4x4 Action Group

XJ Junkie wrote:

henris wrote:

david bfreesani wrote:
If you say so.

Daar was die selfde gese van my sleepwa. Vee jou alie daaraan af.

Is it insured?

My trailer? Yes it is. And your car on the trailer, is also covered.

Sent from my SM-J400F using Tapatalk

David, there are insurers that would probably cover your truck, but the first things they're going to ask for, because of the modifications, are a roadworthy certificate (cheap and relatively easy if the vehicle is roadworthy), and an engineer's report, confirming that the vehicle is fit for use (more expensive to obtain, and more difficult, because this report confirms the person compiling is responsible for the contents thereof, and for confirming that the modifications are of an acceptable standard, and comply with the relevant legislation etc).

If I remember correctly, it was written-off at some point years ago (drowned). Is it registered as a code 2 or a code 3? If a code 3, there are implications in respect of the insured value etc, and again, an engineer's report confirming the repairs are in order and it is fit for use will required. As a rule of thumb, a code 3 vehicle will be insured at approximately 70% of the listed retail value.

If you want to go the third party only route, the premium should be between R80 and R120 a month, but the insurers will most likely still need the roadworthy and the engineer's report.

Small modifications, within the manufacturer's specifications or close thereto, are generally accepted by insurers, provided that you declare them (for example, a small lift, aftermarket suspension and tyres and rims etc. Anything that is done to improve performance (chips etc) must also be declared, and may be accepted, subject to approval by the insurers, who may again require some sort of report. Adding a turbo to a normally aspirated motor, or replacing a standard turbo with a larger one, will result in much closer scrutiny by the insurers, and must also be declared.

Failure to declare modifications, to enhance performance or otherwise, might result in either a claim being rejected, or your policy being cancelled due to non-disclosure (for example, in the event of a claim, when it becomes apparent that your vehicle was modified, the insurers would be within their rights to declare your policy null and void, and refund the premiums paid, as they could argue that they would not have accepted the risk had they been aware of the modifications. The alternative is, as mentioned, that they simply reject your claim.

it's also important to remember that any extras installed in or on your vehicle must be specified separately, either under the motor section or under the all risks section, and these extras are not automatically covered if they are not specified, even if you purchased the vehicle with them. As a rule of thumb, items specified under the all risks section of your policy should be insured at "new replacement Value" whilst items noted as extras under the motor section, will be covered at a "depreciated value" which is calculated using the Auto Dealers' Guide values for extras or depreciated at the same rate as the vehicle.

I have heard that one of the "off-road" insurers requires that extras now be installed by professional fitment centres, although I don't have any confirmation of this. If this is the case though, it has significant implications for most us, who, I am sure, wouldn't hesitate to install a power point or a roof rack etc on our own vehicles (because we're often going to do a better job than some "professionals").

In all cases, check with your insurers or broker, to establish exactly what their policy is.

No ways is that thing roadworthy.

Thanks Erin. The write off in 2008 was by the insurance company due to them being sticky and wanting to replace the motor with a new unit from Nissan. I took the cash and did it for 25% of the cost with a Jap airport that has already done another 200k km. The vehicle was not registered as a write off on the system, so not a code3.

The car is standing in the Free State after I over loaded it in an overzealous packing frenzy when moving house to the Cape. In all fairness to the vehicle, the caravan broke as well and popped a tyre due to excessive weight. Stoopid mistake, but thats what happens when you get forced into a situation. I'm now over 1300 km away from the car, and very worried about the unrest in the area, and with my luck, the house where it is kept, gets attacked or burned, or something typical of South African lawlessness.

As soon as I can, I want to move it to the farm, then I don't give a damn. Right now, I just want to protect my "investment". Work is not complete, so selling now gets me nothing for it, and it is perfectly suited to work here at home for me. So why sell it, and have to buy something that is going to cost me a lot more to do the same job. Besides, the rubbish I have already looked at down here, is so rusted and beyond sellby date, I'm better off with my old "piece of scrap".

Anyhow, I'll just bide my time, and see if I still have a car when this lockdown is done and I can earn some money again.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I am with Santam but find Toolbox the most reassuring

grips wrote:I am with Santam but find Toolbox the most reassuring

Totally agree...

Toolbox?

HenriSteyn wrote:Toolbox?

Yes. Properly kitted toolbox...

Ah I understand.

Thought it was a special Santam add on.

Those are very tough t’s & c’s and surely wouldn’t hold up in court as “reasonable” having such a short notification period, using examples as you have described above. I personally wouldn’t insure with them for anything, if given the choice (and not because I am on mud island)

Hijacking etc is serious crime.. as such maybe National law prescribes it be reported to the police within 24 hrs and insurance companies consequently take this as precedence and follow on, align, with this ?

BushWacker wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:33 pm

Hijacking etc is serious crime.. as such maybe National law prescribes it be reported to the police within 24 hrs and insurance companies consequently take this as precedence and follow on from this ?

Agree fully.

This Insurer repudiated because it was not reported within 6 hours...
Not sure if that's 6 hours of the theft or 6 hours of discovering the theft.
I assume the latter..

Mad Manny wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:39 pm

Agree fully.

This Insurer repudiated because it was not reported within 6 hours...
Not sure if that's 6 hours of the theft or 6 hours of discovering the theft.
I assume the latter..
[/color]

Seems I was wrong, it's 6 hours from the 'incident' - I managed to get the policy wording - I'll post it word for word later...