# E-Fire Mark II



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

My beloved E-Fire was destroyed by an inattentive driver back in July. He changed lanes without seeing me, managing to destroy both sides of the car in the process.

After a long and painful process, I have finally accepted (inadequate) compensation from my insurer. The collision was not my fault, but the local rules here set out not only how insurance claims are to be settled, and values determined, but also how disputes are to be handled. All mean that you either have a) agreed value insurance (which most classic car owners have, but which nobody would offer me for my car because it was an EV conversion) or b) if you have a car which is at all unique, you get ripped off.

For ease of searching, my old build thread is here:


https://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95790&highlight=E-Fire

The plan at present is as follows:

1) Start disassembling the dead car- I started that last night. Either way, it has to go. The body bucket is destroyed and the frame is twisted from the collision.

2) Find a willing insurer- no point in re-doing the project if I can't insure it when I'm done.

3) Buy a Spitfire out of the southern US- no more car cancer for me! And no point in converting anything else, as I'll have a whole car's worth of spare parts this way.

4) Start a GoFundMe to try to make up some of the difference between what I lost and what I was compensated for. I think that'd be more fair than suing the poor guy who hit me- he thought he had insurance to cover that. I hope to get enough money at least to have it professionally prepped and painted, since I totally love the topaz colour- high visibility and very distinctive too.

While the differential had been a concern, I don't think it's enough of a concern to merit the enormous amount of work involved in changing to something else. I'll have two spares on hand anyway- that'll probably allow me to out-last my battery pack for sure.

Looking forward to the cleaner, better planned and more orderly build that comes from doing anything a 2nd time! Well, knowing me, it will be less clean and orderly than some folks here manage on their 1st attempt- a perfectionist I am NOT!

As usual, any and all advice and encouragement is welcome!


----------



## Baratong (Nov 29, 2012)

I'm sure your next build will be pretty awesome. Having all the experience from your first will be a big help. I know there are decisions on my build that I'd do things differently if I had it to do over again.


There's a 77 Spitfire in Las Vegas on Craigs list.. is this the type you are looking for? Or are you looking for something a little more polished to start with?



https://lasvegas.craigslist.org/cto/d/triumph-spitfire/6713014783.html


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

That car is worth buying just for that patina! The chrome looks great too!

Definitely not looking for a fully restored car, but it has to be rust free- as much as that's possible in a 43 yr old car. Ideally a somewhat aged restoration which has a blown engine- where the owner has finally given up on that wretched 4-banger they came with and doesn't want to do an engine swap. You know, kind of like yours Baratong! Yours was a real find- and then you had to make it look so damned good on top of all that!

Got to get the insurance situation settled first though. And it's no easier this time than it was last time- even with 3.5 yrs and 16,000 miles of safe driving behind me, and a collision which was a total loss which resulted in no fire or any other hazardous situation.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Moltenmetal said:


> For ease of searching, my old build thread is here:
> 
> https://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95790&highlight=E-Fire


There's also the Garage entry, courtesy of the Wayback Machine because this feature of DIYElectriCar is not currently functional.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi
I know you love the Spitfire but if I was doing what you are doing I would go a bit wider

Specifically I would try and find a "Hurricane"

Fiberglass mouldings rather than steel - and they look awesome

Otherwise I would try and find a GT6 front - not the whole car I vastly prefer the Spitfire convertible - but the GT6 front with it's long bulge for the 6 cylinder engine looks better

The Hurricane was a kit that used to be used to "rebody" an old Spitfire


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

> Find a willing insurer-


This isn't a problem unique to EVs.

Well, actually, EVs are difficult to insure period. When The Hacksmith and his friend built their electric car before he was famous, (7 years ago or so?) in Ontario, they basically threw it away when they were done because the literally could not get insurance for a homebuilt EV.

But your problem is that you had insurance but it didn't have sufficient valuation. And that's a common problem for anyone who's ever made modifications to a car.

Generally anything you spend money on for a vehicle to change it from stock, decreases the value.

An obvious extreme example would be an $8000 paintjob of your face and birthday on the car. It had cost to you, but it does not add value to the vehicle (reduces value actually, unless, well, I dunno how pretty you are, I shouldn't jump to conclusions).

But things like a custom stereo, or better engine, anything cosmetic... nope.

Sportscars are bad like this too. Even things that are clearly upgrades and not stylistic or personal preference will lower the value of the car. Or, rather, reduce the amount of people who are interested in it, which means you can either wait longer for the right buyer, or drop the price to make an uninterested buyer interested. I see it often recommended when someone can't sell their car even for what it would be worth stock, to actually return it back to stock if they still had the original parts, just to actually get it sold.

EVs might be in that loop. This community isn't a great metric for resale value because, right in the name, it's "DIY" electric cars, so, everyone here wants to build their own, probably not buy one. But I can't off the top of my head recall anyone successfully selling their conversion here. They have to part it out.

Many times people do not know what insurance will value their car for. It's not part of the discussion. It's just "I'm insured", a yes/no thing. For most cars that makes sense because their value is in freefall every month and mile driven. But it's worth trying to have that conversation if you have an expectation of value. For a classic, this should have been more discretely described.

Just for topic's sake, another place people get screwed by insurance (or rather, by not having exactly the insurance they would hope they had), is for musical instruments lost in a house fire. They'll usually get a fraction of original purchase cost (depreciated) even if the item is rare or would ebay for 5x what was paid. Nope, they treat it like a 10 year old fridge.

You can generally insure anything at market price (never above, or you'd have incentive to commit fraud), if you set your policy up right. Some insurance companies have no interest in anything but their pre-existing and defined boxes, so they'll say nope. Others will have underwriters who'll draft a policy if they have experience or expectations. This means you'll have to call more companies, and, generally deal with much higher rates to get what you want. It might be like looking for a job. You hear "no" 19 times before you hear "yes" once.

And sadly, bottom line, your DIY EV will never be worth what you put into it, and thus can't ever be insured for that, because that's just the real-world market valuation.

Regardless, if you move forward, excited to watch your new build. Almost everyone has "If I ever do this again, I learned so much, I would ....", but almost no one ever actually is in the situation to make it happen. So, bit of a unique situation for you. I know I say things like "Well if I ever built 2, I'd get the second one done in 1/4 the time...", but I never do


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

The chassis is toast and not worth bothering with the effort to put a new body tub on it.

I don't like the look of the Hurricane (to each their own) nor am I enamoured with fibreglass at all.

I'm happy to roll the dice on the compensation value against another collision and lose just like I did last time if I'm hit. But I can't build the thing unless I get liability insurance from somebody. Here in Ontario, there's always the "facility association"- the insurers MUST insure anything that can be legally on the road. When I see that quote I'll know whether it's worth the bother or not. 

I think a lot of people here are insured either on a don't ask, don't tell basis (which is very risky) or have been insured contrary to the rules of the insurers, i.e. they were offered a policy in error by luck. The exception is that some jurisdictions have insurance plans which allow it- BC in Canada being one such place. If the guys who insure modified cars (Hagerty here are the ones who come immediately to mind) will not insure electric conversions, alternative options are few. Regrettably Hagerty will not discuss their reasons for declining coverage, other than to say that they don't want the business.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Molten
Damn - that's a pain!

Insurance is not an issue here - we have a thing called ACC

https://www.acc.co.nz/

If you have an accident in NZ they "make you whole" - only applies to people not property but people are the expensive bit


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Moltenmetal said:


> I'm happy to roll the dice on the compensation value against another collision and lose just like I did last time if I'm hit. But I can't build the thing unless I get liability insurance from somebody. Here in Ontario, there's always the "facility association"- the insurers MUST insure anything that can be legally on the road.


I think a lot of people miss this point in insurance discussions: coverage for collision or other losses (comprehensive: fire, theft, etc) is optional and very different from coverage for liability (which is legally required in any sensible jurisdiction). Valuation of the vehicle is an issue for collision and comprehensive, but irrelevant to liability.

I don't know why an electric powertrain would be an issue for insurers, but it seems to be.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> Insurance is not an issue here - we have a thing called ACC
> 
> https://www.acc.co.nz/


Fascinating: according to ACC, EVs get a nearly free ride in this government insurance scheme, because motor vehicle levies are a combination of a small "rego" fee (with registration) and a petrol levy (of 6 cents/litre)... and of course an EV buys no petrol.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

brian_ said:


> Fascinating: according to ACC, EVs get a nearly free ride in this government insurance scheme, because motor vehicle levies are a combination of a small "rego" fee (with registration) and a petrol levy (of 6 cents/litre)... and of course an EV buys no petrol.


SHHHH

We are hoping nobody notices


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

I have success in one regard: I have been offered a "Facility Association" policy- the insurer of last resort here in Ontario, intended for such choice "risks" as 16 yr old males with at-fault accidents or driving convictions etc...$4,000 CDN per year for just liability, no collision, no fire and theft.

That amounts to $10/day for nothing but the right to drive that car, to cover me against injury/damage I might cause to others by my own fault. 

Is that worth it? I would only drive it half a year per year and hence only be out of pocket $2000/yr for insurance- but that's a hurtful cost. The alternative would be to walk away from my EV parts and try to sell them, getting a pittance for them now.

In comparison, a regular gasoline Spitfire, with or without an engine transplant to something more reliable, would be about $250/yr to insure via Hagerty, the local classic/hotrod insurer underwritten by Aviva- with limited yearly mileage (that likely doesn't matter) and agreed value replacement insurance, flatbed towing on breakdown etc.

Tough decision...but I now am reliably certain that NONE of the insurers offering policies in the province will legitimately, on a full disclosure basis, offer insurance for this or ANY electric conversion. Others who have insured their conversions here in Ontario are either grandfathered under old rules, obtained insurance as a result of an error on the part of the insurer, or driving the conversion on a don't ask/don't tell basis, or are paying the facility association their pound of flesh.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Molten
Does your insurer have to be in your province?

Have you tried calling some of the insurers in other Canadian provinces?


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

Unfortunately you can't insure a car using an insurer in another province unless you reside there and the car is licensed/registered there. You can't insure your car in BC under their provincial plan and then drive it here long term in Ontario- to have your car plated in Ontario, you must purchase a policy as mandated by the Ontario regulations. That policy stipulates what coverages, at minimum, you must carry. There is no provincial insurance program though- you must buy insurance from a private company.

Because it is a mandated liability policy, i.e. the companies who sell insurance here have a mandated monopoly, you may not be refused insurance for any vehicle which can legally be driven on the roads, nor may you be refused insurance if you have a valid driver's license and a vehicle irrespective of your driving history. All those unwanted vehicles and drivers are insured via this Facility Association, and their rates are mutualized over that terrible class of uninsurable vehicles and drivers. So by converting a car to an EV, I'm lumped in with repeat at fault collisions, people who have DUI convictions etc. and the rates reflect that fact.

Apparently, if you have a brand new right hand drive car and try to insure it in Ontario, similarly the only insurer who will insure you is the Facility Association- according to the broker I talked to, who is very experienced and highly recommended, none of the current insurers will write a policy for such a car. If you have an RHD British sportscar which isn't an EV, Hagerty will likely write you a classic car policy.

So my choice is to either buy a gasoline classic just to have the fun (and danger) of driving one, and toss my EV bits to the wolves for a fraction of what they're worth to me, or do a heck of a lot of work again AND pay a mint for yearly insurance to drive the car I really want to drive- the one I drove quite happily for 3.5 years and 16,000 miles, just re-done so it's better and prettier.

Realizing quickly how much it sucks to live in the province I was born in and have always lived in. Unfortunately, job and family situation make moving not an option either!


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Sorry to hear that

As EV's become more common do you think that will change?

I'm thinking if Tesla keep ramping up production then EV's should become more mainstream 

Maybe it's worth paying the $2000/year for a couple of years


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

Moltenmetal said:


> I have success in one regard: I have been offered a "Facility Association" policy- the insurer of last resort here in Ontario, intended for such choice "risks" as 16 yr old males with at-fault accidents or driving convictions etc...$4,000 CDN per year for just liability, no collision, no fire and theft.


I think it was the same thing when I tried to insure my electric motorbike.

I called around a lot.

One guy told me to make sure that I never mention that I did any of the work myself, always that it was done by a mechanic, otherwise any company would immediately refuse to quote. So that's something else to keep in mind. 

The way insurance works is that they like having lots and lots of data. So anything that's small market or where they don't have much or any data, means they don't know what kind of risk they're taking, nor do they know how to charge a reasonable premium. Most will refuse to quote something outside of their wheelhouse, and those that do will, as you discovered, lump you into the most expensive vehicular catchall category. Luckily your driving history represents a larger portion of the risk and that doesn't change.

Because insurance companies are looking for data to make decisions, you want to do your best to find a way to fit into existing data that they're familiar with. You don't want to create a new checkbox, you want to fit into an existing checkbox.

A thing I've heard elsewhere, I forget where, is that an insurance company either quoted sky high, or refused to quote at all, for an electric vehicle conversion. But when they instead said the vehicle had converted to "alternative fuel" they were like "Oh! We have a risk category for that." I.E. Diesel to gas, gas to diesel, gas to propane, etc. It's a minimal, if any risk increase, just a different set of data they'll be collecting from that point forward, if any. So he said the alternative fuel was battery, and, no problem from then out.

It depends on how the underwriters have created their database, but it can just be a matter of asking the right questions to the right people. Sometimes it'll benefit you from pushing to different people, (if you find someone more knowledgeable who wants to make you fit with their company), sometimes it will hurt you (if you find someone that's scared of being accountable if they made a mistake). But if they've already said no, it won't hurt to ask for someone with more experience with different vehicle types to call you back. They'll probably pass you on to someone more senior rather than just some kid checking checkboxes without having any context other than their script screen.

Sometimes the question is only "Have there been any modifications that increase horsepower or performance?", and if you say "no", that's fine, that's all they care about is if you put in a bigger engine or something that now makes you more risky (their risk tables will have a correlation between higher horsepower and higher accident rates, and they need to charge you the appropriate difference). But if your modifications don't increase horsepower? If you put in a smaller engine? If you put in a 40hp lawn tractor engine? They wouldn't care. If you push and spook them that you're in some category that they don't have a sheet for, you're going to be told no. If you say "I have a lawn tractor motor installed instead", they will say that they don't have a risk category for repurposed agricultural engines and you'll be rejected or put into a high risk "I dunno what this is" category. Even if the engine is just a generic engine, if you're overly specific, you'll be outside a checkbox. So find a way within the rules to be inside a checkbox.

Another thing you can do to the bigger companies is ask to spend some time with their underwriters to draft a new policy category. Tell them this is something that's been on the rise for 20 years and that it's difficult to get insurance despite not being a higher risk. That people are looking for insurance company recommendations. They may be interested. There's a non-profit I volunteered at (community workshop) did that to find an affordable premium for shop insurance. "Oh you have welders, you're a welding shop? $X. Oh you have woodworking equipment, you're a woodworking shop? $X + $Y." Etc. So they took some time to understand the context, set some basic guidelines on what they wanted to see for us to be insurable at a comfortable rate (mandetory general safety training for all newcomers, clearly marked safety equipment, certain machines restricted to adults, etc).

Smaller companies might not have underwriters, they may contract it out or just pay for a general insurance dataset from a bigger insurance company and only sell policies, not do any brainwork.



> Is that worth it?


How much do you spend on gas?



> Tough decision...but I now am reliably certain that NONE of the insurers offering policies in the province will legitimately, on a full disclosure basis, offer insurance for this or ANY electric conversion. Others who have insured their conversions here in Ontario are either grandfathered under old rules, obtained insurance as a result of an error on the part of the insurer, or driving the conversion on a don't ask/don't tell basis, or are paying the facility association their pound of flesh.


Another thing to squeak by, insure it as a regular gas vehicle, let that sit for 6 months. Then tell them you've changed it to an alternative fuel, with no performance increases, frame or safety modifications. You can sort of grandfather yourself in because they won't want to lose your business, which is different than gaining your business in the first place. It's a different type of conversation and a different kind of thing to ignore. In the paperwork it might appear same as it always has, as "X", but now with a comment Y in the footnotes, versus "We don't insure for Y" if you ask upfront.

Let us know if you find anything else.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Really good advice from Matt

Sometimes it depends on how you describe it 

When I had my souped up mini back in the 80's a Cooper S was group 6 insurance (the top)

But a 1275GT was only group 3

I described exactly what I had done to my engine - as modifications to a 1275GT for increased efficiency and economy

I gave them the part numbers - the cam was a 649 cam - I did NOT call it a "Full Race"

They accepted all of that and left me in group 3 - despite having 40% more power than a Cooper S

Everything I said was accurate - but said the correct way 

So you have an alternative fuel vehicle - push the economy and the "green" and the safety
Mention the "lower power" as an acceptable loss for the economy


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> Hi Molten
> Does your insurer have to be in your province?


Yes, as Moltenmetal described.

For a little more background... insurance is provincially regulated, so the insurer must be willing to offer insurance in that province, willing to follow that province's rules, and approved by that province. Most companies operate in most provinces that don't have government insurance, but their terms and rates are suited to each individual province.

I haven't even checked with insurance companies on what can be covered here in Alberta, but a previous discussion (and threads linked to it) suggests that at least liability might be straightforward for the E-fire if it were here. One of the linked discussions mentions Intact Insurance - they seem to like unusual categories (they even provided the special commercial insurance that non-licensed taxi operations such as Uber need here), so if anyone has a category that will work it might be them.



Duncan said:


> As EV's become more common do you think that will change?


Ontario is one of only three provinces (of the ten in Canada) which has subsidized the purchase of EVs, and so it already has far more (factory-built production) EVs (as a fraction of vehicles on the road) than the non-subsidizing provinces. That will likely have come to a screeching halt now, since the current provincial government cancelled the subsidy program effective last month, so the market penetration of EVs will go down again. Some rich people will still by Teslas, Jaguars, Audis, and whatever, but almost no one is paying a $10,000 premium for a battery instead of a gas tank on a moderately priced vehicle.

Even if EVs were common, that wouldn't necessarily ensure that conversions would be covered. An insurance company can have some confidence that a mechanic's inspection of a modified conventional vehicle ensures that it is built reasonably, but I think we're a long way from having similar confidence in a conversion to electric. Unmodified production vehicles are handled by federal regulations, so insurance companies can assume that they suitably designed and constructed.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

There's been a lot of well-meaning advice given and I appreciate it- but I have to say that some people here are giving either old or inapplicable or incorrect advice on this topic. It's my hope that this thread will nail it down for future converters in Ontario so they know the straight goods. Of course I welcome advice from anyone who actually works for an insurer who WILL offer insurance in Ontario for an EV conversion- that would be wonderful!

I followed all the advice before. Don't say "modified", say "alternative fuel" etc. The rules vary by jurisdiction, so advice that works in one locale doesn't work in another. I've heard it all before- all kinds of people saying try this company and that company. I've tried them all- I've even called the same brokers that some suggested via PMs etc. I even called the Insurance Bureau of Canada. The story I'm getting is consistent.

Insuring an OEM EV here is no problem by the way. None at all. 

Here in Ontario, the rules are as follows: all but a few insurers- the very few who specialize in special cars such as classics and hotrods- are actually required by law to NOT offer insurance to anyone with a vehicle which has been "modified from OEM specifications". If they DO offer a policy knowingly for a modified car, they are in violation of the terms under which they offer insurance in the province. They are subject to serious consequences from their regulatory body.

I always say to them that the suspension, steering, weight and weight distribution, braking etc. are all factory standard, repaired and unchanged, and that the only thing that has changed is the engine, that the car is legally on the road by virtue of fully passing an Ontario safety inspection, and that without that 80 pounds of gasoline with a flip top lid, the car is actually safer than it was before by far- none of that is a word of a lie. They say, "Sorry, it doesn't matter- we can't insure you for a vehicle which has been modified. Period. Sorry- doesn't matter how it was modified, or who did the work, or who certifies that it has been done properly". And yes, they in fact understand the rules properly and are applying them correctly.

What does "modified" mean? Clearly it means more than changing tires or rims or trim- but it certainly does cover replacing an ICE with an EV drivetrain. There's no getting around that fact, irrespective of how you word-smith it.

Some insurance brokers violate the rules of their insurers by offering policies to people who do not fully meet the criteria those policies are based on. Some insurers do grant brokers or agents some discretion- but most of the considerable discretion that once existed is now gone in favour of checklists and computer pull-down menus. While some insurers offer discounts of one kind or another etc., it's all for standard cars. Discretion is more or less out of the equation now- the actuaries have taken over the asylum.

Are all the modders and tuners out there driving cars that are improperly insured? No- but guaranteed, a lot of them are. There's a lot of don't ask/don't tell going on out there, and if the mods are a) small and b) not in any way involved in what causes a crash, then things are probably OK unless there's a fatality or a big lawsuit. But it's rather tough to hide the fact that your car is now an EV even if you were to try. And most insurers ask you to fill out a form which asks if the car has been modified at some point- some of them need that form filled out every time you renew.

Like I said- the "special insurer" of choice here is Hagerty/Lant/Silver Wheels (all under-written here in Canada by Aviva apparently). They will insure a Spitfire- even a modified one with a gasoline engine, as long as it is less than 450 hp and meets an Ontario safety inspection. They WILL NOT insure any electric conversion. Period. And they will not explain why not- and they don't need to explain. I know this because I have asked them- both through a broker AND directly.

Can you trick or sweet-talk an insurer into offering you a policy? Yes- that's how I was insured originally. Sales staff from a major insurer offered me a quote on a full disclosure basis because they used an Indian call centre to do all those sales screening calls. Another guy in Toronto told me to call this particular company, hinting "when they pick up the phone, you'll know why I said to call them"- his conversion was apparently insured with them too. When I tried to activate the policy, within the validity period of a revised version of the quote, the call centre staff fired it "upstairs" to underwriting, who replied HELL NO! It was only by sending them a letter threatening legal action if they refused to honour their quote, and by getting their ombudsman involved, that I was written a policy at all- after six weeks of delay. That's not ideal- being insured by somebody who is looking for any trick by which they can terminate your policy- but I managed to maintain it for 3.5 yrs and they paid out (eventually) when the other guy nerfed me, so fortunately that's all behind me now. Here, you are paid by your insurer even if the other guy is at fault which was the case.

In summary- it is possible to insure an electric conversion in Ontario. After extensive searching, there is only one insurer who can legitimately offer you a policy- the Facility Association. And the policy is crushingly expensive. Unless I find a way to turn the project into some kind of beneficial PR stunt for one of the insurers (and yes, I'm going to try that, and every other trick in the book too short of lying or misleading which I will NEVER do because a) I'm an honest guy and b) it would invalidate the policy and its coverage anyway), my options are to give up or to pay the Facility Association their several pounds of flesh.

As to the argument of putting fuel savings up against the extra insurance cost- a trip to work costs me $3.50 in gas in the Prius C, versus $1.90 in electricity all in including taxes etc., averaging between my on-peak charge at work and off-peak charge at night at home. I own the Prius and need it in winter and for longer trips anyway so can't really take it off the road- and its insurance cost is small so wouldn't save me much anyway. So it'd be $3.20 per day in gas savings versus $10/day in insurance- on days I drive to work. Any day when it thunderstorms and I take the Prius or the train, it'd be $10 for nothing. Having been nuked by a truck and lucky to not have been killed in the offing, I think I won't be driving it as often to work and back as I did before- I just won't have the nerve. 

The option of converting a larger car just for the safety so I can drive it more often isn't all that enticing- the whole point of the E-Fire was the combination of the sexy classic lines (to each their own, but I think Michellotti got it pretty close to right on the 1500) and the silent but deadly performance (exaggerating a bit- it's not a model S or even the fun you'd get with a big DC motor like Baratong's, but compared to the original 4-banger it was a delight to drive!)

So- barring a miracle, a mistake on someone else's part etc., I have to decide just how much the love of a car is worth to me. An extra $1400/yr is what it amounts to- maybe $1000 if I count the fuel savings. If I can keep it on the road for another 10 yrs, that extra cost is the equivalent of what- a modestly more expensive vehicle? Not so bad I guess- another financial bullet I take for the environment I guess- far cheaper than buying a Tesla. But I think a GoFundMe is in my future for sure if I decide to do this project again. 

My face is already hurting because I no longer have the EV grin- I've got the "no-EV frown" on hard every time I have to refuel my Prius now. And as I tear apart the dead car, which has to happen regardless, the thought of all that work on the part of Jacob and myself going down the toilet is almost enough to make a grown man cry. The insurance situation is just adding salt to a wound.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

I'm sorry to hear about the conclusion regarding insurance.

It makes sense to build another E-Fire, especially since you already have the parts and know how to do it. If street use is not practical (for now, anyway), you could use it off-highway. Casual motorsports (solo or autoslalom events) and race track recreational lapping (not races) are the easiest. No street licensing or insurance would be required, although a trailer and tow vehicle (larger than the Prius C) would be... and likely a roll bar for safety.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

Don't let me hijack your thread, but if insurance laws are still topical here, I'm curious about them.

When it gets down to quoting hard facts rather than the rumor mill, I like to read the actual laws or talk to the actual civil servants in charge. People quote laws wrong plenty too (not saying you are, but sometimes people with business interest will, maliciously or incompetently pass along incorrect information, several insurance companies I've dealt with certainly have stated things as fact and laws when they were not).

For example, just got something in the mail today from my insurance company that states as a reminder that it is unlawful to operate a motor vehicle without insurance. I don't think that's true, I think that's only true on public roads.



> Here in Ontario, the rules are as follows: all but a few insurers- the very few who specialize in special cars such as classics and hotrods- are actually required by law to NOT offer insurance to anyone with a vehicle which has been "modified from OEM specifications". If they DO offer a policy knowingly for a modified car, they are in violation of the terms under which they offer insurance in the province. They are subject to serious consequences from their regulatory body.


This for example, is a bit wishy-washy. There's a law that "all but a few" insurance companies have to follow?

I'd like to read the details of that law.

I'd also like to read followthrough on what is considered modified from OEM specs. Considering the magnitude of the non-OEM market... is this a law that everyone breaks but is rarely enforced, or is it not in fact a law?

What your explanation seems like, is that most insurance companies may choose not to quote small-market things. Not really like there's a law against it.



> They say, "Sorry, it doesn't matter- we can't insure you for a vehicle which has been modified. Period. Sorry- doesn't matter how it was modified, or who did the work, or who certifies that it has been done properly". And yes, they in fact understand the rules properly and are applying them correctly.


Again, bizarre if true. I'm skeptical.



> What does "modified" mean? Clearly it means more than changing tires or rims or trim-


So, some minimal half-assed googling about modified vehicles in general, probably for the NA market, again in general, not Ontario specifically... indicates that this is wrong. Rims and trim certainly do make a vehicle "modified" to insurers.

https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/articles/car-modifications-car-insurance-prices/ <-- Source.

_"Analysing information on 2.3 million modified vehicles, our number-crunchers produced the price guide below to show the effect each type of modification has on the cost of car insurance costs."_










So in this case, on average, a propane conversion only adds 15% to the premium, and a non-standard engine adds on average 29%.

Even getting aluminum rims adds 8%.

I suspect many of these premium increases are from 4 reasons:

1 - Smaller sample size and therefor higher uncertainty, for which insurance companies will err high to be safe (for example, propane conversion should otherwise have zero impact on accident rates). The more they know, the more confident they can be in how low they can quote. 

2 - The fact that the kind of person who wants better performance or style mods is more likely to be aggressive, using that performance or showing off their car, and thereby more accident-prone. It reveals driver traits, it's almost certainly not due to actual vehicle traits changing. 

3 - Because of it making your car more likely to be stolen, if you have theft coverage.

4 - Because of it making your car more valuable and more expensive to replace if have you have comprehensive.

https://www.keithmichaels.co.uk/modified-cars-insurance/car-insurance-modifications-guide/ <-- Seems to be an industry-wide thing, here's a UK company with the same numbers.

https://www.icbc.com/vehicle-registration/collector-mods/Pages/Modified-vehicles.aspx <-- For the province of BC, seems pretty straightforward, you just declare it and have certified as roadworthy.

https://www.adrianflux.co.uk/blog/2...tions-affect-your-modified-car-insurance.html <-- More about mods in the UK that can actually lower your premiums, for example smaller or more fuel efficient engines, better brakes, etc.



> Like I said- the "special insurer" of choice here is Hagerty/Lant/Silver Wheels (all under-written here in Canada by Aviva apparently).


Are you sure you didn't get directed that way because you are looking at a classic car and the phone monkeys were following a script? They tend to specialize in those.



> Some insurance brokers violate the rules of their insurers by offering policies to people who do not fully meet the criteria those policies are based on.


So... "Relax Ontarians, the 'OEM or Illegal' law is bogus". 

_"A lot of people assumed that the new guide would effectively kill “stance,” but that doesn’t appear to be the case. No ride height standards are provided, so long as one side of the car isn’t “25 mm, higher or lower than the other.”"_

What that article is getting at is that, if you can pass your inspection, you should be okay to be insured.

http://www.casc.on.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=15556&page=3 <-- These guys' experience is that, it's not a government issue like the insurers will be telling you. It's them being blind to their lookup tables and having no context. And, yep, big city agents deal with so many clients they don't know or don't care.

Couple stories:

_"The conversation degraded to:
Me: "So, if I replace my warn out, OEM shocks with cheapy Motomaster shocks from Canadian Tire, you could deny my claim?"
TD: "I'm sorry sir, we do not insure vehicles that have been modified"
Me: "OK. I get that. But could you please quantify a 'modification'"
TD: "Anything that is not original equipment"
Me: "Like Canadian Tire shocks?"
TD: "I'm sorry sir, we do not insure vehicles that have been modified"

"have you a modified car?"
"what do you mean?" (play dumb)
"any non standard parts?"
"explain to me 'non standard parts'"
"parts not from the manufacturer"
"oh, so you mean like my windshield blades? yes, they are not from Honda. oh, and my oil filter is a pure one by purolator. and my brake fluid is motul. and my axles are remanufactured by fenco as are my brake calipers. but you know what? i'm not driving an unmaintained dodge neon with crap worn out 100K km suspension and bald tires. who's more of a menace on the roads?"
"then we can't insure you."
"why not?"

...I love my LOCAL small town insurance agent. He lives here and his staff are great to deal with. Don't deal with some off shore MF...deal with an agent who is local and understands what we do. Incidentally, i have dealt with State Farm for 22 years."_

That seems to be almost exactly what you're experiencing. You're getting told that they're not allowed to cover you by law, when in fact they're just idiots.

Now, that doesn't mean that an EV is legal, but it does somewhat shoot the "any modification is illegal" down, there certainly seem to be many modifications that are quite legal without putting you into some freak category.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/trucks/pdfs/passenger-light-duty-vehicle-inspection-standard.pdf <-- This is the legal inspection document for Ontario (2015). It applies only to vehicles manufactured after 2017.

"OEM Standard" means "the manufacturing methods, component and assembly quality levels, and performance levels set by the manufacturer of a vehicle or vehicle component to ensure a vehicle is able to perform safely as intended. It includes component quality, performance levels, repair methods, durability, safety and the service methods outlined in the warranty and service literature provided for the use and maintenance of a vehicle. Parts supplied by OEM, and established aftermarket manufacturers of parts intended for direct replacement of OEM parts, are generally considered to meet OEM standard"

That seems to indicate a quality standard, not necessarily that things be done the same way.

Further, many things are spec "industry standard". "means installation, modification or repair methods described in industry-accepted standards or recommended practices publishedby Mitchell Repair Information Company, ALLDATA, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), I-CAR, Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and other similar documents from similar organizations."

No substandard wiring, hoses, frames, etc. Which makes sense. You could, I think, still do an EV conversion and meet this. Even if you do things differently, as long as the parts you use are built to the same industry standards (for electrical, rather than gas), you should be okay.

It even has an EV section, which refers to OEM standards again. So, again, a general build quality. This might mean you have to use parts that were in an EV, (not forklift), but it doesn't seem to be a dead end.

Again, maybe just try contacting someone who'll give you the time of day and interpret the rules correctly, rather than just "Anything modified is ILLEGAL".

If you can dig up a link to the law or the names of the laws about the whole "It's illegal for an insurer to insure you with any modification" I'd like to read up on those in detail.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

MattsAwesomeStuff: thanks for that post- it is actually very helpful.

The underlying rules are apparently related to FSCO in Ontario:

https://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/filing-guidelines/Pages/underwriting-technotes-aug11.aspx

FSCO directly says that, "An insurer will be prohibited from using an underwriting rule if the Superintendent is of the opinion that the rule, or the manner in which it is applied:

- is subjective;
- is arbitrary;
- has little or no relationship to the risk to be borne by the insurer in respect of an insured; or
- is contrary to public policy.

It seems to be widely understood in the insurance industry, and by that I mean that they have no doubt tested it in court and found it to be defensible, that a prohibition against modification is a permissible underwriting rule. That is despite the fact that the definition of modified is definitely subjective, and as potentially unrelated to risk as some modifications arguably are.

Some insurers have claimed that their refusal to consider insuring any "modified" vehicle is a requirement of their compliance with FSCO rules under which they offer insurance in the province. Not being in the industry myself I can't verify that, but it seems logical. The process seems to be that they are required to set rules and file these rules with FSCO, and then they are required to follow those rules in the course of their business.

Clearly some companies do accept the risk of insuring modified vehicles- Hagerty/Lant/Silver Wheels being the go-to guys here for those purposes. Their underwriting rules filed with FSCO obviously permit this. Whether it makes sense or not, their current rules seem to preclude the insurance of any EV conversion here. It is difficult for me to imagine finding any way to compel them to offer me insurance when they have refused it after several attempts.

Are the people answering the phone following a script instead of following the actual rules? Making their jobs easier and covering their own asses? That is very likely when dealing with the various insurance companies who use "agents" rather than brokers. Aside from carefully describing the car, avoiding the use of "trigger words" like "modified", how do I change that though? The usual suggestion is to use an experienced broker- and I've done that. The best any broker has been able to do for me is to offer a Facility policy- and that's not for lack of trying, believe me.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

> FSCO directly says that, "An insurer will be prohibited from using an underwriting rule if the Superintendent is of the opinion that the rule, or the manner in which it is applied:
> 
> - is subjective;
> - is arbitrary;
> ...


The source you linked goes through each of those points and addresses them.

It lumps "subjective" and "arbitrary" into one discussion. That purpose is basically, that you can't just make up a price for someone, it has to be based on rules that apply to everyone. I think the goal it to take negotiation out of the equation.

"Little or no relationship to risk" means that if they make a rule, they have to be able to back it up with data. You can't charge extra for car just because you know rich people drive them and therefor can afford higher insurance. You have to show how that car or driver requires a higher premium based on higher risk.

"Is contrary to public policy" covers racism, human-rights issues, etc.

None of those factor have anything to do with modifications or EVs.

It's not a lack of data, as underwriters have plenty of data for EVs as well as modifications. So much so that US and UK companies appear to use the same datasets.



> It seems to be widely understood in the insurance industry, and by that I mean that they have no doubt tested it in court and found it to be defensible, that a prohibition against modification is a permissible underwriting rule. That is despite the fact that the definition of modified is definitely subjective, and as potentially unrelated to risk as some modifications arguably are.


The datasets are out there, so, they can certainly demonstrate increased or decreased risk due to modifications in general.

These rules seem to pertain to the policies that they *will* ensure, not the policies that they *won't* insure. You can choose not to insure all kinds of things, but you do it by showing that it doesn't fit the criteria that you will insure. The things you choose to insure, you have to insure all those things unless you have a rule that doesn't violate the above criteria.

For example, here is what is says about exceptions:

_"You may not decline a risk unless an appropriate underwriting rule has been filed and authorized. However, you are permitted to accept a risk that your underwriting rules state could be declined. For example, though you have a rule filed that you will decline a risk with two at-fault accidents, you may choose to write a risk that had two at-fault accidents because the policyholder was insured by you for 20 years and both of the at-fault accidents resulted in less than $500 damage. Once the exception is made, you cannot use the same underwriting rule to decline the risk. Also, you must be consistent in making similar exceptions for other such cases. You must document the reasons for the exception. Your reasons for the exception must be consistent with the statutory standards."_

So in this example there was a rule. "We don't insure two or more at-fault accidents." It's not arbitrary or subjective; it's two or more. It's related to risk, even though there could be a fair premium to charge based on data, all they need to show is that it's higher risk (certainly easy to do) and then they don't have to quote a price, they can just reject that whole category. And lastly it's not against public policy, to with their race, religion, etc.

So modifications are easy to reject the same way. Nope, we're too lazy to take complicated risk profiles, we can show modifications impact risk, and our universal rule rejects those. It's objective and non-arbitrary ("any" is grounds for rejection). Easy money, simple policies, easy underwriting.

And that is what leads to the idiodic interpretation about windshield wipers and oil filters and such. If you call it a modification, their rules say reject all modifications, so they will reject you.

Worse, if they make an exception for you, they have to make an exception for everyone else, and now they need a complex set of rules.

Small companies and simple focus companies don't want that. They are "cream-skimming" companies that only want the easiest rulesets that covers 95% of the population. They can have smaller offices, less staff, less experience (cheaper) staff, less infrastructure, fewer agents to investigate (which is free to you but costs them money every time someone has to get sent out), fewer incidents, etc. That means they can offer slightly lower rates than their competition, for cutting out any of the costs associated with anything remotely complicated.

But the difference should not be 800% as you've discovered.

It sounds like you need to ask to talk to an underwriter.

EVs is one thing, but Ontario has 10 million people, go hang out in some of the car forums and ask them if any of them disclose to their insurers that they have modifications, and who they use and how those conversations went.

I agree with what you said earlier about don't-ask-don't-tell-find-out-you're-rejected-later policies, but, surely some people have had success with something other than doing what you're doing.

Maybe ask some of the tuning shops for advice.

Or, call the actual branch (if you can find the local number) of an agent outside of GTA who will actually go through the rules or write new ones for you.



> The usual suggestion is to use an experienced broker- and I've done that


So, something I didn't know about before I looked more into insurance a few years ago... brokers don't play the whole field.

What you think you're doing is going to a broker, who knows every single insurance company in and out, what they specialize in, etc, and will shop you around to all of them.

What happens instead, is that a broker has 2 or 3 insurance companies they use, and that's all they ever know about or shop around to.

I trusted a broker with my car insurance and, seemed every time I asked I got the same 3 quotes from the same 3 large companies, all within a few dollars of each other. And then I found out that's because that's the only 3 that they ever call or work with.

So, even going to a broker doesn't fix things. You have to find a broker that actually plays the whole field, or, be upfront and ask "What companies will you get quotes from?", make a list, and keep calling brokers until you find better ones. Maybe your guy does that, maybe you just assumed he did. Worth looking into.

...

Lastly, Haggarty et al, are not charging you a fair or representative premium. If there's competition (there isn't much for competition in Canada, almost all insurers, up the chain, are eventually owned by ING), they'll look to draft a policy that attracts your business from their competitors.

Like I said, it's not impossible to have a chat with an underwriter who will ask the real questions. If electric has a 15% premium like propane conversions, they may draft an electric conversion policy with a 15% increase, following that it pass inspection same as any other vehicle had to, the criteria of which already exist.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> ..."Little or no relationship to risk" means that if they make a rule, they have to be able to back it up with data. You can't charge extra for car just because you know rich people drive them and therefor can afford higher insurance. You have to show how that car or driver requires a higher premium based on higher risk.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


There are lots of production EVs in Ontario (since Ontario's taxpayers subsidized their purchase for years), and there is no problem insuring a production EV.

There are lots of modified vehicles, even with radical engine swaps.

There are *not* lots of EV conversions on the road in Ontario. Whether you believe this should present a risk or not, there is no substantial dataset to work with. Comparisons with other jurisdictions would be problematic, because they would not correspond to the same conditions; for instance, European builders appear to face some significant standards for electrical components and stringent inspections, while it's likely that a builder in Ontario could assemble electrical components in just about any way desired, as far as the government is concerned.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

brian_ said:


> There are *not* lots of EV conversions on the road in Ontario.


True. This is further compounded by the catch-22 of not reporting EV conversions, because they can't get insurance, because there's no data for them to offer insurance.

If there was a "Okay, tell us how long ago you did your conversion" catch-up, they could acquire some data.



> Whether you believe this should present a risk or not, there is no substantial dataset to work with.


It depends on how they want to structure it.

There has to be a method of allowing new policies to be drafted, else nothing would ever change.

For example, how do various regions have datasets for LPG conversions? Where did those numbers come from? Why did anyone ever do an LPG conversion, how did they ever get insurance, how did anyone ever get to the point where they could say that a 15% risk increase is standard?

How many LPG conversions are there out there compared to EV conversions?



> Comparisons with other jurisdictions would be problematic, because they would not correspond to the same conditions;


That explains an increase for uncertainty (less confidence in the numbers) but is not a critical problem. You could use a dataset from the US (or just northern US with comparable weather) and have it apply to Canada. Maybe bump it up 30% because you don't have a lot of confidence that it's apples-to-apples. You hold that excess until you attract enough internal data to tune it, and then premiums will creep downward from competition.

Similarly, they have plenty of data on OEM EVs, so that covers the premium change from that aspect.

There's not that much to it for liability. Generally, the bulk of liability insurance costs are represented by driver history and miles driven. Liability covers when you make a mistake that results in damaging someone else's property. Very little of it is the performance of the actual vehicle. So, provided a vehicle drives, there's little liability change.

For comprehensive, you've now got to have a way to determine replacement value of the car, figure out how attractive it is to thieves, what neighborhood it's parked in, etc. But that shouldn't prevent people from getting liability insurance.

Maybe MoltenMetal is right and there's just no options other than paying 800% higher than he would otherwise. There's no rule of the universe that says things that should be, are, or that everything should be reasonable. But, I suspect there's some wiggle room if you ask the right things of the right people in the right way.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> For example, how do various regions have datasets for LPG conversions? Where did those numbers come from? Why did anyone ever do an LPG conversion, how did they ever get insurance, how did anyone ever get to the point where they could say that a 15% risk increase is standard?
> 
> How many LPG conversions are there out there compared to EV conversions?


Decades ago, LPG conversions (from gasoline) were very common here because propane was much cheaper. There were very popular with taxi drivers and tow truck operators. It's no longer cheap, propane is a pain in a cold climate, gasoline engines have improved in fuel economy, and diesels (for tow trucks) are much better than than they were; the result is that propane vehicles are now rare here... but they are still more common than EV conversions.

I'm in Alberta and EVs are much more common in Ontario than here, but that's production EVs, not conversions. Since the difference in production EV sales is driven by government incentives which don't apply to conversions, I doubt that conversions are much more common (as a fraction of vehicles on the road) in Ontario than they are here. Of course, as already noted, there is no good way to know...

Even when the very first person said "I think I'll feed this engine propane instead of gasoline", they were working with long-established standards for propane storage, transportation, and handling... and they were still feeding an engine (probably the original one in the vehicle). I do agree that there must be a way to start without a historical base of data, but LPG conversion was trivial compared to EV conversion with a high-voltage system.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

brian_ said:


> Comparisons with other jurisdictions would be problematic, because they would not correspond to the same conditions; for instance, European builders appear to face some significant standards for electrical components and stringent inspections, while it's likely that a builder in Ontario could assemble electrical components in just about any way desired, as far as the government is concerned.





MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> That explains an increase for uncertainty (less confidence in the numbers) but is not a critical problem. You could use a dataset from the US (or just northern US with comparable weather) and have it apply to Canada.


Weather conditions are not the issue; regulatory conditions are the difference that I was identifying.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

> Decades ago, LPG conversions (from gasoline) were very common here because propane was much cheaper. There were very popular with taxi drivers and tow truck operators.


Neat. Had no idea.



> they were working with long-established standards for propane storage, transportation, and handling.


The law I listed above has requirements for "OEM Standard" and "Industry Standard" for various components, among which is CSA approval. Also, there are EV specific checklists as part of that inspection process.

So, roadworthiness of vehicles should be covered by the criteria of that inspection, which is external to insurance. They should be able to get some baseline of auto safety confidence from the approval of that inspection.



> Weather conditions are not the issue; regulatory conditions are the difference that I was identifying.


I got that. I just threw that in as an addendum. My point was that regulatory conditions are nearly identical in Canada and the US so there should be a comparable dataset. Americas to EU, maybe not so much.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> My point was that regulatory conditions are nearly identical in Canada and the US so there should be a comparable dataset. Americas to EU, maybe not so much.


Federal regulations are nearly identical between Canada and the U.S., but provincial and state environments vary widely. The levels of regular inspections, and what they inspect for (safety? equipment compliance? emissions?) are all over the map. An insurer in Ontario (or Alberta), for instance, has zero government inspections to rely on for a vehicle which has not been rebuilt from written-off or imported from another jurisdiction.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

Just got off the phone with a very helpful guy from Hagerty.

He read the underwriting rule out to me over the phone. It was, to paraphrase: they will not insure any vehicle which has been modified to operate on any fuel or power source apart from the fuel or power source originally provided in that car by the OEM.

So: want to put a diesel in your gasoline car? Or do an LPG conversion? Forget about Hagerty as an insurer- they will decline you under that rule.

I understand the sorts of risks Hagerty may wish to avoid by means of that rule, and I explained to the guy that a car which has similar power to the original car- 67 hp for a stock 1493cc versus ~ 70 hp for the AC50 once losses are figured in- is likely being caught by a rule intended to restrict the use of nitrous etc.

He's off to speak with underwriting himself and will reply back. I told him that even if the answer is "no, we can't make an exception because FSCO etc." like I've been told by many others, the conversation will not end there. I suggested that he speak with marketing AND underwriting, because Hagerty has to worry not only about their aging driver population but also about the future in terms of classic car availability. Electric conversions of classics is definitely something they need to have on their radar. It was also helpful for him to understand that there are tons of EV conversions on the road in certain places- BC and California being obvious examples- and somebody must be insuring them.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

*Comparison with British Columbia*



Moltenmetal said:


> It was also helpful for him to understand that there are tons of EV conversions on the road in certain places- BC and California being obvious examples- and somebody must be insuring them.


There's a significant difference (aside from the number of EV conversions) between the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia: while Ontario has government-regulated insurance, B.C. has government-run insurance. While that may not sound good for the auto enthusiast, it does lead to an attitude of "we cover everything", rather than each company deciding which fragments of the market they will cover and leaving some niches covered by no one. The Insurance Bureau of British Columbia (ICBC) web page for Modified Vehicles makes the process look quite straightforward, although the actual inspection standards are not given.

While E-Fire and E-Fire Mark II would be "Modified vehicles" in ICBC's system, some DIY projects do not use a stock body and so would be "Ubilt" vehicles. Again, there are no details online of the requirements... just contact information to start the discussion with ICBC.

Perhaps the details of ICBC's inspection requirements for EV conversions would be helpful for the Ontario discussion, but I don't have them.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Moltenmetal said:


> I suggested that he speak with marketing AND underwriting, because Hagerty has to worry not only about their aging driver population but also about the future in terms of classic car availability. Electric conversions of classics is definitely something they need to have on their radar.


I think this might be a strong argument, with support by companies such as Jaguar showing conversions as a way to keep their classic vehicles operable. We know that Jaguar did the E-Type Concept Zero as part of marketing for their future "electrified" vehicles, but the concept does lend credibility to the conversion idea.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

If it wasn't certain before, it certainly is now: no electric conversion can be insured in the province of Ontario except under the Facility Association. 

I've registered an official complaint with the Financial Services Council of Ontario (FSCO), and have my member of provincial parliament's staff working on it from their end as well. We'll see if this goes anywhere.

In the meantime, I have a hard decision to make: do I proceed with this project, even though the insurance for the car for 6 months is twice what I pay year round for my Prius and about EIGHT TIMES what I'd pay to drive a gasoline Spitfire? It's less the money and more the principle of the thing- it just burns my butt to be treated this unfairly by an industry that has a government mandate- that I have no choice but to use.

Unfortunately, moving to BC isn't in the cards either.


----------



## SWF (Nov 23, 2007)

Moltenmetal said:


> Just got off the phone with a very helpful guy from Hagerty.
> 
> He read the underwriting rule out to me over the phone. It was, to paraphrase: they will not insure any vehicle which has been modified to operate on any fuel or power source apart from the fuel or power source originally provided in that car by the OEM.
> 
> So: want to put a diesel in your gasoline car? Or do an LPG conversion? Forget about Hagerty as an insurer- they will decline you under that rule.


I happened to come across an article talking about insurance for modified vehicles in another forum. It included a link to the Hagerty website and the page where they specifically talk about modified vehicles. I guess it is just a matter of an EV conversion being an unknown risk to them, because the web page specifically mentions "significant engine enhancement" and even "structural alterations to the body/chassis/frame". Significant engine enhancement probably includes nitrous systems, which technically does not change the fuel but does change the fuel system. I also think that changes to the structure of the car would be higher risk than an EV conversion.

At some point insurers in Ontario will have to deal with EV conversions, because car geeks have been building hot rods with parts from various cars for many years. More OEM EVs on the road mean more salvage EV parts that car builders will use their projects.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

SWF said:


> At some point insurers in Ontario will have to deal with EV conversions, because car geeks have been building hot rods with parts from various cars for many years. More OEM EVs on the road mean more salvage EV parts that car builders will use their projects.


Not really. Just because a project is possible - and even easy to get parts for - doesn't mean that either government regulators or insurance companies need to accommodate it. There are lots of kits cars which would be easy to build but difficult or impossible to either import or insure, and various vehicle configurations (especially 3-wheelers) which are impractical to build legally or insure.


----------



## SWF (Nov 23, 2007)

brian_ said:


> Not really. Just because a project is possible - and even easy to get parts for - doesn't mean that either government regulators or insurance companies need to accommodate it. There are lots of kits cars which would be easy to build but difficult or impossible to either import or insure, and various vehicle configurations (especially 3-wheelers) which are impractical to build legally or insure.


Yes, I know that they don't _have_ to do anything. My point was that an EV conversion is just another type of modified vehicle, which some insurance companies like Hagerty already insure. Right now an EV conversion falls into a grey area just because it is an unknown and not very common. The prevalence of EV conversions by car geeks may increase, just due to the increase in availability of cheaper EV parts and the overall trend towards electric transportation. Other areas in Canada and the US do insure EV conversions, so I think that as EVs in general become more popular eventually Ontario insurers that already insure modified vehicles will insure EV conversions.


----------



## x.l.r.8 (Oct 20, 2018)

I've never given this much thought as my car was always destined for the race track, however my next project is to convert a hybrid to all electric, I'm reading between the lines but the fact the vehicle is already electrically propelled from the factory I should be fine. I'm going to ask my brokers who have insured all my crazy vehicles in the past at reasonable premiums if removing the gasoline engine will allow the vehicle to be insurable. If so what would stop you from dropping a body onto a hybrid chassis and removing the engine? or can you not do that here. That's what we did with Birchalls London Taxi, we put it on a classic Jaguar frame to avoid SVA testing. It may be involving a different skill set and one to many steps to make work but old hybrids are becoming common in wreckers now and that many body modifications are possibly going to hike the premium up to equal if not more proportions.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

It appears that my FSCO complaint has yielded a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel. Still early days, but I MAY now have a general insurer who will insure a conversion in Ontario providing:

1) Insurance is liability only, no collsion, no comprehensive and sadly no ability to suspend the policy when the car is stored for the winter, i.e you pay all year for 6 months of insurance

2) "Modification" is considered to be not a performance modification, but rather one intended to improve energy efficiency and economy- that's an easy argument actually given the short range and low nominal horsepower of an AC50 so they're apparently convinced on that

3) Limited value of modifications to $10k CDN or the value of the car before conversion, whichever is lower (this applies whether you're in a collision which is your fault or someone else's, so going low on this might cost you if someone else nerfs your car like what happened with me in the E-Fire Mark 1)

4) Passing the normal Ontario road safety inspection which I passed before

This insurer doesn't offer collision/comp on anything older than 25 yrs, and doesn't offer agreed value insurance so everything would be based on a professional appraisal I'd have to pay for.

Sadly, I just bought a nice working TR6 with what seems to be a good engine...at this point, ripping that out to do a conversion would be a travesty. But it would be very nice to know that should the engine ever fail or become unreliable (it meets that criterion already- it's in the shop right now having an intermittent problem dealt with that I can't diagnose myself) , I could always drop the dead E-Fire bits into it and have a 6-Fire or something like it, and not have to pay $4100/yr to insure it! Still steep- about 4x what I'm paying Hagerty for the total of collision, comprehensive and liability for the TR-6, but no unreasonable driving restrictions etc.

Once I have a firm quote in hand, I'll tell the forum who it is- and I've asked them if they want me to shout it from the rooftops or help them promote this as they seem to be the only people in the province...we'll see what they say. Not holding my breath- but wow, it would be amazing to be able to tell everybody that there's a WILLING insurer for electric conversions in Ontario! 

The key here is that apparently SOME of the insurers who have what seems to be an outright ban on insuring modified vehicles, DO have some discretion in insuring modified vehicles they think aren't going to be unsafe. That's awesome, as I approached this SAME company previously and was rejected on the basis of modification, straight out. The sales staff on the phone have a script/checklist and very few of them are thinkers or problem solvers- but mentioning a FSCO complaint got me through to someone with a brain and she put in the effort necessary to get this before the right person in underwriting and voila- HOPE! Let's hope it's not false hope!


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

You are a determined lumberjack in this forest of red tape. Keep the saw running, I'd like to see you clearcut it, salt the earth, and pave it over


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

The company is TD Meloche Monnex, and indeed they are willing to quote insurance on a classic car converted to electric!

The insurance offered is far from ideal- it is year-round so no suspension of coverage when the car is off the road in winter (not sure why, or how they'd stop you from suspending coverage). It doesn't include fire/theft comprehensive insurance (hence the argument for no suspension of coverage). The conversion cost you claim- and hence how much you would get back after someone ELSE hits your car, has to be lower than $10,000 or the value of the vehicle, whichever is lower. And despite the coverage I was offered, in theory (because I don't have a converted car any more) being offered for a 3rd car in a 2 driver family, it's not cheap either- it is about 3x what I'm paying to insure a nonconverted classic car.

But it would get you on the road...and I can no longer say that it's impossible to obtain insurance for a converted car in Ontario. 

Another conversion might be in my future, but not in my near future for sure. I'll be driving my '73 TR6 as a regular TR6 until its engine kicks the bucket- but at that point, a conversion is likely!


----------



## CanadaLT28 (Oct 15, 2011)

Moltenmetal said:


> The company is TD Meloche Monnex, and indeed they are willing to quote insurance on a classic car converted to electric!
> 
> The insurance offered is far from ideal- it is year-round so no suspension of coverage when the car is off the road in winter (not sure why, or how they'd stop you from suspending coverage). It doesn't include fire/theft comprehensive insurance (hence the argument for no suspension of coverage). The conversion cost you claim- and hence how much you would get back after someone ELSE hits your car, has to be lower than $10,000 or the value of the vehicle, whichever is lower. And despite the coverage I was offered, in theory (because I don't have a converted car any more) being offered for a 3rd car in a 2 driver family, it's not cheap either- it is about 3x what I'm paying to insure a nonconverted classic car.
> 
> ...



Mine was through Intact. That said, it was only a conversation with the broker so we will see how it goes when the truck is done. I suspect it will be fine and he didn't say anything about a change in pricing as the there is no change in benefits. I never asked about summer time insurance only.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

That's funny, because I contacted Intact directly as well and was told NO. So there are some brokers using "discretion" that they almost certainly are not actually granted by the underwriting insurers...You're covered, just like I was covered by RBC as a result of the error on the part of their Indian call centre in offering me a quote. Not the best situation but you takes what you can get!


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

It's not that helpful but insurance is cheap here (NZ) because all of the "people stuff" is covered by ACC

https://www.acc.co.nz/

This is an "insurance" that covers ALL accidents anywhere in the country 
If you get hurt or hurt yourself ACC will try to "set it right"

As far as I know we are the only country that has anything like this


----------



## CanadaLT28 (Oct 15, 2011)

Duncan said:


> It's not that helpful but insurance is cheap here (NZ) because all of the "people stuff" is covered by ACC
> 
> https://www.acc.co.nz/
> 
> ...



My friend was visiting NZ a few years ago when he fell off a horse near Invercargill. He was in the hospital for over a month, needed helicopter rescue as well. No charge. Needless to say they were floored.


----------

