Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) announced a loss of £157m in the three months to the end of September after taking a £245m charge for cars damaged in the Tianjin port explosion in August. In the same period last year, JLR reported a pre-tax profit of £609m. Car sales fell by less than 600 to 110,200.
5,800 cars X £42.5K each!
Obviously they "self insure" i.e. take their own risk rather than insuring with the likes of Lloyds & on this occasion they have lost out Big Time!
Maybe in the future they would be better insuring with a huge excess for the "melt down" claims such as happened in China - but taking the first £5/10m of any one claim.
I bet there are some Finance / Risk managers @ JLR pondering about what could or should have been done.
|
Had they been lost in a train crash from Halewood, the rail transporters insurance would have paid, had they been lost on the Hogue Osaka in the channel, Lloyds of London would have paid out on maritime insurance.
You dont insure all the cars in port, because you only expect the odd one to get damaged in transit, not lose the whole blooming lot in an armageddon style holocaust on land.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 7 Nov 15 at 08:43
|
It rather looks as though they were insured.
"Jaguar Land Rover booked 245 million pounds ($371 million) in losses for the quarter through September after about 5,800 of its vehicles were damaged in a blast at China’s Tianjin port where they were stored.
Insurance claims may take some months to conclude, Jaguar Land Rover’s parent Tata Motors Ltd. said in a statement Friday. Insurance and other potential compensation will be accounted for when paid or confirmed, it said."
per Bloomburg
|
>> Had they been lost in a train crash from Halewood, the rail transporters insurance would
>> have paid, had they been lost on the Hogue Osaka in the channel, Lloyds of
>> London would have paid out on maritime insurance.
>>
What makes you say that? Goods in transit are rarely insured.
|
|
Rubbish, GiT are usually insured. Its a huge line of business all on its own.
|
It certainly is, and very expensive too!
Pat
|
>> It certainly is, and very expensive too!
>>
Yes - I assume that's why it's not taken. I used to be involved in shipping high-value computer chips and they're generally not insured. If they get nicked (they did from time to time) we'd make some more. We usually tried to get the customer to arrange collection though, so it was at their risk.
I'm sure someone on here who was involved in car transporting - it might have even been you? - said that cars on car transporters aren't insurered and when a firm wrecks a car they have to repay the manufacturing cost of the car.
|
If you can stand the loss, insuring is never the cheapest option. Stands to reason as the insurance company is looking to make a profit.
The fact I've never bought an extended guarantee is the same thing. I might yet have to buy a washing machine (say) as a result of this personal policy, but over the years, I'm more than a washing machine in value in credit.
|
>> Goods in transit are rarely insured.
Depends on situation. If you want, anything can be be insured.
There are insurance companies which will insure you for odd events e.g. bringing a panda by ship from far East, first 10 seconds of a rocket launch etc.
|
It is good business and personal principal to insure for a loss that you cannot cover.
For example a bad debt on a major customer if the balance owed is more than the company's net worth. Failure of that customer would mean failure of the business.
The same goes for house insurance. Loss of a house in a fire would be a major loss so it is insured.
|
>> It is good business and personal principal to insure for a loss that you cannot
>> cover.
>>
>>.
>>
That's my take on it too. House and contents always insured, full comp on vehicles but no extended warranties on electrical goods or insurance on mobile phones.
|
|
House fully insured. Contents partially insured (enough to make me very happy in event of total loss, otherwise probably don't care.) Anything else takes pot luck. Car I think is fully comp, as it was cheaper.
|
>>Contents partially insured
I am sure you know, but be careful with that. If "partially" means not all the contents, then fine. If it means not all the value, then that can be bad. Its called under-insurance and can proportionally reduce the value of any payment.
Contents Value £100
Insured Value £50 (50%)
Claim £30
Payment £15 (50%)
|
|
Thanks. Under-insurance is partial insurance. I bear some of the risk; they bear some of the risk. Valuation of contents is so subjective anyway.
|
>>Under-insurance is partial insurance
I have seen it successfully, although not frequently, argued that under-insurance mis-represents the risk and thus can be grounds for refusal.
|
|
under insuring really doesn't save much in the way of premium, certainly not enough to make it worth while.
|
>> under insuring really doesn't save much in the way of premium, certainly not enough to
>> make it worth while.
>>
I guess it depends how much the contents are worth but we have house and contents with LV=. They don't care about the house value unless it's over £1M and I found the contents cost didn't increase until I put it over £60K - however at £50K+ it asked for window locks etc and said they must be used. As there's no chance we'd do that I dropped it back under £50K.
|
>> As there's no chance we'd do that I dropped it back under £50K.
But, if your house were then burgled, if it was then found to contain £60k of contents and thus should have had locks, they could then refuse to pay out on the basis that had you told them there was £60k and refused to put locks, they would have refused the cover.
It is a risky economy.
Take that approach by all means, but be careful and be aware.
|
>> But, if your house were then burgled, if it was then found to contain £60k
>> of contents and thus should have had locks, they could then refuse to pay out
>> on the basis that had you told them there was £60k and refused to put
>> locks, they would have refused the cover.
>>
There's no chance my house contents are worth anything like £60K (or even £50K). I was just testing the ceiling and left it at £60K as it didn't cost anymore without realising the gotcha.
|
A worthwhile exercise and thought process.
But you would not believe how many people screw this particular aspect up blithely believing that they are getting one over the insurer.
|
>> There's no chance my house contents are worth anything like £60K (or even £50K).
You would be very surprised at how much it would cost to completely replace *everything* in your house at new prices.
|
I know I can get insurance cheaper elsewhere and have done. But I returned to the current insurer a few years ago because they were cheaper. And when I've claimed (holiday related) before they were excellent. And for that I'd pay extra.
Anyway.... a renewal came through and was more than the year before. No surprise there. I phoned them up and they got it down and increased cover!
One thing was me trying to work out the contents cover (Which would be fairly accurate) meant their 'default' cover for more was less per annum. Go figure.
Still over 12 months for buildings, contents, etc. it adds up! But I was in a phone shop recently and they were persuading people to take phone insurance at around £14pm! For one phone.
|
|
Content insurance is a difficult one to claim. When you claim, insurers will ask for proof that you owned that item. It could be proof of purchase, a picture of the item someone in your family using it etc. Usually individual jewelry items over £1500 or so must be declared separately when you take out the insurance - otherwise these may not have any covers at all.
|
>> Content insurance is a difficult one to claim. When you claim, insurers will ask for
>> proof that you owned that item. It could be proof of purchase, a picture of
>> the item someone in your family using it etc.
As no-one keeps all the receipts (you may for large items, but do you have receipts for all your DVDs and CDs?) its probably a good idea to photograph or video the inside of your house, and keep that in the cloud.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 11 Nov 15 at 09:41
|
We were burgled a bit back and the ins co wanted proof of ownership of pretty much everything we claimed for (which wasn't a lot). E.g. SWMBO had a Radley (= not so cheap) purse we'd got on eBay for a good price (much lower than retail) but they still wanted proof. She also had about £200 cash, because she'd been paid some expenses from work out of petty cash that day. They made quite a detailed call to her work to verify that.
She's a key-holder for her employer but they wouldn't pay for the replacement locks & keys for the business ( - keys were nicked- ) so if the business hadn't been reasonable then we'd have had to stump up that too which would have been mega expensive. As it was the whole episode cost a few hundred as well as a lot of time.
(Saga, our insurers at the time, also added an extra clause in the following year that a non-forced entry would no longer be covered - which would mean if our keys were stolen/lost when away from the house and then we were burgled with them then we weren't covered. This wasn't what happened, it was a forced entry. Whatever, they lost my business!)
|
>>... proof that you owned that item.
>> Usually individual jewelry items over £1500 or so must be declared separately when you take out the insurance - otherwise these may not have any covers at all.
>>
We have had our jewelry listed with photos and the individual values.
Both the insurance company and police can have access if I choose.
Now I just hope the details are not hacked :-(
|
>>You would be very surprised at how much it would cost to completely replace *everything*
>>in your house at new prices.
And equally, one would be surprised how little of that one would actually bother to replace in the event of total loss.
And when the items are antiques, the whole process of valuation is a messy process. If you bought it for a fiver at a car boot sale, the going rate at a country auction is £250, a provincial antique shop £500, it might make £800 at Christies and a dealer on Bond Street might want £2000 for it, what is the 'new for old' value? Bear in mind that it's unique, so you'll be getting cash not a replacement item.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 11 Nov 15 at 10:49
|
Jaguar - Announces loss for quarter!!! - Zero
