Photography by J.G. Pasterjak
After we pulled our 1991 Toyota MR2 Turbo back into the shop and started to inspect it after the engine fire at Daytona International Speedway, we realized that things were ugly. Fortunately, though, the damage was far from catastrophic.
So, what happened? An oil cooler line, held back by a metal bracket that had fatigued or somehow failed, contacted the exhaust, burned through, and started the blaze, which was mostly contained to the driver-side front part of the engine bay.
There was some minor damage on the passenger side as well, but everything looked overwhelmingly cosmetic and confined to soft bits like wire, hose and protective boots.
In other words, the car was entirely rebuildable.
Yes, it was going to take some scrubbing to make it presentable again, and a thorough inspection of the soft bits that had melted to determine the extent of their damage, but a few spliced wires and replaced hoses would have gotten the engine to fire right back up.
More good news: Even though an oil line caused the fire, we didn’t lose much oil. When we drained the sump, we measured 3.5 of the original 4.1 quarts–no worries about dry bearings or empty crankcases.
Now to see what the insurance company felt about our car-b-que. We figured the worst thing they could say at this point was, “No, go away.”
With our MR2’s original 3S-GTE engine removed, we got a better look at the fire damage. We’ve got to redo some runs of the body wiring harness, and do some scrubbing and painting, but overall, the blaze didn’t consume any of the structure.
So, we made the call and started the claims process rolling. Our claims rep didn’t slam down the receiver when we told them that it happened at a race track, listening to the entire incident in stride, so we took that as a good sign that we should at least continue through the process.
Since the claim is still under investigation, we don’t want to reveal the name of the insurance company at this point, but we can say that so far the progress is progressing along.
When the adjuster showed up, we had all the charred bits laid out on racks, FAA inspection style, and this seemed to please him and make his job easier, particularly because it was a type and era of car he wasn’t accustomed to dealing with.
A few days after the adjuster’s inspection, we had to provide a recorded statement detailing the incident, and again we went over pretty much everything you read in the initial description of the fire. We reiterated that the event was a non-competition setting–although we were clear to them that the car was frequently used in competition–and so far, this doesn’t seem to have triggered any major red flags on their end.
At this point, the claim is still in the investigative stage–fire and theft claims are heavily vetted according to our adjuster–but all signs point to a settlement.
The bad news is that settlement will likely come as a result of the car being declared a total loss. We’re speculating here, but likely the possible cost of the labor to chase damaged wiring put it over the edge and into total territory. Or, maybe it’s not necessarily bad news, but it is a definite wrinkle.
According to our claims processor, we have three choices should we ultimately be granted the possibility of a settlement:
That settlement would certainly be enough to cover the cost of the repair, with a couple nice shrimp dinners during work breaks thrown in as a bonus, but it also leaves us with a car with a salvage title.
Here in Florida, salvage titles can be turned into rebuilt titles with extensive documentation of the rebuild process (clearly not a problem in this case), and an inspection by a Florida DMV inspector. Again, that’s interesting stuff to write about, even if the rebuilt title technically hurts the value of the car in the long run.
But do we care? It’s not like we have any plans to sell the car any time soon, and anyone who would buy it wouldn’t care as much about the title as they would about the documentation of the project. So should the claim eventually proceed to a settlement, it’s a tempting option.
Our insurer has already informed us that the claim would be a “no fault” declaration, meaning no responsibility would be assigned for the failure. This would certainly lend itself to less of a potential premium increase down the road than a finding of fault on our part, making the settlement even more tempting.
In any case, we’ll keep you informed on what happens on the insurance side, and hopefully the company’s spokespeople get back with us soon and we can give you some info right from them as well.
And, some foreshadowing: To properly assess everything, the engine would have to come out, and if you’re going to take an engine out of a car, why would you want to put the same one back in?
We try to total fire vehicles because, like a flood car, they tend to be never-ending sources of trouble. Engine fires aren't terribly hard to fix and make run but you still have the cosmetics to deal with. Also, the smoke smell that gets into the interior can be difficult to eradicate.
After repairs I will buy this car with a rebuilt title. No problem. ;^)
Jerry said:After repairs I will buy this car with a rebuilt title. No problem. ;^)
You might have to fight JG for that.
I'm curious about how they handle the "no fault" decision on a modified car. I could see most insurance companies equate modifying it to somehow blaming you which I obviously hope they don't.
I'm astounded that they're entertaining covering it. Watching with interest.
Tyler H said:I'm astounded that they're entertaining covering it. Watching with interest.
You and me both. And I've been radically transparent at every step, since I basically can't enlist everyone who's ever read a story about the car into a conspiracy. My insurer has the entirety of every project car story I've written about it in their possession and I still haven't gotten any indication that they're going to den the claim. If they cover it they've earned a customer for life from me I think.
From the carrier perspective, there could be a few things in play. First, this isn't a liability claim...i.e. you didn't crash into someone else and hurt them or damage their property. That's the biggest reason the racing exclusion is in there. This is a "1st party" claim for their policyholder. Contrary to belief, carriers look to find ways to provide coverage for their customer, not deny it. I could easily say that this was a mechanical failure which could have easily happened during street use. The mechanical failure itself isn't covered (i.e. the failed bracket), however the resulting damages (i.e. the fire) is covered. That's one way they could provide coverage.
The other way is the plain and simple business decision. If they feel it's in their best interest for customer service to provide coverage, they can...assuming you can find a way to offer coverage as I outlined above. It could be because you're GRM, it could also simply be because they want your continued business and it's worth the cost to them. I do it all the time.
Regardless, glad they're looking at coverage. If you have questions, just ask.
Sounds like it was a relatively slight seepage of oil if it only lost ~0.5qt out of a high-pressure line.
SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:From the carrier perspective, there could be a few things in play. First, this isn't a liability claim...i.e. you didn't crash into someone else and hurt them or damage their property. That's the biggest reason the racing exclusion is in there. This is a "1st party" claim for their policyholder. Contrary to belief, carriers look to find ways to provide coverage for their customer, not deny it. I could easily say that this was a mechanical failure which could have easily happened during street use. The mechanical failure itself isn't covered (i.e. the failed bracket), however the resulting damages (i.e. the fire) is covered. That's one way they could provide coverage.
The other way is the plain and simple business decision. If they feel it's in their best interest for customer service to provide coverage, they can...assuming you can find a way to offer coverage as I outlined above. It could be because you're GRM, it could also simply be because they want your continued business and it's worth the cost to them. I do it all the time.
Regardless, glad they're looking at coverage. If you have questions, just ask.
Relevant to this, one thing the adjuster said to me regarding comprehensive claims that resonated was "We don't cover the cause, we cover the result." So, yeah, that seems to make sense in this case.
And for what it's worth, I never really played the "I work for a car magazine" card until we were deep into the process and I thought it would be interesting to write about. Not that I'm immune from playing that card necessarily, but I'd rather not have to resort to the "do you know who I am?" method to get things done in my life because far too often the answer will likely be "no," or the even worse "yes, and I don't care."
how much does this " insurance" cost per year?
how much is the car "worth"... i.e. the amount of money they will pay out for the car when "totalled" ?
Displaying 1-10 of 28 commentsView all comments on the GRM forums
You'll need to log in to post.
