Steve,
I did not mention that anything on my car was modified when I sent in my
application. I would not consider an engine rebuild, even to .040 oversize
to be modified. Also with Morgans just about all options were available
right out the door. If it is an original type engine I would not feel
obligated to state a rebuilt as a modification. So it sounds like you
tripped some triggers for JCT and once you trip those you are just dealing
with clerks who usually don't know a Morgan from their butt.
So anyway I turned in my application with everything standard and they
approved it within 24 hours of receipt. I am now working with them to get
the requisite paperwork sent to the state of Mass and to the insurer so I
can cancel my other insurance. In this state I found out you cannot cancel
out a policy simply by calling the insurance company. You either need proof
that you sold the car (surrender the plates to the insurance company and
then they send them to the state) or have the new insurer inform them by
letter. You also need to make sure the registry is informed otherwise they
will cancel your registration.
Good luck,
Phil
67 +4
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Manwell [SMTP:smanwell@sprintmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 11:28 PM
> To: morgans@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: insurance (strictly for original cars?)
>
> Well now, this has struck a nerve. I've been a bit quiet on this list
> for quite a while due to too many other things going on (one thing is a
> new-to-us '57 4/4), but just yesterday I just about came to my wits end
> in dealing with J. C. Taylor.
>
> My father and I have both found JCT reasonable to deal with in the past
> on old cars in New York State, and like Phil, I was happy to learn that
> Massachusetts was openning up antique insurance to competition this
> year. When I first insured the 4/4 in April, JCT did not yet have their
> application to Massachusetts complete, so I had to get liability
> coverage expensively from a local insurer and comp. and collision for 70
> cents per thousand from Condon and Skelly. Along with photos of the
> car, I explained that the engine size had been increased to 1500cc in
> response to their question re. modifications.
>
> I contacted JCT every so often to see how their application was coming
> along. Eventually I got the application and sent it off with the same
> info that I sent Condon and Skelly. Two weeks later I got all the paper
> work back from them in the mail with a letter saying they will not cover
> the Morgan because its "modified". (This after calling a couple of
> times to see if they had all the info they needed in the application or
> if they had any questions.)
>
> Apparently one cc. of increased engine size or any other power
> increasing modification is a no-no at JCT. (What if you have 0.040
> oversize pistons, is that modified?) I called the underwriter who
> reviewed my paperwork and tried every angle such as the "4/4 was
> available as a 1500 a few years later in the '60's" or "the +4 had a 2
> litre engine in 1957 on the identical chassis", etc. Nope, their rates
> are set up strictly for original specification cars and no exceptions.
>
> How their risk can be different whether they are covering a '57 Morgan
> built to mid '60's specs (well sort of) or an actual mid '60's Morgan is
> beyond me, especially considering that comp. and collision is based on
> an agreed value which is not even based on an appraisal for cars worth
> less than $20,000. For that matter a Model A Ford has a fraction of the
> performance of a Morgan, yet they might have the same dollar value, and
> therefore exactly the same insurance premiums...
>
> The underwriter did mention that they are developing rates -- much
> higher no doubt -- for modified cars, but I am surprised they are
> turning away customers with largely stock cars in the mean time.
>
> I suppose the real issue here is that if we don't tell these insurers
> what is modified about our cars, they may not want to pay a claim if
> they find out a car is modified in a way they don't like.
>
> I don't know what Condon and Skelly's claims payment record is, but at
> least they seem to be a little more flexible about what constitutes
> original specification.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to picking up the rebuilt rear axle for
> the 4/4 -- it had loose axle tubes -- from Morgan Spares this weekend
> and hopefully some Morgan motoring again not too long after that.
>
> --Steve Manwell
|