Does insurance cover ceramic brake damage? - Page 2 - Porsche General - PistonHeads UK

Supposing one of the discs get chipped by a rock kicked up by an HGV, or some other very unlucky accidental event.

Yes. In fact they may replace both sides if necessary. With consumables, some insurers may expect you to contribute to ‘betterment’ - ie if half worn they would pay half the replacement - but most won’t quibble a genuine damage claim.

If they were fitted as standard say on a CGT then maybe. If they were an optional etc not specified on the policy I doubt it’ll be that straightforward. Insurance companies scrutinise everything and if there’s even the slightest chance of them not paying out they’ll go for it.

911wise said: If they were fitted as standard say on a CGT then maybe. If they were an optional etc not specified on the policy I doubt it’ll be that straightforward. Insurance companies scrutinise everything and if there’s even the slightest chance of them not paying out they’ll go for it. Crooks.

Then use a reputable insurance company, and notify them, as required, if modifying the vehicle.

And crack the vaseline out. Crooks.

Koln-RS said: Then use a reputable insurance company, and notify them, as required, if modifying the vehicle. This ^ And do your due diligence to ensure the discs are indeed covered before taking out a policy with any company. Hardly rocket science.

Yes, comply like a good boy. Ignore the outrageously expensive renewals and one sided policies.

ImbackYo said: Yes, comply like a good boy. Ignore the outrageously expensive renewals and one sided policies. You’ve clearly had issues with motor vehicle insurers. I’ve had two occasions when vehicle insurers could have refused to payout after thefts or accident damage, due to an undisclosed speeding endorsement and a vehicle not being parked in secure storage overnight when stolen) In both cases the insurers paid out when they could have refused point blank, and I wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on in a court of law. Total of both claims amounted to £54k. I’ve had four vehicles stolen over the past 25 years, and on every occasion I’ve been paid out, on one occasion I had to do battle with the insurers claim handling company to get what I felt was a fair settlement figure, but ultimately I got within 5% of what I felt was the vehicle’s true value. The real issue doesn’t lie with the insurers, the real issue lies with the Police’s lack of resources and the CPS attitude towards car theft (oh and you may as well throw the vehicle manufacturers into the mix too, for not engineering foolproof anti-theft devices) but if the Police diverted more time and resources to car theft, rather than taking the perspective it’s a “victimless crime” because insurers always pay out, and actually traced and prosecuted those guilty of vehicle theft, and the justice system handed out sentences severe enough to deter thieves, the problem wouldn’t exist in the first place. Edited by Slippydiff on Sunday 29th September 21:37

A pertinent topic with today's story about insurance ratings changing, including a new rating on costs of repair. Over time there is likely to be a a higher insurance cost for cars with ceramic brakes, although whether it's enough to actually influence a buyer's choice of car remains to be seen.

ImbackYo said: Yes, comply like a good boy. Ignore the outrageously expensive renewals and one sided policies. Sorry, you think that an insurer should pay for something that wasn’t covered under the policy and/or wasn’t mentioned when you took out the policy. Do you have much experience with insurance underwriting? My experience is that where the ceramics were specified on the insurance proposal, they were covered under the policy. Which seems fair.

braddo said: A pertinent topic with today's story about insurance ratings changing, including a new rating on costs of repair. Over time there is likely to be a a higher insurance cost for cars with ceramic brakes, although whether it's enough to actually influence a buyer's choice of car remains to be seen. They'll do what they like. They have done for decades and the longer we just pay up and shut up like some of the compliant lemmings on PH the more they'll continue to take advantage. As long as the weaponising of data becomes the norm, they'll continue to "predict" the outcome of risk and costs. Completely ignoring common-sense and black swan events. I was ran in to the back of last year, this year- 30% increase. It didnt cost NFU a penny. According to them, the risk has increased in regards to where I live and drive. Its a laughable scam to extract more cash from muppets that will just pay up and shut up. Its ripe for more regulation, and its coming. IMO its the next PPI, time will tell. Costs of repair will obviously increase given PCCBs etc. If they are likely to be damaged in an incident. In most scenarios, they wont be but never let a good opportunity go to waste. Decentralisation and automation will see their cash cow dry up. It couldn't come soon enough and they know it.

ImbackYo said: They'll do what they like. They have done for decades and the longer we just pay up and shut up like some of the compliant lemmings on PH the more they'll continue to take advantage. As long as the weaponising of data becomes the norm, they'll continue to "predict" the outcome of risk and costs. Completely ignoring common-sense and black swan events. Common sense doesn’t pay the bills. ImbackYo said: I was ran in to the back of last year, this year- 30% increase. It didnt cost NFU a penny. According to them, the risk has increased in regards to where I live and drive. It’s a laughable scam to extract more cash from muppets that will just pay up and shut up. What is the typical loss ratio for car insurance? Presumably, given the huge market, you’ll be able to find someone to insure you at a price you think is fair? ImbackYo said: Its ripe for more regulation, and its coming. IMO its the next PPI, time will tell. You think more regulation will make things cheaper? ImbackYo said: Costs of repair will obviously increase given PCCBs etc. If they are likely to be damaged in an incident. In most scenarios, they wont be but never let a good opportunity go to waste. In most scenarios they won’t, that’s why the insurance premium isn’t the full cost of the brakes, not even close (£12k+ for full replacement?). ImbackYo said: Decentralisation and automation will see their cash cow dry up. It couldn't come soon enough and they know it. You don’t know a quarter of what you think you do! Edited by Sport_Turismo_GTS on Monday 30th September 22:54

ImbackYo said: They'll do what they like. They have done for decades and the longer we just pay up and shut up like some of the compliant lemmings on PH the more they'll continue to take advantage. As long as the weaponising of data becomes the norm, they'll continue to "predict" the outcome of risk and costs. Completely ignoring common-sense and black swan events. Common sense doesn’t pay the bills. Thats ok then. Conversation over? You've illustrated my point perfectly. ImbackYo said: I was ran in to the back of last year, this year- 30% increase. It didnt cost NFU a penny. According to them, the risk has increased in regards to where I live and drive. It’s a laughable scam to extract more cash from muppets that will just pay up and shut up. What is the typical loss ratio for car insurance? Presumably, given the huge market, you’ll be able to find someone to insure you at a price you think is fair? Correct, but its getting more difficult as more of the crooks realise we are prepared to just pay up and shut up. ImbackYo said: Its ripe for more regulation, and its coming. IMO its the next PPI, time will tell. You think more regulation will make things cheaper? Why wouldn't it? Regulation does not mean additional costs to the end user, it means a market thats now being watched carefully. ImbackYo said: Costs of repair will obviously increase given PCCBs etc. If they are likely to be damaged in an incident. In most scenarios, they wont be but never let a good opportunity go to waste. In most scenarios they won’t, that’s why the insurance premium isn’t the full cost of the brakes, not even close (£12k+ for full replacement?). Silly argument. Its about risk and the tables are unfairly tilted in their favour, always! ImbackYo said: Decentralisation and automation will see their cash cow dry up. It couldn't come soon enough and they know it. You don’t know a quarter of what you think you do! Do you know anything about financial decentralisation? Didn't think so. So perhaps try and be polite and not make assumptions about someone's career or knowledge, you might learn something. Edited by Sport_Turismo_GTS on Monday 30th September 22:54

ImbackYo said: More regulation means increased compliance costs, this is then passed on to the consumer.

Didn't know you could insure tinfoil, learn something new everyday!

ImbackYo said: Do you know anything about financial decentralisation? Didn't think so. So perhaps try and be polite and not make assumptions about someone's career or knowledge, you might learn something. Maybe learn how to use the quote feature first And then if you read the thread properly you might learn some more about insurance...

ImbackYo said: And crack the vaseline out. Crooks. what do you do for a living?

Isn't car insurance loss making for most insurers in the UK? I was shocked when I read that some years ago but it seemed to be a persistent situation.

braddo said: Isn't car insurance loss making for most insurers in the UK? I was shocked when I read that some years ago but it seemed to be a persistent situation. Correct. It’s generally the opposite of a ‘cash cow’. https://www.ey.com/en_uk/newsroom/2023/12/ey-s-lat...

ImbackYo said: Thats ok then. Conversation over? You've illustrated my point perfectly. I think you’ve illustrated mine - you don’t seem to have a clue! ImbackYo said: Correct, but its getting more difficult as more of the crooks realise we are prepared to just pay up and shut up. 10/10 for ranting. 0/10 for a coherent argument. ImbackYo said: Why wouldn't it? Regulation does not mean additional costs to the end user, it means a market thats now being watched carefully. More evidence you have minimal understanding of how financial services operates - do you think that insurance isn’t already heavily regulated? ImbackYo said: Costs of repair will obviously increase given PCCBs etc. If they are likely to be damaged in an incident. In most scenarios, they wont be but never let a good opportunity go to waste. It’s about risk and the tables are unfairly tilted in their favour, always! Cars that have bigger risks are charged higher premiums - that seems reasonable to me. Don’t like the cost of the hedge? Don’t pay the price. It’s not rocket science. Where is your extensive data set that proves excessive charging? ImbackYo said: Didn't think so. So perhaps try and be polite Like this you mean? ImbackYo said: And crack the vaseline out. Crooks. ImbackYo said: and not make assumptions about someone's career or knowledge, you might learn something. It’s evident that you know very little about the P&C market from what you’ve posted. What is your career / knowledge and your actual experience on this topic? Edited by Sport_Turismo_GTS on Tuesday 1st October 20:52

Come on guys, give him a break !! CTO said: I have also had this.. Going to the vets for a prescription for the dog 36 in a 30 on the way there 37 in a 30 on the way back And had had a speed awareness notification the month prior. I went from a clean licence for years, to six points in about six weeks. The above related insurance hike (and the crippling road tax) led to me parting company with my C70 T5 at insurance renewal time ImbackYo said: That's the real issue, courts give insurance companies another licence to print money. Not that they need it atm. Yep, the insurance companies really should educate their policyholders better shouldn't they. Edited by Slippydiff on Tuesday 1st October 21:33

Sport_Turismo_GTS said: It’s evident that you know very little about the P&C market from what you’ve posted. What is your career / knowledge and your actual experience on this topic? Edited by Sport_Turismo_GTS on Tuesday 1st October 20:52 he wont answer the question, I also asked what he does for a living. Some people just want to ignorantly b h and moan about the world......

S1MMA said: he wont answer the question, I also asked what he does for a living. Some people just want to ignorantly b h and moan about the world...... Disappointing, I was hoping for an update today!

Sport_Turismo_GTS said: Disappointing, I was hoping for an update today! when someone knows they are about to be taken to the cleaners they do usually run away with their tail between their legs calling for their mummy. Standard.

It turns out that knowing something about "financial decentralisation" doesn't provide answers for everything.

Insurance is heavily regulated for the FCA and yes, more regulation for insurers means they have to employ more compliance staff which increases costs. Also motor insurance is indeed often a loss making product for insurers, although they generally make investment income on premiums they hold. Some insurers will look at every part of the policy closely and not pay a claim, but can only do so if the contract allows them to avoid it. Other insurers will pay out if there is some grey area or doubts about cover to keep up their reputation. The real cowboys are no longer about due to the strict FCA rules, but fair to say some insurers will pay a claim quicker and with less fuss than others. It is one of the few products we buy but have no idea how good it is until we have to make a claim. Customer reviews are your friend but even then different people will have different experiences of the same insurer. Read your policy documents (most people don't until there is a claim and then moan about the contract they willingly entered into), don't just choose the cheapest and best of all do what you can to avoid having to make a claim in the first place.

DanG355 said: Insurance is heavily regulated for the FCA and yes, more regulation for insurers means they have to employ more compliance staff which increases costs. Also motor insurance is indeed often a loss making product for insurers, although they generally make investment income on premiums they hold. Some insurers will look at every part of the policy closely and not pay a claim, but can only do so if the contract allows them to avoid it. Other insurers will pay out if there is some grey area or doubts about cover to keep up their reputation. The real cowboys are no longer about due to the strict FCA rules, but fair to say some insurers will pay a claim quicker and with less fuss than others. It is one of the few products we buy but have no idea how good it is until we have to make a claim. Customer reviews are your friend but even then different people will have different experiences of the same insurer. Read your policy documents (most people don't until there is a claim and then moan about the contract they willingly entered into), don't just choose the cheapest and best of all do what you can to avoid having to make a claim in the first place. Good advice. Also declare everything upfront to avoid issues down the line, and if you increase the risk (eg by speccing much more expensive brakes) then (quite rightly) expect to pay a higher premium!

Sport_Turismo_GTS said: It’s evident that you know very little about the P&C market from what you’ve posted. What is your career / knowledge and your actual experience on this topic? Edited by Sport_Turismo_GTS on Tuesday 1st October 20:52 Just seen this. I retired at 40. I was in Cyber Risk Management and before that an Enterprise Architect. I assume you must be 60 plus? You spout complete archaic nonsense from the 80's and 90's you were taught by dinosaurs that cling on to the traditional financial instruments which are gradually disappearing. Treat yourself to a little free education, you might be able to prepare for what is coming. Do you have kids? Speak to them, your view on the traditional economic model is dying. And not a minute too soon. https://www.investopedia.com/decentralized-finance...

911wise said: If they were fitted as standard say on a CGT then maybe. If they were an optional etc not specified on the policy I doubt it’ll be that straightforward. Insurance companies scrutinise everything and if there’s even the slightest chance of them not paying out they’ll go for it. Insurance companies. They're great at taking your money when there's no trouble but terrible at giving it back when there is.

And before you latch on to the trope "more Crypto currency scam nonsense" Google CBDC. Its coming and dinosaurs clinging onto the old model like yourself will be in the rear view mirror thankfully. As will the age old insurance scam, no more middle men.

Glassman said: Insurance companies. They're great at taking your money when there's no trouble but terrible at giving it back when there is. Probably should stick to windscreens….

Glassman said: Insurance companies. They're great at taking your money when there's no trouble but terrible at giving it back when there is. Exactly. But theres always people like GTS matey boy willing to put up and shut up. Compliance/Yes men will mean we never move on. The status quo is heavily one-sided, GTS fella would like you to keep coming to him for lame, outdated advice. He spouts the rubbish he's been fed verbatim, without a single consideration for progression. What year did you graduate GTS-thingy?

S1MMA said: when someone knows they are about to be taken to the cleaners they do usually run away with their tail between their legs calling for their mummy. Standard. Remember kids, you will never be criticised by people doing better than you. Just those looking up.

braddo said: It turns out that knowing something about "financial decentralisation" doesn't provide answers for everything. I cant argue with someone that struggles to use google or read. Its all out there for you.

ImbackYo said: Just seen this. I retired at 40. I was in Cyber Risk Management and before that an Enterprise Architect. I assume you must be 60 plus? You spout complete archaic nonsense from the 80's and 90's you were taught by dinosaurs that cling on to the traditional financial instruments which are gradually disappearing. Treat yourself to a little free education, you might be able to prepare for what is coming. Do you have kids? Speak to them, your view on the traditional economic model is dying. And not a minute too soon. https://www.investopedia.com/decentralized-finance... You assume wrong, but that’s not unexpected as (clearly) this isn’t your area of expertise. So you’ve resorted to personal attacks.

ImbackYo said: Remember kids, you will never be criticised by people doing better than you. Just those looking up. The only idiot spouting nonsense on this thread is you, you ignorant little prick. I'm writing this from my box in Lloyd's, cyber risk management LOL - what an expert on underwriting you must be. Why don't you take some advice from someone that knows a lot more about insurance than you, speak to when you are spoken to and stop spouting a load of old cobblers on the internet.

S1MMA said: what do you do for a living? He is a grease monkey........................