Insurance information straight from the source!

[klayfish]

Brian,
That is a question I truly cannot answer. I asked our underwriters the same thing, and they said it didn't matter to them. I think for some companies, the title actually saying 1965 will technically qualify the car for their classic/antique program, as opposed to exotic classification, and that is probably where the difference is.

Steve

[Homewrecker]

For my insurance, because it is titled as a 1965, it qualifies as an antique or collectible car. This however, makes it not qualify for a second vehicle discount. It ends up costing less & then more because of the year it was titled as. It evens out in the end. I have hidden nothing from them or the Secretary of State as to when the car was actually built or what type of car it actually is. Both have pictures on file.

[CSX 4039]

Originally posted by Jamo

--but I'll be damned if a business is going to regulate my life COMPLETELY. [/b]

Give me a break JAMO. I surmise you are an attorney, one who makes a living by finding out where other people have not adhered to the letter of the law, an then exploiting it for maximal benefit.

[Jamo]

Brett
I guess you can surmise instead of keeping up with threads where you've posted elsewhere...

Yes--an attorney who is hired by insurance companies to defend against frivilous litigation brought by plaintiff trial attorneys against employers. An attorney who readily agreed with your post about the need for "loser pays" legislation. I do indeed look for every little opening left by these leaches in order to keep litigation costs down for employers and their insurance carriers.



Cranky
Your point on listing engine sizes is not lost on me. I just feel that I really am tired of having to restrict everything I do because of insurance dictates. I do that in my business--this is my hobby and I'm having fun. Maybe I'll pay more because someone reads something I post--that's a decision I freely make. I pay more for life insurance because of my fat ass. I'm paying more because I smoke (yes--off of them per your cold turkey kick in the butt, thank you, for the past several days--but insurance wants you off of them for several years before it counts). Choices we all make. I'll pay more per limited mile for insurance for the Cobra instead of a Vette, more for a big block than a small block undoubtedly, and so it goes. Choices.

I've stated that I do agree with the approaches suggested in other threads about safety checklists and driver's training to help make sure insurance is available at some price. We see it at the tracks--why not on the streets?

[Cal Metal]

The prize goes to the Crankster for insight and brevity.

Kit Car manufacturers don't carry product liability insurance, as far as I know. I know from talking with a couple of very reputable Cobra manufacturers that it would add $1,000 to $2,000 to the cost of the car.

As far as the multi million dollar settlement discussed in one post, how many rep owners out there carry multi million dollar liability packages on their Cobras? I doubt that too many do, and I bet that specialty insurers don't provide much of it, either.

Now for the big question. Since the inception of Club Cobra, how many accidents/fatalities/thefts have been reported on this forum by members as well as non members? If someone has the answer to that, contact an actuarial specialist and have him run a significance test of some sort. He will want more data, but my hunch is that the results probably won't look too good.

[RACER X #99]

Jamo,
Congratulations on dumping the butts. You now get 460 miles of free travel in your new Cobra,

$4.00 pack X 365= $1,460

488 CI = 5MPG

110 octane race fuel =$5.00 gallon

$1,460 devided by $5.00 = 92 gallons

92 gallons @ 5MPG = 460 free miles

Keep up the good work,

Cranky

[Jamo]

Hmmm...so if I have just one smoke...NO!!!!!!

Thanks buddy

[southernfriedcj]

Originally posted by Cal Metal


Kit Car manufacturers don't carry product liability insurance, as far as I know. I know from talking with a couple of very reputable Cobra manufacturers that it would add $1,000 to $2,000 to the cost of the car.

Cal, I'm not a car builder or an insurance man, but I will say that car builders are crazy if they don't carry liability insurance. One lawsuit could put a car builder out of business, as well as get their personal assets(I said COULD, I am aware that personal property can be somewhat protected).
As a home builder I carry a $1,000,000. general liabilty policy and require my subs to carry $1M per occurence policy with my company named as an additional insured. In my business if mold grows in a home you construct you could lose millions(it has happened).
Just think if the FFR build manual had some bad directions and people lost there lives when the improperly built car fell apart, or a frame weld failed on a SPF and people were killed or injured. It could happen, and in todays climate there would be a $50M lawsuit.
I'd say I pay atleast 40k per year for business related insurance, kinda sucks since we have never had a claim(5 years in business). I wonder how much my insurance costs would be if we had Tort Reform?

[CSX 4039]

southernfriedcj said:
I wonder how much my insurance costs would be if we had Tort Reform? [/b][/quote]

Your settlement costs would be much lower, and your liability rates would be much lower, but your court costs would be the same, because trial and defense lawyers have this unspoken circle jerk, where even a frivolous suit with a summary judgement can cost $100,000 in defense costs with endless filings involved. In the end, the attorneys on both sides get rich, and in the event of a summary judgement dismissing the case, the plaintiff and the defendent get fleeced. No, you say?

[Jamo]

Well Brett, it's obvious you've had some bad experiences or know someone who has, however, some information may be helpful.

Court costs will not remain the same if comprehensive tort reform is adopted as drafted by the Uniform Committee. It involves far more than the "loser pays" element. You may be in a jurisdiction that is outmoded, but many court systems have already adopted limitations on discovery, including form interrogatories and the like. In addition, caps on damage elements such as pain and suffering, and punitive damages limit insurance company exposure while still providing adequate compensation for worthy victims. Many courts also have fast track litigation schedules that prevent drawn out cases before trial. Finally, mandatory mediation and arbitration (without appeal) can lessen the burden on the court system and bring a good number of cases to a prompt resolution. Insurance companies have strict limits on the hourly rates they pay (far below my normal rate) and utilize paid consultants to review billings submitted by attorneys to insure that billed hours and costs are valid.

I can only imagine what kind of case involves an SJ costing $100,000--certainly not a typical situation in the vast majority of liability cases that would be relevant to this thread. I'm sure there are some--but they would be an extreme exception to the rule.

Obviously, if you are of the ilk that choses to blame the attorneys for everything--then this will be lost on you. If you are curious enough to want to know the reality of the situation, you can contact your local bar association or might I suggest the litigation loss control department of an insurance carrier.

[CSX 4039]

Well, that sounds encouraging. We'll see what gets enacted. (My State congressional district has two Representatives from the SAME trial lawyer group). I'm not holding my breath from a Federal level either, unless Bush can avoid a filibuster by calling the tort reform a "budget item".

Fortunately, I have not been sued. (Ya'll don't be getting any ideas, now), but a friend of mine spent 100k to get a suit dismissed that a 3rd grader could have figured out in 5 minutes. It was a case where one family member filed a totally groundless suit to get another member removed from the board of the family company. For reasons I can't say, it was obvious to anyone that it was without merit, but after six months of wrangling, all they had agreed on was a new P.O. Box for the company mail. No lie.

Yes, I admit, I take a rather dim view of attorneys, but I am willing to make exceptions.

[REAL 1]

This is a subject I know something about. Maybe I don't know diddly about what a REAL Cobra is but I do know something about litigation and the insurance industry.

I can tell you that at least in my state only about 6% to 10% of every premium dollar goes to the liability end of the premium dollar. The bulk of the premium dollar goes to medical payments and property damage. Most people don't know that. Did you? Nor does the insurance industry make that well known for obvious reasons. It hurts the lawsuit blame game.

I can tell you that the insurance industry has been on a nation wide campaign to limit peoples access to the court system for years. Makes sense. If they limit access their profits increase. Don't blame them except they are by and large full of $hit.

The insurance industry loves to bash lawyers. Why. People love to hate lawyers. Of course till they need one. They blame the "high insurance premiums on "frivilous" lawsuits. This has been their mantra for years. Same old storey. Its bull$hit but it works.

I cannot say there are not frivilous lawsuits. There have been and there are. They are by far and I mean by far a very small percentage of the cases on the docket. They are usually disposed of quickly. There is no real incentive for lawyers to get involved with frivilous lawsuits. When the fee is on a contingency basis it means they will probably not get a recovery and therefore no fee. If the case is to be an hourly case, most clients would be nuts to pay counsel fees on a very weak case. Thirdly, there are frivilous lawsuit statutes in most states that are invoked to sanction such suits.

But everyone loves to say "frivilous" this and that.

The press loves to publish the information on the occassional ridiculous case such as the most recent McDonalds case where the plaintff brought suit because he claimed McD's made him fat. I cringed when I heard of that case. It was thrown out and should have been. Such silly cases are not the norm by far. But its what the public hears about so they think its the norm.

The insurance industry loves to blame "high" premiums on "frivilous" suits and "crazy" jury awards. The fact of the matter is insurance premiums are regulated by our state and statiscally is a result of the fact we live in the most densely populated part of the country with the most cars on the road per square mile.

Auto insurance premiums have gone up over the years but percentage wise not much more than other things. The insurance companies claim they are always losing money. Yet they make profits in the millions each year. When was the last time you saw an insurance company operating out of a two storey walkup. Their office buildings are usually monuments to themselves. They pay for t.v ads. costing millions. Many of the companies that cry the most are worth billions.

They control healthcare now and next they want to control your access to the courts which they have accomplished to a great degree. Their ultimate goal is to elimate access to the court by the injured and continue to force people to buy insurance. Great gig if you can work it out.

In 1988 N.J passed its Verbal threshold statute limiting the right to bring an action for injury resulting in a auto accident. The insurance companies said give us the verbal threshold and premiums will drop and the number of injury recoveries will drop. They lobbied for it and carried on for it. They got it. The number of injury claims definitely did drop. Check the statistics. So did the awards. The only thing that didn't drop were the premiums. They went up.

In 1998 the insurance industry again whipped up another insurance "crisis". They wanted a new thershold. They said it would reduce the number of claims and drop premiums. They got it. The number of cases dropped again. Even more people were told that there injuries weren't "serious" enough to meet the standard. Only problem was premiums continued to go up and even worse insurance companies utilizing "care paths" for treatment started cutting people off from treatment with their doctors claiming their treatment exceeded the care path allotment. Premiums went up. Not down.

The insurance industry is at it again in N.J. This time with a Medical Malpractice crisis. Fact. The insurance companies again have manufactured this crissis and pitched doctors against lawyer. They clean up the spoils. Very clever.

Fact. The insurance industry has raised premiums each time the economy has taken a down turn. They look to make up the drop in their investment return or losses by squeezing the customer. They got hammered in recent years from hurricane losses and 9/11 so John Q public or the doctors as the case may be get squeezed. The customer is a ready and available source to make up the loss. They then turn and say "blame the lawyers, if there weren't so many lawsuits we could drop your premiums". Same BS everytime. But instead of most people saying "prove it" they as usual grab their pitch forks and storm the legal castle without really trying to figure out if they have been given the correct information.

It is very, very difficult to pursue a med mal claim. Beyond being very difficult it is very expensive. Experts and cost of litigation for the plaintiff many times end up being thousands of dollars. The insurance industry also defends these cases very aggressively Many take a no pay position except on the most obvious of cases.

Fact. The number of malpractice cases have dropped in recent years. Fact. The amount paid out by insurance companies have only increased 2% over the recent couple years. Why then are premiums being raised so drasically? Hmmm. Something stinks.

Fact. 6 percent of the doctors account of 60% of the claims. Maybe the problem is not really with the lawyers. Maybe some blame needs to be laid at the feet of bad medicine. No? Maybe the medical review boards ought to stop protecting the bad doctors and bounce them? No?

Fact. Before you can pursue a case of med mal a doctor must sign an affitdavit of merit saying he has review the record and there is grounds for a malpractice claim.

Further, lawyers don't make the awards. Judges don't make the awards. Juries do. People like you and me after hearing all the evidence. They award what they feel is just and fair.

Moreover, doctors many times have a say in whether a case settles. Many times they tell the carrier don't settle. The carrier continues to pay defense costs in many cases that should be settled. When it goes bad for them after the trial the insurance companays whine and cry about the millions that are awarded to plaintiffs and that they win lotteries with jury awards. If they don't like the awards then maybe they should approach settlement a little differently. The jury thought the claim had merit.

Insurance companies love to blame the "high premiums" on the lawyers and the awards given to "greedy" plainiffs. By and large thats a crock of $hit. But the public loves it. But tell it to the family members of a loved one who have been seriously injuried or crippled due to malpractice as found by a jury. In most medical malpractice cases the damages and injuries are significant. Its easy for people to talk when its not them or their loved one.

You want to limit access to the courts for people. Go ahead. Because in the end you may be limiting it for yourself one day or someone in your family. You want caps on recovery. Now you do. But when its you or someone in your family your gonna feel a whole lot different. I'd be willing to bet on that one.

Whine and complain about the cost of a replica being $1000 more if the manufacturer has to pay for liabilty insurance. Feel sorry for them. Thats OK. But if the day ever comes where a component on that car fails due to a defect in manufacture or design and you or a loved one is hurt and your access is the courthouse is limited or eliminated and I will definitely tell you I told you so.

Make no mistake. While its true personal injury attorneys make a living at representing injured people and advocating their interests so you can say they have an axe to grind, that axe is swinging in your favor when its you thats been hurt, killed or maimed or a family member. The axe of the insurance industry has only on interest in mind. Cutting out or limiiting your rights to the court house.

It important to know the facts.

[klayfish]

Real 1,
I'm not interested in starting an argument on this thread about insurance, hence why I made that disclaimer on the original post. I was hoping you'd read that.

But are you in the auto insurance industry? I doubt it. Seems to me you are a plaintiff lawyer involved in medical malpractice suits. Why is it always about blaming the insurance companies, blaming those horrible doctors, and the almighty dollar? Seems what trial lawyers are upset about is that they won't be able to get as much money. It always comes down to money. If it were a loved one for me, I wouldn't be that interested in the money. What I would want is to find out why it happened and make sure it NEVER happened again.

As for your "facts"...Come and see how much my office is a "monument in itself" Fact. In the auto industry, the vast majority of lawsuits are frivolous, at least around here. Fact. 95% or more of the bodily injury claims are attorney represented soft tissue, moderate impact, chiro type tx, where the value gets pumped up. Fact. The insurance companies don't rake money in hand over fist. Fact. Most auto insurance companies run between 98-102 combined operating ratio. Fact. Premiums in New Jersey go up because of the high PIP limits there and the creative individuals who abuse it regularly. Fact.

Most importantly, I really don't want to turn this into a debate. Fact. If you don't want to be a part of this, don't be. Fact.

I was trying to turn this into a positive event to help all Cobra owners. Have a problem with that?? I don't understand why you just had to throw this in there just to make an argument. If you want to get on your soapbox, please do it elsewhere.

Steve

[Jamo]

Yo Evan

Obviously we're on different sides of the well on this one. You evidently have done some plaintiffs' work, and I'm exclusively on the defense side.

You have stated the cause for accessibility to courts, and insurance companies are always going to want to restrict it. We are asked to insure ourselves against lawsuits, but the companies want to have loss controls in place, which means they will try their best to restrict coverage to good risks whenever possible. You really don't expect the two sides to agree, do you? Both sides overstate their case--it's the nature of the beast.

I set forth some of the items in play and being discussed with regard to tort reform in the courts. Other than the caps on damages, which I'm sure you wouldn't agree with, the remainder are procedural and serve everyone's interest, including the plaintiffs' bar that is having to invest in a case. As to "loser pays", while I acknowledge the public interst is served from a court accessibility standpoint--I'm sorry, but there are a good number of cases that are filed that seek nuisance value settlements, and money is paid in settlement because of the current one-sided situation. I'm as biased on my side of that issue as I'm sure the plaintiffs' bar is from its perspective.

That being said, the issues here are a bit different than the med mal cases you speak of, and the employment cases I deal with. While a certain percentage of auto accident cases can be extreme, the vast majority are not--but they do add up.

I do think that insurance oversight is needed--ranging from workers' compensation to malpractice to health and even to automobile insurance, just as tort reform must occur. You are correct to point out that the premiums keep going up despite the programs insurance companies lobby for and get. That should be obvious to anyone.

The discussion here seems to be centered on what we can do, within reason, to deal with the current reality of our cars being considered a high risk. I haven't heard any Ralph Nader--style bull**** yet. I know if I do, I'm not going to be interested in continuing to discuss it. I would love to see our hobby develop its own coverage, but that's likely not going to happen.


Steve

While I can understand you may not want a debate--I really don't think you can bring up a hotbed issue like insurance amongst the different sites (I'll forgive you for your cute remark about Gasholes and Crankoids at the other place--you really don't want our two groups to team up on your ass, do you? Just kidding--we seem to be pretty much in agreement on this.), and not expect folks to want to weigh in with their views. There are many folks that don't hold insurance companies in the highest regard these days. Your industry is pretty well down in the public perception gutter along with our profession and some Turkish car salesmen. If you're trying to build broad-based support, than I would think dealing with opinions that obviously should be expected is going to be something you're going to have to deal with rather than ignore or exclude from discussion. And by the way, thanks for the efforts you are making.

You gentlemen have a nice day...

[BLACKJACK]

IN MY CURRENT SITUATION I COULD, SURELY, ADD PAGES TO EVAN'S POST. I WON'T - - RATHER I CAN'T - - AT LEAST NOT UNTIL AFTER MY CASE IS HEARD IN FRONT OF A JURY NEXT MONTH. THE ATTITUDE OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY HAS CAUSED ME TO EXPERIENCE THE ABSOLUTE WORST 18 MONTHS OF MY LIFE - - TO THE EXTENT THAT MY HEALTH HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY IMPACTED BY THE "ADVENTURE". IT MAKES ME LONG FOR THE "GOOD OLD DAYS" WHEN THE WORST THING THAT I HAD TO WORRY ABOUT WAS BEING "SHOT DOWN" OVER NORTH KOREA.

JAMO ALSO MAKES PERFECTLY VALID POINTS. IT'S CALLED "PERSPECTIVE".

STEVE, HOWEVER, MAKES THE BEST AND MOST VALID POINT. THIS THREAD HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THE COURT SYSTEM - GOOD OR BAD - AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH GETTING AND KEEPING OUR COBRAS INSURED.

THIS IS A TOPIC OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE TO ALL OF US. FAR TOO IMPORTANT TO BE DILUTED WITH "OFF SUBJECT" PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OR OPINIONS - HOWEVER WELL INFORMED AND ARTICULATED.

STEVE - - THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR EFFORTS TO HELP AND LET'S TRY TO KEEP ON THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT. (IT COULD CONSTITUTE A "FIRST").

THANKS - AND Y'ALL HAVE A REALLY GREAT DAY,

BLACKJACK

SIDE BAR HERE: I TEACH MY STUDENTS THAT "UNDER OUR CURRENT SYSTEM OF ANGLO-SAXON JURISPRUDENCE - A COURT OF LAW HAS FAR LESS TO DO WITH THE DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE AND MUCH MORE TO DO WITH DETERMINING WHO PAID THE MOST FOR THEIR ATTORNEYS".

IT' A TERRIBLE SYSTEM - - IT JUST HAPPENS, HOWEVER, TO BE THE BEST ON THE PLANET.

JNM

[REAL 1]

Steve: I didn't read the disclaimer. Apparently neither did the guys who posted right before I did either.

I was responding to them. The thread turned to this issue. So I reponded.

No I'm not in the insurance busisness. But I've been dealing with insurance companies for nearly 20 years. I'm an active member of the American Trial Lawyers Association. I do know a little about the subject.

I am not involved in med mal cases. Its not what we do in most cases. Have handled them before though when the case had true merit.

Doctors are not horrible. Never said that. Again words are being shoved into my mouth. Normal.

Insurance companies are indeed most of the problem. They pitch doctors against lawyers as in our current med mal "crisis" sit back and wait for the dust to settle and walk away with the spoils.

The insurance industry is one of the wealthiest industries in the country if not the world. Thats OK. They are entitled to make money. I however object to manufactured crisis' in order to further increase profits when the "blamed" cause or group has very little to do with the real reason why premiums are being increased.

Insurance play their little shell game. Breaking off into differenet divisions, property, causualty, life etc..so they can show less profit in the auto. Their profits in general are staggaring. In 1988 when insurance companies first cried about the fact they needed tort reform some of the leading complainers had profits in the Billions. Thats Billiions with a "B".

Again. Isn't it funny that each insurance premium crisis corrsponds with a down turn in the economy. Funny.

While I agree that frivilous lawsuits have no place in the system and should be thrown out they normally are thrown out. They make up an infinitesmal portion of the docket. No system is perfect.

I can't speak to PA. Maybe there are abuses there. Don't know. But I can speak about N.J. Don't trivilize "soft tissue" injuries. Except for your skeletal system the rest of your body is SOFT tissue. Is a herniated disc trivial? Is a torn rotator cuff trivial? Is a brachial plexus nerve injury trivial? Is a rupture of the small intestine requiring a hemi collectomy trivial. Scarring. Is that always trivial?

The answer by most is usually "yes" they are trivial unless its happened to them. Thats the problem.

N.J. has strict threshold laws that have drastically reduced the right to seek recovery for injury unless they are permanent and significant. The number of suits have dropped drastically. I know defense firms that have laid off half their lawyers because the cases don't exist anymore. Thats OK. Looks like it worked as far as getting rid of injury claims.

But why haven't premiums gone down. Why are the insurance companies looking to increase auto premiums again? Beats me. Somethings rotten in Denmark.

I agree with you. Rates continue to go up in N.J. because of PIP (personal injury protection benefits for medical bills). Fact. Attorneys have argued to get rid of PIP for years. The insurance companies resist everytime. Why? Because they continue to use it as a way to argue for increased premiums. They benefit from PIP in N.J. despite the fact they quickly cut treatment off. They force PIP arbitrations if the injured person wants and needs continued treatment according to the DOCTORS which means if the insurance company wins they can prevent the injured person from proceeding further even with their injury claim before a jury by arguing collateral estoppel. But if the injured person wins they don't get the benefit of collateral estoppel.

The doctors have it rough. No doubt. From the goverenment controlling what they can charge under medicare to the INSURANCE COMPANIES controlling what they can charge for medical care and what procedures they can utilize.

The problem is not the lawyer representing the injuried party. Not that frivilous cases don't exist they do as I said but they are statistically insignificant. The real problem is deciding what is frivilous. There are clear cases then there are not so clear cases.

The main problem is and always has been the insurance industry which is rapidly gaining control of everything from healthcare to court access.

I can't believe that if you or someone in your family was seriously injured by med mal (and when med mal happens the consequences are usally significant) you would just chalk it up to experience and look to see that it never happened again. How would you do that. By asking nicely? Don't think so.

Fact. Most people who are badly injured in mal practice or other accidents would rather not be injured and would happily trade the money back for being made well again. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to trivialize others injuries except the jury after all the evidence is weighed.

Tell the victims of mal practice who have been injured that they were in it for the money. Its easy for others to level that charge when its not them or a loved one.

Everyone has an axe to grind. Fact. My brother who is a heart surgeon told me that he is in favor of med mal reform. I told him that if the insurance companies could show us and prove that it was really "frivilous" lawsuits or the "crazy" awards that are causing the rocketing increse in premiums then I would be willing to sit down and listen and work on a remedy thats fair to everyone.

Fact. Insurance companies can't prove its related cause it ain't when the fact is awards have only increased a total of 2% over the past couple years.

I have a suggestion. Get rid of the 6% of the doctors responsible for 60% of the claims. That would be a good start. Then see where it goes.

Sorry for the rant.






Jamo: Emplyment cases are a diffenet animal. We are very selective in the cases we take from the plaintiff's end. They can be very difficult to prove, time consuming and expensive. Nuisance cases do exist in every area of the law. But again by and large a small percentage of the docket. Problem is I can't think of the perfect way of preventing some crap cases from getting filed from time to time except for invoking the "Frivilous lawsuit statute" which exist here in N.J. and in Fed Court. I do know that it is invoked here when merited.

I can't speak about auto cases in your jurisdiction. I only speak about what I know.

[Cal Metal]

Evan:

What is the "Verbal Threshold" Statute? Explain.

[REAL 1]

Cal: Its a statute that requires ALL auto personal injury claimants who have elected that threshold on their policy (which 90% have) to have a " permanent " and "siginifcant" injury resulting in the loss of a body function which MUST be supported by OBJECTIVE CLINICAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE. A treating doctor or a doctor to whom the person was refered by the treating doctor MUST sign an affitdavit saying such an injury exists and the medical basis for the fact such injury exists or the case is tossed.

[TimG427]

You have done a great job of presenting the concerns of Great American, Steve. All insurance companies are looking at what they consider "high risk" exposures and trying to limit these. I make my living insuring companies that transport gasoline, diesel fuel and propane fuel. There are very few, if any insurance companies willing to consider insuring this type of risk any longer. The insurance market will change, but it will take time.
It may be more expensive to insure Cobra replicas in the future.
Consider higher deductibles or check with the carrier that insures your personal vehicles. I have my coverage with one company and they are willing to insure my classic cars because we have three personal, low risk vehicles on the policy. The most important thing is to keep your driving record clean. More than one accident or ticket will make your renewal and acceptability very undesireable.

[terry lee]

WOW, HERE WE GO AGAIN!
This is starting to get nasty, shall we all start picking sides.

Evan,
With all due respect, I think you have too much time on your hands. As the old saying goes: KEEP IT SIMPLE, I'm not going to add another letter to this as I don't think you are.
TL