Hybrid car insurance refusals

Cheaper insurance on Bitone models apparently as from what I’ve read they look horrible and no one wants one so what’s the point of stealing them 🤷‍♂️  other than parts 😂😂😂

Thanks @AndyRC. My baby is a bi-tone model. I think she looks really sexy. But, in saying that, I'm glad the thieving bas***ds aren't interested in stealing her.

Hi.

Please feel free to give us a try for insurance if you haven't done so already.

Regards,

Dan.

This business of insurers refusing to cover EV’s, or charging rip-off premiums if they do offer cover, suggests to me another insurance company scam to make excessive profits.

Considering the number of EV’s already on our roads, I don’t think there is a disproportionate occurrence of EV’s giving problems compared to ICE cars.  If the insurers have a genuine reason to disapprove of EV’s, it begs the question of whether the government have allowed these cars onto our roads before the viability of safety and adequate dealership maintenance has been certified.

The government needs to investigate the situation with some urgency, otherwise drivers will revert to ICE cars, and the heavily promoted EV market could easily become relegated to history.  It wouldn’t be the first time a “good idea” has hit the buffers.

It's mostly down to the big traction Battery.

The problem is, with a normal car, if you have a knock, say you get rear-ended, they see what was damaged, say the right light cluster, the bumper and the right rear suspension, exhaust, and replace/repair them.

With an EV, if say, the suspension impacted the Battery casing and dented it a tiny amount, the insurance company is in the hole for a whole new traction Battery.

Ironically it's related to what the right to repair movement is fighting against - With the traction battery in EVs, none of them have a certified repair procedure and there's a lot of hysteria about them - The manufacturers don't want anyone else touching them, and have been complicit in selling the story that any damage to the pack means you and everyone you love will die in a horrible electrical explosion, so if there's even a scratch or a slight dent in e.g. a corner of one, instead of being allowed to repair it, insurers are forced to replace the whole pack otherwise they can't get any certification that it's been repaired to manufacturer specs/standards. This is also why EVs tend to get written off so easily, because the pack can exceed the value of the car after 2-3 years.

I think when we get better batteries, we might see modular units so instead of one big battery, they might have say 4-8 independent modules, so in the scenario above they'd only have to replace 1-2 modules at most rather than the whole thing, which should help. But because current energy density is so bad they have to cram in as many as possible to get half-useful range, and having multiple modular packs would eat into that significantly.

It's annoying as the packs in our hybrids are tiny and unlikely to be damaged as they're inside the car, not outside, and even then cost maybe 500-2000, but because of the battery hysteria they're now getting unfairly lumped in with the EVs, despite prior decades of them being proven to be much cheaper and easier to repair.

If hybrid batteries are not an impact danger in the way that full EV vehicle batteries seem to be, then the insurance companies should apply a sensible approach - simply including hybrid batteries with full EV batteries is, in my opinion, just taking the easy option to increase their profits.

And I will repeat my previous claim that the government should investigate the situation - their push to force drivers into electric vehicles, supported by the finite time to allow the purchase of new ICE vehicles - requires them to ensure that they are not advocating that drivers should place themselves and/or their families in danger by changing to EV cars.

If EV cars can legitimately be branded as unsafe by the insurers, then these cars should not be allowed on our roads.

I have been insured with LV= for many years, because of a discount, but they have just refused to renew my 3 month old C-HR because of the 'rise in thefts of this model'. 

I feel like responding with ' I will not be renewing my two other policies because of your action'

7 hours ago, PJR77 said:

I have been insured with LV= for many years, because of a discount, but they have just refused to renew my 3 month old C-HR because of the 'rise in thefts of this model'. 

I feel like responding with ' I will not be renewing my two other policies because of your action'

If this attitude spreads across the insurance industry, my C-HR could become a useless and very expensive ornament on my driveway! Not a pleasant outlook.

First generation C-HR have the proven easy CAN invader theft method that certain insurance companies will either load the premium, insist on fitment of a Thatcham approved tracker OR easiest option for the insurance company is refuse to cover them full stop.

When the factory fitted security system can be beaten & vehicle driven away in under 90 seconds, an insurance company would be sensible to just not take on the risk.

Instead of annually hitting the drivers with ever increasing premiums, the insurers could better use their time by widely publicising the makes and models of cars which they refuse (or threaten to refuse) to insure.  This could go a long way towards ensuring that manufacturers, vigorously prompted by worried franchises, into forcing the manufacturers to design their vehicles to benefit both the insurers and the insured.  Serious boycott by the insurers and potential car buyers is a certain effect that would make the manufacturers sit up and take note!  Practical design that doesn’t disregard safety and ease of repair/maintenance in order to cheapen the methods of manufacture is something we should all be demanding.

At one time, car makers pooh-poohed the idea of galvanising car bodies, until one maker introduced it along with  substantial anti corrosion warranty, and then survival needs pushed other makers into line.

If the thieves can get access to the OBD port the vehicle can still disappear & the manufacturers can do nothing to stop this all thanks to EU anti competition regulations. 

23 minutes ago, forkingabout said:

If the thieves can get access to the OBD port the vehicle can still disappear & the manufacturers can do nothing to stop this all thanks to EU anti competition regulations. 

That's not true. EU anti competition regulations prevent manufacturers from using proprietary protocols and codes that would prevent third party garages from providing an equivalent level of service as the franchised dealer network. That does not provide carte blanche to bypass the security 'token' held by the vehicle owner. If you take your car to be serviced, you still have to leave the key!

4 minutes ago, philip42h said:

That's not true. EU anti competition regulations prevent manufacturers from using proprietary protocols and codes that would prevent third party garages from providing an equivalent level of service as the franchised dealer network. That does not provide carte blanche to bypass the security 'token' held by the vehicle owner. If you take your car to be serviced, you still have to leave the key!

OBD port theft tools for the newer Toyota / Lexus products with the " secure " CAN system already on the dark web, Toyota / Lexus fix the CAN invader method & the thieves turn their attention to the next weak link in the system. 

Manufacturers security token is pretty useless when the OBD port is unlocked for anyone to plug electronic devices in to. 

8 minutes ago, forkingabout said:

OBD port theft tools for the newer Toyota / Lexus products with the " secure " CAN system already on the dark web, Toyota / Lexus fix the CAN invader method & the thieves turn their attention to the next weak link in the system. 

Manufacturers security token is pretty useless when the OBD port is unlocked for anyone to plug electronic devices in to. 

That may be true, but it's not a consequence of EU anti competition regulations ...

Land Rover Jaguar are having even bigger problems with this at the moment, with even their own insurers declining to quote for Range Rovers. In an article I read yesterday they have been forced to bring out a 'fix' which makes them more secure, which they say they will retro fit to older models. Whether this 'fix' will sort the problem permanently remains to be seen.

On 1/9/2024 at 8:54 PM, philip42h said:

We renewed with LV= last October, no problem and decent rates; now they won't provide a quote ... 😉 

Seems to be a lack of consistency. I’ve just renewed my policy for my Lexus ES with LV. Price risen from £460 to £700. Several reports of Can Bus thefts on the Lexus forum.

1 hour ago, DTR said:

Seems to be a lack of consistency. I’ve just renewed my policy for my Lexus ES with LV. Price risen from £460 to £700. Several reports of Can Bus thefts on the Lexus forum.

Probably a case of fewer Lexus ES cars compared with C-HRs.

On 1/8/2024 at 6:55 PM, mizunoman said:

I'm due to take ownership of a new C-HR and went to get an insurance update from my current Corolla. Neither the RAC nor any companies through Compare the Market and Confused could offer insurance. Anyone else experiencing problems?

Yes I am in the same position. I tried comparison sites and got one single quote for over two thousand pounds. Tried Toyota insurance also they were quite unhelpful but quoted exactly the same price as the comparison site.

On 1/18/2024 at 2:12 PM, DTR said:

Seems to be a lack of consistency. I’ve just renewed my policy for my Lexus ES with LV. Price risen from £460 to £700. Several reports of Can Bus thefts on the Lexus forum.

My sister bought a new, top of the range land-rover discovery.

I can't remember exactly  how much she paid for it but it was more than £70k and I do recall thinking it was a hell of a lot.

She had it for 3 weeks before it was stolen off the drive,  never to be seen again, while they were watching TV about 20ft from it.

How much ongoing research do the car manufacturers engage in the progressively strengthen the security of their vehicles?  Why cannot the OBD ports have dedicated plug-in sockets, in similar manner to anti-theft wheel studs? Surely this would be a positive step towards making life more difficult for the thieves?  For the car owner, a short adaptor lead could be provided so that service engineers could plug in their test equipment.

The car makers should be concentrating on anti-theft development, instead of wasting time on some of the “boys’ toys” they readily promote in order to sell their cars.  What use is any fancy car, if it can easily be stolen? - and the more fancy the car, the more attractive it is to thieves.

First generation C-HR is easy enough to secure against CAN invader or OBD port theft methods with an aftermarket security system - you just need someone / a company that knows what their doing with Toyota / Lexus hybrids 😉

Just bought a Toyota Auris Hybrid last Saturday and yesterday I was sorting out the insurance cover prior to collection of the car. I was disappointed when  LV told me that they would  not insure the car. when I phoned  LV, I was told the underwriters had made this decision but couldn't tell me why. I have been with LV for years and I already have a multi car and house insurance policy with them.  very disappointed with LV

Does it have keyless entry / push button start?

Toyota are also being targeted according to a recent article in the Sunday Telegraph

All the Auris Mk2 Hybrids have push button start. The range topping Excel has smart entry, which can be disabled in the infotainment screen.

5 hours ago, MagicBoy said:

All the Auris Mk2 Hybrids have push button start. The range topping Excel has smart entry, which can be disabled in the infotainment screen.

What are the steps to disable smart entry?