In short insurers will, in case of total loss, pay out the replacement value (the current average market worth) of the affected vehicle, obviously given that you're not under insured.
Let's say vehicle X has a current average market value of R100k. You've however bought it for R70k. Now assume an all legitimate total loss claim where only your excess of R5k is applicable.
(a) If you insure it for R70k you are actually under insured from a current average market value perspective. The insurer should pay you out R70k - R5k = R65k. You get pissed of and blame the insurer because you can't buy another similar vehicle with the R65k payout.
(b) You insure it for R100k. The insurer should pay you out R100k - R5k = R95k.
Option (a) excludes potential penalties that might be applicable because you were under insured by x%, so getting R65k out is probably best case scenario.
Cheap insurance companies would probably allow option (a) as they could obviously give you a lower premium, although you end up with a risk that you'll have to potentially spend R35k to replace your vehicle in case of total loss.
Smart insurance companies would only allow option (b) as it makes their processes smoother, doesn't give them the risk of customers bitching and moaning about low payouts and most importantly ensures that you are not under insured.
Disclaimer - All my posts on this forum is without prejudice, is based on my fair assumptions or perceptions, might not be factually correct, is in no way intended to cause harm to anyone and is acted upon at your own discretion.
Bookmarks