exhaustive "construction and regs" test we know as SVA (single vehicle approval). This is a central Government-organised thing.

Whilst passing this test involves some compromises for the "purist" Cobra replicar builder, it tells the insurance companies that at the least, each and every car they cover is constructed properly, has brakes/steering/lights etc. which work and work correctly and so on.

Our main problem is the grey area of post-SVA test modifications to the cars, things like going back and fitting wheel spinners, windwings, sunvisors, non-compliant rear view mirrors etc.

So far, this has not caused an issue, but if I were a betting man.....

The SVA test has removed some of the death trap vehicles I used to see at shows and mutter darkly about. In my view it has been the major contributing factor to the survival of the kit car industry in the UK, not least because of insurance issues.
And to think that so many people protested against it when it was proposed.

[Kputz]

It baffles me why this issue is so hard to understand. Many insurers, when pressed, will insure your ride.....for a price. A ridiculously high price, and understandably so. Others will insure a roller kit (SPF, Shelby, Kirkham) and not a home built one, again understandably so. The issue here is simply economics, and common sense.
If the insurer receives enough in premium to lay off against the potential claim risk, or can hope to have other deep pockets involved in a potential catastrophic law suit to share in the loss (the roller builders), they are likely to get involved.
Anyone with half a wit can look at these cars and determine for himself that nearly any claim will be expensive. A big claim has the great potential to involve injury or death. It stuns me that there are still companies that are willing to write them at all.
If this sticks in your craw, pool your meager assets, register with your state insurance board, and go happily about writing nothing but Cobras. You should do well, until your first large claim. Good advice here would be to put the house and hunting dog in your wife's name first.

[CSX 4039]

Originally posted by Turk



If the multi million dollar settlemet was as a result of some home builders poor welding skills, why do I have to suffer with a factory built car when I go looking for reasonable insurance just to drive mine around?
TURK [/b]

For the same reason my med mal insurance went up 400% last year and another 20% this year and I have never been sued- a combination of trial lawyer greed, insurance company bad stock market investments, and a failure to enact "loser pays court costs" rules to discourage lottery style frivolous law suits. (I'm sure half you Cobra owners are trial lawyers or insurance execs, but, it is more than just my opinion).

[southernfriedcj]

I side with Dr. Bolte on this one.

[cobrashoch]

Ed/Wilf - I hear you about the inspection idea and it's a 100% good idea. The only problem is who do we have inspect them? And will insuarance carriers require it? Or even look at a inspection? While I agree with inspections it does have the foul smell of government involvement and that I don't like.

Steve - While I have had some donnybrooks with insurance companys in the past, I want to be proactive. I propose that insurance carriers adapt a points system that looks at all sorts of information for specialty car owners. Things they should be looking at - Age, years experiance, drivers schooling, safety inspections, most of the stuff you already look at, homebuilt or factory built, how old is the car, special licences, the list can go on and on.
This score could determine the rates for insurance companys, the higher the score, lower the rates should be. WHATCHYA THIMK?
cobrashock

[Jamo]

Couple of things...

I would really prefer not to have an insurance person around the whole time--Friday nite for a discussion is good, and possibly the Friday morning autocross--the SCCA Safety Stewards (I is one!) will do their job in showing how tech is performed and safety is No.1 for even a parking lot event which stresses driving skill rather than horsepower. Saturday--I'm not so sure that's a good idea, but as you said Klayfish--it's up to DV.

I'm glad Wilf brought up the SVA. Great Britain has a large cottage industry of cars--not just homebuilds, and their scheme works! Why can't we do it ourselves? Bob Marsh has spoken to me several times about the need for industry trade protection--like other industries work together to have. I'd love to see standards set, inspections conducted, and MANDATORY high performance driving school attendance in order to get Cobra insurance. But I want committments from the insurance carriers to write the insurance and help fund these efforts.

Brett drove some good nails in--those factors have driven up all insurance. Most of us in the legal community--especially those of us who are defense attorneys, will tell you that "loser pays" is the one thing which would change everything promptly. I have a very high success ratio of winning cases against plaintiffs in employment law (sex harassment, etc.), but I can never give my clients any good news about what it cost to win. Plaintiff attorneys roll the dice on dozens of cases--they win one or two and it pays for the rest. Most of the Commonwealth nations have loser pay rules, and it works. Bush is pushing for it, but the trial attorneys are a strong lobby and pour millions into democrat candidate funds every election. We can only hope.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled program...

[Excaliber]

I been sued twice, I won both times. Circumstances were such that I could not go after MY expenses to DEFEND myself even though I WON!

It aint right, I hope the law gets changed.

Ernie

[ac andy]

As an outsider looking in at America, it seems to me that a lot of people (please dont anyone take this personally) are intent on sueing others for the largest amount of money that they can think of in your country and I read with interest that your insurance companies pay out millions in damages for car accidents.
In Australia, we pay a relatively small premium with our registration (say $200AU), which means a central government body covers all personal injury costs and rehabilitation to all people injured in an accident. The insurance company only pays for the damage to the vehicles and any material property that is damaged, (fences,traffic lights etc). This system seems to work very well and there are are a number of companies that will cover our cobras. I realize that there are nowhere near the number of cobras here compared to what you have in the USA but at least it gives us some choices.
As for the rice burners and boy racers, we have them too and the majority of them are uninsured, (if one collided with my car i would certainly add a fist to the face to there list of injuries).
Finally, the idea of having an insurance agent at DVSF may prove to the insurance companies that we are an organized group of enthusiasts that run controlled events instead of a bunch of illegal street racers with over horsepowered cars.

Good luck guys!

Andy.

[RACER X #99]

Very interesting reading here and that is just the names of the posters.
Can you imagine what the insurance exec. must be thinking when they read this thread.
Aluminum stroked 427
351 Hot Cam 750 holley
SPF 460 560 HP
Supercharged 544 CI
351 Paxton Supercharger
408 stroker
488 CI Shelby Aluminum
Injected 460

I know if I owned an insurance CO. I would be looking somewhere else to place my bets.


What do you see at any car show hoods open and owners just begging people to ask, "how much HP and how fast will it go"? It's now wonder these companys are reluctant to insure Cobras. A bunch of middle aged drivers with way too much HP and way too much testosterone.

Cranky

[Ron61]

Cranky,

So true. I have the smallest motor and least horsepower of anyone around here and more experience than all the others put together. One guy has a smaller motor but he is getting rid of it as the rest have convinced him he can't be seen with less than 600 horsepower. He has had his car for about a year and has driven it almost 100 miles. I just sit back and wonder what these f0--- are thinking of. One was bragging about doing 140 on a four lane road that is heavily travled and that is pure idiocy. There are to many wrecks on that highway already. After watching what little I can see just here I really can understand the insurance companies reluctance to insure any of these cars. Only one other person I know has had one built that has any experience and he lives in the Bay Area and has raced in the past also and he doesn't drive like an idiot on the street. And of course he has more horsepower than I do. If I could do mine over again I would lower my power to around 400 as that is more than enough.

Ron

[cobrashoch]

Crankster - I don't know about the other guys but I have allways had problems with insurance and my performance cars. I have a history that goes back to hemi cars and corvettes over 35 years, and I can honestly say things are no better now than they were then. My recient adventures incude my 18 yr. old son getting his NHRA drivers licence to drive my reciently NHRA certified cobra for this summer. Hummmmmm, wonder how insurance will look at that? He's allready a better driver than I am. But your right though, if I was to have a street Cobra it would have only about 400 hp. Wheelbase on a Cobra is too short, all things being even.
cobrashock

[terry lee]

[quote]Originally posted by Kputz


[b]It baffles me why this issue is so hard to understand. Many insurers, when pressed, will insure your ride.....for a price. A ridiculously high price, and understandably so. Others will insure a roller kit (SPF, Shelby, Kirkham) and not a home built one, again understandably so. The issue here is simply economics, and common sense.

As I am expecting delivery on my Cobra in about 3 weeks, and plan to register it as a 1965 (let's not get away from the insur. part of this thread) how does one go about telling the insur. co. it's really a 2003 Superformance Cobra repilca that I titled as a '65 for authenticity and thus lower insurance rates because it is now can be considered a collector car. I have read in numerous threads about this situation, but would like to hear an update on how to do it.
Thanks,
TL

[klayfish]

Terry,
Not to take this off the topic of insurance, but be very careful how you do this. This has come up before, but companies like Titles Unlimited, who will "change" your title to a 1965 are very dangerous to use. Most states consider it to be title washing and is illegal. You can get in a lot of trouble if the government decides to crack down on you.
As for the insurance, tell them VERY clearly in writing that the car is a 2003, and show them paperwork. If your rates are lower because it is titled as a 1965, you must disclose to them that it is a new car. If something were ever to happen, then the insurance company can't come back to you and say you lied to them to get cheaper insurance. You can show that you told them it is a new car, and it was their decision how to charge you premium. If they still decide to insure it as a 1965, that is their choice, but you made them fully aware of the truth.
Best of luck and be careful.

Steve

[BLACKJACK]

DARN GOOD THREAD - - -

IT LOOKS LIKE WE''RE ALL GETTING THE "WAKE-UP" CALL.

Y'ALL HAVE A REALLY GREAT DAY,

BLACKJACK


PS: STEVE - - THANKS VERY MUCH FOR ALL YOUR GREAT INPUT INTO THIS SUBJECT

JACK

[Jamo]

If I follow your line of thinking Cranky--might be a good idea to just outlaw the guns in excess of 22 cal.

I do see your point--but I'm more concerned about the build of the car and the ability of the driver. I am not going to ignore what insurance companies factor in--but I'll be damned if a business is going to regulate my life COMPLETELY.

[RACER X #99]

Jamo,
I not saying you can't have the biggest D**k in the gang, just don't be bragging about it in print.
Interested parties may be reading.

Cranky

[bnewell]

Steve ~

First of all, thanks for all of the great info. A year ago when I initially was shopping for insurance for my SPF I contacted several of the insurance companies that have been mentioned on this site. I told them I wanted an agreed value policy of $55K.

They all asked me what the model year of the car was. I told them that it would be titled as a 2002. After they told me what the premium would be I asked what the premium would be if was titled as a 1965.........the premiums were almost 1/2.

What I do not understand (and they could not tell me), what difference does it make what year the car is titled?? Both premiums were based on the same agreed value and the same mileage restrictions.

Thanks for any input.

Brian