[Dan.L3.tech]

I brought my '20 Bolt in to service a month ago for the Chevrolet Certified Battery Update software recall. It was finished in a little over an hour.

There is a certification sticker that is placed in the lower left driver's side windshield corner which is a reference for parking garage attendants to allow for parking in some restrictive parking garages.

But another very important reason for getting your Bolt in for this important update is for your insurance company to know about the risk elimination that this factory update provides!

Otherwise, your next renewal quote could possibly be higher!

While the range is temporarily reduced until the new battery pack becomes assigned for your Bolt, I'm really impressed that the warranty starts over again for the 8 years and 100,000 miles.

In the last week, because Chevrolet stands so solidly behind its products, on two different occasions last week, one couple wanted to buy it from me and gave me a permanent standing offer to buy it. (Answer "No thank you, it's a 'keeper'".)

The other person approached me at a Honda dealership and right in front of the front door of that dealership, wanted to see under the hood and learn all about it.
He smiled and said;
"So I should find one without the new battery yet and get it cheap?"

I smiled back and replied "Absolutely get it checked out first with a certified GM tech, and if it checks out, then yes, get it for sure".

(Honda is working with GM for EV future models, but I was there buying small parts for a friend's '20 Honda CRV, which, after sending her a text image of the new EV Equinox coming next year, convinced her to sell the CRV at "private party value" for when the new EV Equinox comes out.)

But do get the Chevrolet Certified Battery Update and that windshield sticker and immediately call it in to your insurer to maintain or improve your premium status.

 

[ARob]

I doubt most insurers are looking for update status. Too much work for such a small % of the fleet that has burned, and they likely collect everything they pay out from GM anyway.

 

[Dan.L3.tech]

I doubt most insurers are looking for update status. Too much work for such a small % of the fleet that has burned, and they likely collect everything they pay out from GM anyway.

Arob,

Insurers have automated risk search engines running 24/7, and will not contact you for verification of this recall applied to your Bolt.
That isn't going to ever happen.

I'll find out more precise values for the forum within a few weeks as my policy renews soon, and share it here.

 

[ARob]

Arob,

Insurers have automated risk search engines running 24/7, and will not contact you for verification of this recall applied to your Bolt.
That isn't going to ever happen.

I'll find out more precise values for the forum within a few weeks as my policy renews soon, and share it here.

I underwrote insurance for 16 years, I know how they operate. Sure, some automation is available today, 20 years later. But many small insurers probably don't use these tools.

Again, insurers are generally going to be successful recovering 100% from GM, and probably also fees for handling the claims, since there is a recall. So, the cost to them is negligible, and any insurance regulator who didn't ask them to justify uprating for something like this should be fired on the spot. Charging excessive rates without justification is job #1 for Insurance regulators.

If they threaten to raise rates based on this, your first response should be to file a complaint with your state DOI.

 

[Pete Blair]

Arob,

Insurers have automated risk search engines running 24/7, and will not contact you for verification of this recall applied to your Bolt.
That isn't going to ever happen.

I'll find out more precise values for the forum within a few weeks as my policy renews soon, and share it here.

My insurance renewed in January while my car was still in the 883 recall group and I did not have that software update performed. My policy did not increase, it actually went down, though I suspect that is more related to the value of my car being lower as it is older. I also have a friend who is a programmer at my insurance company and he works on the software the actuaries use to determine premiums. I asked him if they use safety recall status of the insured vehicles are part of their formulas and he told me they do not. Can't say if all the other insurance companies don't but for USAA I can say they don't.

 

[EV Trek 37604]

Mine renewed last month with no increase. I think insurance companies know there is less that one tenth of one percent chance of it catching fire.

 

[Dan.L3.tech]

I doubt most insurers are looking for update status. Too much work for such a small % of the fleet that has burned, and they likely collect everything they pay out from GM anyway.

ARob,

There's no work at all.

They all subscribe to the same rating agencies, or they go broke fast nowadays.

They rate partially

"By the VIN Number",

as I was told 6 months ago by one underwriter,

especially if any recall would involve property damage risk potential.

You can certainly bet on that,

and all Bolts are recalled by thorough GM standards.

 

[BillG49]

Mine renewed last month with no increase. I think insurance companies know there is less that one tenth of one percent chance of it catching fire.

Mine also renewed last month with no increase. I think the risk is closer to 1/100 of a percent, especially for 2020+ model years. There are a lot bigger issues for the insurance companies to worry about - or Bolt owners, for that matter.

 

[Dan.L3.tech]

Mine also renewed last month with no increase. I think the risk is closer to 1/100 of a percent, especially for 2020+ model years. There are a lot bigger issues for the insurance companies to worry about - or Bolt owners, for that matter.

I'm totally risk averse, so I'm not willing to accept even the 1/100th of a percent.
IOW, someone will likely suffer loss.

It ain't going to be me or my insurer, even for the administration costs for any claim that LG Chem ultimately pays.

Besides, there are marginal situations where your proactive efforts will later favor you for the slew of expenses where marginal considerations within any loss claim would either be paid in your favor or not favored/denied which ends being your loss.
This clause in "reasonable effort to prevent further or initial loss" in the first place is in all insurance policies.

 

[EV Trek 37604]

Mine also renewed last month with no increase. I think the risk is closer to 1/100 of a percent, especially for 2020+ model years. There are a lot bigger issues for the insurance companies to worry about - or Bolt owners, for that matter.

1/100% is about right, 14 fires out of 144,000 cars. I misplaced my decimal.

 

[trm2]

ARob,

There's no work at all.

They all subscribe to the same rating agencies, or they go broke fast nowadays.

They rate partially

"By the VIN Number",

as I was told 6 months ago by one underwriter,

especially if any recall would involve property damage risk potential.

You can certainly bet on that,

and all Bolts are recalled by thorough GM standards.

There isn’t a “same rating agency”. Although independent agents that sell a range of companies policies will subscribe to a service. The actual insurance companies do a few things in common from shared resources, but the actual rating, absolutely not.

the common things are simple things like vehicle symbols (which you use a VIN to get) Insurance Credit Scores (not the same as a FICO score), C.L.U.E. Reports and the like. The actual rating variables are 100% company specific. There is no way we share the information we have with competitors. You can spend a great amount of time to figure out a rate from looking at a state filing, but that isn’t the same as figuring out the rating algorithm.

 

[ARob]

ARob,

There's no work at all.

They all subscribe to the same rating agencies, or they go broke fast nowadays.

They rate partially

"By the VIN Number",

as I was told 6 months ago by one underwriter,

especially if any recall would involve property damage risk potential.

You can certainly bet on that,

and all Bolts are recalled by thorough GM standards.

Insurance is one of the most regulated businesses in the country. Lack of justification for uprating is a death sentence for insurance companies, the fines and PR are enough disincentive to dissuade them from trying.

They can collect on losses caused by recall defects, it is a legal concept referred to as proximate cause. An individual's negligence is virtually irrelevant because GM will never be able to prove the owners "but for" actions were the ultimate cause for the loss, it will always fall back to the deep pockets of the manufacturer when a recall defect is the primary reason for a loss.

I am well aware of these kinds of systems, I provided specs to our IT department when Equifax got into the claim reporting business (similar to credit reporting), they called it C.L.U.E (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange). We not only had to report, but purchased reports thousands of times daily. I also wrote database reporting tools for underwriting, sales and service that are still in use today, and have been built into multi-million dollar systems for a company selling Hundreds of Billions of dollars of premium in 50 states.

I don't doubt there are more sophisticated databases in the last 20 years. But again, the insurer would have to demonstrate exposure to loss to be able to justify uprating. If they collect from GM, there is no financial implication, no justification. Any decently intelligent regulator would shut the practice down with an immediate cease and desist coupled with big fines.

So, you are arguing based on second hand information from one person. I am providing insight from 16 years of experience, regular interactions with the board of directors of an auto insurer, and literally thousands of CA Department of Insurance dealings having to do with claims, underwriting practices and rating approvals. My underwriting teams were audited several times by DOI inspectors (a routine practice performed every few years) and we had extensive meetings covering their findings and reconciling those with the laws and regulations.

Do you really want to try to argue this any further? I don't care if there are systems that can identify every nick and scratch in a car's finish...unless the insurer can justify higher claims costs, they cannot, and will not be approved or get away with uprating based on a manufacturer defect under recall.

You also should understand an underwriter's mentality upon which you so boldly stake your arguments. New Underwriters have all kinds of opinions, and feel a sense of power over people. They often make decisions to cancel, decline or update up-rate a policy that management overturns. I have no doubt that if you surveyed dozens of professional underwriters with more than a few years experience, they would unanimously say your one source is full of BS.

 

[ARob]

This clause in "reasonable effort to prevent further or initial loss" in the first place is in all insurance policies.

How often do they pay claims for negligent drivers whose attention was diverted by a screaming child, text message, or similar? Every day! That clause may apply to a person with a loss history of lots of claims, but it would only be justification for whether or not they continue insuring you. Reasonable is a very difficult thing to argue to a jury, and juries will rarely rule against a reasonable person when there is a deep pocket manufacturer to blame.

I could easily argue GM's recommendations were extraordinary given the low incident rates, good test results when my SW upgrade was performed in June, and 4 years of incident free charging. The even stated their recommendations in light of "out of an abundance of caution". That is a level of caution well beyond what an insurance company could use against you, particularly when GM and LG are covering all of their out of pocket costs for the losses.

 

[trm2]

Insurance is one of the most regulated businesses in the country. Lack of justification for uprating is a death sentence for insurance companies, the fines and PR are enough disincentive to dissuade them from trying.

They can collect on losses caused by recall defects, it is a legal concept referred to as proximate cause. An individual's negligence is virtually irrelevant because GM will never be able to prove the owners "but for" actions were the ultimate cause for the loss, it will always fall back to the deep pockets of the manufacturer when a recall defect is the primary reason for a loss.

I am well aware of these kinds of systems, I provided specs to our IT department when Equifax got into the claim reporting business (similar to credit reporting), they called it C.L.U.E (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange). We not only had to report, but purchased reports thousands of times daily. I also wrote database reporting tools for underwriting, sales and service that are still in use today, and have been built into multi-million dollar systems for a company selling Hundreds of Billions of dollars of premium in 50 states.

I don't doubt there are more sophisticated databases in the last 20 years. But again, the insurer would have to demonstrate exposure to loss to be able to justify uprating. If they collect from GM, there is no financial implication, no justification. Any decently intelligent regulator would shut the practice down with an immediate cease and desist coupled with big fines.

So, you are arguing based on second hand information from one person. I am providing insight from 16 years of experience, regular interactions with the board of directors of an auto insurer, and literally thousands of CA Department of Insurance dealings having to do with claims, underwriting practices and rating approvals. My underwriting teams were audited several times by DOI inspectors (a routine practice performed every few years) and we had extensive meetings covering their findings and reconciling those with the laws and regulations.

Do you really want to try to argue this any further? I don't care if there are systems that can identify every nick and scratch in a car's finish...unless the insurer can justify higher claims costs, they cannot, and will not be approved or get away with uprating based on a manufacturer defect under recall.

You also should understand an underwriter's mentality upon which you so boldly stake your arguments. New Underwriters have all kinds of opinions, and feel a sense of power over people. They often make decisions to cancel, decline or update a policy that management overturns. I have no doubt that if you surveyed dozens of professional underwriters with more than a few years experience, they would unanimously say your one source is full of BS.

ARob, don’t forget that cancelling someone, etc. is not a walk in the park with regulators either.

And I’ll toss my quarter century of experience in with yours. There have been a handful of fires, while bad to tragic for those involved, those loses aren’t even a rounding error on the insurance company’s CR.

 

[Dan.L3.tech]

Certainly all that is true.

But this regards what you have control over.
Sooner or later, will it be your turn, unfortunately, for a claim for maybe another type of insurance loss?

How it was handled just previous to the event matters most as far as your control is concerned to your underwriter.

Let me share this claim experience;

With an incoming hail storm 10 months ago where there was 25 minutes notice for a pop up hail storm with golf ball sized hail that hit and destroyed the roof of my house.
(The coverage is for "damage to anything on the property".)
I had to work feverishly to clear space in the garage (putting back a video setup and other equipment I set up as a EV video studio for a shoot), in order to fit my Suburban in before the hail hit. It hit 45 seconds after I shut the garage door.
This saved at least $3400 on the claim.
When it came time to pay out for the roof, not only did I get an upgrade from a 20 year roof to an architectural-grade 30, but it is rated for F2 tornado winds and fire ember resistance,
(a good thing to have as the climate hazards become increasingly severe.)
AND,
there was an $880 marginal consideration that instead if not being in my favor to receive, that I did end up receiving once I explained to the upper management that I had worked very hard to prevent the $3,400 Suburban hail damage loss.
Insurance companies do listen for these things and are responsive when they know that you did everything you could ahead of time.

The update is free, so it can't be cost.
GM provides a loaner, so that's not a problem.

I'm really curious.
Are there other reasons besides an actual need to drive the max-designed original distance until the new battery is assigned?
Dealer very far away?

 

[ARob]

Certainly all that is true.

But this regards what you have control over.
Sooner or later, will it be your turn, unfortunately, for a claim for maybe another type of insurance loss?

How it was handled just previous to the event matters most as far as your control is concerned to your underwriter.

Let me share this claim experience;

With an incoming hail storm 10 months ago where there was 25 minutes notice for a pop up hail storm with golf ball sized hail that hit and destroyed the roof of my house.
(The coverage is for "damage to anything on the property".)
I had to work feverishly to clear space in the garage (putting back a video setup and other equipment I set up as a EV video studio for a shoot), in order to fit my Suburban in before the hail hit. It hit 45 seconds after I shut the garage door.
This saved at least $3400 on the claim.
When it came time to pay out for the roof, not only did I get an upgrade from a 20 year roof to an architectural-grade 30, but it is rated for F2 tornado winds and fire ember resistance,
(a good thing to have as the climate hazards become increasingly severe.)
AND,
there was an $880 marginal consideration that instead if not being in my favor to receive, that I did end up receiving once I explained to the upper management that I had worked very hard to prevent the $3,400 Suburban hail damage loss.
Insurance companies do listen for these things and are responsive when they know that you did everything you could ahead of time.

The update is free, so it can't be cost.
GM provides a loaner, so that's not a problem.

I'm really curious.
Are there other reasons besides an actual need to drive the max-designed original distance until the new battery is assigned?
Dealer very far away?

Any good adjuster will recognize efforts an insured does to mitigate losses and has some latitude in allowing more favorable compensation in other areas.

I had a homeowners claim due to a leak in a refrigerator ice maker. Hardwood floors were damaged and we had to be out of the house for a weekend while they sanded and refinished the floors. While we stayed in a hotel paid for by the insurer (Allstate), my wife, myself, and our two sons all got a flu virus and didn't eat any of the meals we were entitled to claim. It was miserable, but we recovered by the time we could move back in. The adjuster waived our deductible, which was still less than what they would have paid for meals for the weekend, but the gesture went a long way towards our satisfaction. It was a win\win action that they didn't need to take, but they still came out ahead and we were thrilled to save the $250 deductible.

WRT the SW update, the current one limits top end to 80%. It also removes the suggestion to park out in the Uecker section of lots, or outside your garage, and removes the 30% low end recommendation. That is fine, or even great for many, but not universally so.

I called the concierge line around 1/2/22 as we were planning a trip that would begin next weekend (2/18). I explained we will be traveling almost 6K miles over 2 months, crossing the continent, and really wanted to have the new pack in place before we left. The rep said three things. First, she recommended NOT getting the 80% update. Second, she had no way to bump up my replacement priority. And third, she wished us a great trip and asked if she could join us.

As it turns out, my replacement was done two weeks ago, without a hitch I might add. The 80% limit would have been a hardship on the trip, so leaving the full 100% range, despite the small risk was actually a more reasonable option, and without prodding, the rep offered that opinion unprovoked.

Had I not been planning this long trip, and had I expected to wait 6-12 months or more, I likely would have had the 80% update applied. There were circumstances that made the decision for me, and I am quite certain no insurer or jury would rule against my careful consideration of the alternatives.

There are others who really would have a difficult time with only 80% of the range. They too are holding off on the update. The only thing this update does is improve (or so they claim) diagnostics. So, there are many reasons to hesitate on applying the update. Don't judge those who choose not too, and don't expect insurers or juries to either.

 

[Dan.L3.tech]

Any good adjuster will recognize efforts an insured does to mitigate losses and has some latitude in allowing more favorable compensation in other areas.

I had a homeowners claim due to a leak in a refrigerator ice maker. Hardwood floors were damaged and we had to be out of the house for a weekend while they sanded and refinished the floors. While we stayed in a hotel paid for by the insurer (Allstate), my wife, myself, and our two sons all got a flu virus and didn't eat any of the meals we were entitled to claim. It was miserable, but we recovered by the time we could move back in. The adjuster waived our deductible, which was still less than what they would have paid for meals for the weekend, but the gesture went a long way towards our satisfaction. It was a win\win action that they didn't need to take, but they still came out ahead and we were thrilled to save the $250 deductible.

WRT the SW update, the current one limits top end to 80%. It also removes the suggestion to park out in the Uecker section of lots, or outside your garage, and removes the 30% low end recommendation. That is fine, or even great for many, but not universally so.

I called the concierge line around 1/2/22 as we were planning a trip that would begin next weekend (2/18). I explained we will be traveling almost 6K miles over 2 months, crossing the continent, and really wanted to have the new pack in place before we left. The rep said three things. First, she recommended NOT getting the 80% update. Second, she had no way to bump up my replacement priority. And third, she wished us a great trip and asked if she could join us.

As it turns out, my replacement was done two weeks ago, without a hitch I might add. The 80% limit would have been a hardship on the trip, so leaving the full 100% range, despite the small risk was actually a more reasonable option, and without prodding, the rep offered that opinion unprovoked.

Had I not been planning this long trip, and had I expected to wait 6-12 months or more, I likely would have had the 80% update applied. There were circumstances that made the decision for me, and I am quite certain no insurer or jury would rule against my careful consideration of the alternatives.

There are others who really would have a difficult time with only 80% of the range. They too are holding off on the update. The only thing this update does is improve (or so they claim) diagnostics. So, there are many reasons to hesitate on applying the update. Don't judge those who choose not too, and don't expect insurers or juries to either.

Sure there are valid reasons for not getting the update.

I weighed to pros and cons just like everyone else for this.

Not sure why you are getting so upset though.

Just trying to be helpful.

 

[ARob]

Sure there are valid reasons for not getting the update.

I weighed to pros and cons just like everyone else for this.

Not sure why you are getting so upset though.

Just trying to be helpful.

I'm not upset. Don't assume...

 

[Terry Hancock]

All insurance will increase steeply at the next cycle. It has to do so. While the new car prices are up, the used car prices are through the roof. Thus, a car that was insured for, say, 35K must now be over 50K of insurance for the exact same components. In fact, all used cars are almost 30 percent higher than this time last year. The owner will pay that in premium cost difference.

 

[finallygoingev]

Sure there are valid reasons for not getting the update.

I weighed to pros and cons just like everyone else for this.

Not sure why you are getting so upset though.

Just trying to be helpful.

I think people just don't want incorrect information posted rather than this being a situation where someone is upset.

That certified battery sticker that GM uses is also all the same QR code so it's not tied to your VIN or anything and anyone can print that and stick it on their windshield if they wanted. From the posts here, I don't think insurance has gone up for people with Bolts. I sorta also doubt some minimum wage paid parking attendants will really care about some sticker if da Boss says Bolts are banned from their lots. It's not in their operating procedure to check/do that.

As for used car prices, it's gone up for pretty much everything, ICEs and EVs both. Tesla and Mach-E used sells for more than MSRP and with the tax credit, I'm surprised people pay MSRP for something with a $7.5k tax credit.

People don't like waiting 6-9 months for a car and are willing to pay more to skip the line.