|
If it is a clear cut case of you having no fault and the insurance company want to write the car off you can always take HJ's advice and sue the other driver directly for the cost of getting your car back to how it was before the accident. Rather than using your motor insurance you are taking out a private action against the driver for negligence.
|
Thats actually a neat idea and one that I hadn't thought about. But in order to bring such a case, you'd need a sizeable amount of wedge? Would the Legal Protection Policy cover you for such costs? I'm not sure on this one but a novel idea none the less. But speaking only from my own POV, I wouldn't really have wanted my PUG back - 12 years originmal and then a smack...it'd never be the same again :(
But a point that I have to admit I never thought of before. Nice one mate.
-----
Im not plain stupid, just a special kind of stoopid.
|
I have a 95 Primera that was hit in a not-my-fault crash last year. The damage was minor, dented n/s/f door, broken n/s wing mirror, light scratches down the n/s of the car.
As the car has a high mileage and wasn't mint, my insurance company (I am covered fully comp) gave me an option of taking the cash or letting them fix it. I opted for a cash settlement in lieu of repairs, so they sent me a cheque (less policy excess) of something-like two-thirds of a mutually-agreed vehicle value.
So I still have the car, and kept the cash. 2 months later the other guys insurance company paid up and I then recieved the money to cover my excess.
You of course must tell your insurance company if you are involved in a crash. They'll tell you if they care or not.
Does that help in any small way ???
cheers,
Stu
|
I opted for a cash settlement in lieu of repairs, so they sent me a cheque (less policy excess) of something-like two-thirds of a mutually-agreed vehicle value. So I still have the car, and kept the cash.
>>
I guess in your case then your car wasn't 'written off' then? And you were able to keep the cash allotted for the repairs plus your excess re-imbursed by the Third Party Insurers?
In that case I guess it'd work and if you could live with the slight damage/or get it fixed cheaply. Rarely though does Insurance work to our favour...but good on ya for making it so! :)
-----
Im not plain stupid, just a special kind of stoopid.
|
Yes, I kept the money alloted the repairs and the excess reimbursed by the other guys insurers.
The MoT doesn't cover the crack/mangled wing mirror (sharp edges were removed) glass taped back in place and through the MoT it went. 1 year, glass still taped in place (there's some funny mould growing on the tape tho) and another 18k extra miles since.
With older cars, the value of them can vary a lot when it comes to insurance companies. a couple of years ago a mate was hit from behind. The car (a K reg 205 diesel) was slightly damaged but the boot wouldn't open. The valuation was (an astonishing) £1500, less £50 if he wanted to keep the salvage.
Mad.
cheers,
Stu
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC any claim less than £5,000 is dealt with by the Small Claims Court so bringing an action should only cost a few hundred quid at most. These costs can form part of the claim against the other party.
|
|
|
>>you can always take HJ's advice and sue the other driver directly for the cost of getting your car back to how it was before the accident.
Mmmm. Imagine that the wing is damaged. And only the wing is damaged. However, the inner wing is rusted to wotsit. There is no conceivable way of connecting the new wing without replacing the inner wing and thus improving the car.
This would put you in the position of improving the vehicle and making a profit.
Thus, the insurance company says "We have estimated improvement at £500. Either you pay this, or we pay you £1000 in full and final settlement and you repair the car if you wish".
Now what happens ?
OR, the car is realistically worth £1,000. Unfortunately the engine casing which is not made aymore is damaged, cannot be repaired and must be refabricatd entailing the creating and/or recover of the tools to do so. The cost of doing this is estimated at £100k. The insurance company offers you 5 times the value of the car £5,000 and you try to sue them for more.
Do you think you will win ?
Obviously these are exceptional examples, although the issue of improvement frequently raises its head.
"Sue them for the car to be returned to the condition it was prior to the accident is every easy to say". It is not that practical nor a particularly strong legal point.
However, against that is the principle of fighting an insurance claim; - not to be the first one to blink or have your bluff called, so it can work.
|
There is case law on situations such as this. IIRC one concerned an MG Midget on which a load of scaffolding fell and crushed the car. Court decided car should be rebuilt.
Perhaps one of the legal contributors can throw more light on this
--
Alyn Beattie
I\'m sane, it\'s the rest of the world that\'s mad.
|
OK, I'll have a go!
I am not sure that HJ's wheeze is necessarily the answer. Let's say you sue the other driver. Your cause of action is negligence. If you win, you are entitled to damages.
The important point is the level of damages. You are entitled to be put back in the position that you would have been in had the negligence not been committed ie there had been no accident.
On the face of it, that means that you are entitled to have your car repaired.
However, there is a principle called "mitigation of loss". This means that an innocent party is under a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that he keeps his losses to a minimum.
It might be argued that any party claimaing for a £2000 repair bill in respect of a £1000 car is not mitigating his loss. He should instead buy a replacement car for £1000.
It will often come down to what is reasonable. If the car in question is a rarity or has sentimental value, the court will be more minded to order a repair. If it is a Mondeo, they will simply look at its Glasses Guide value.
I will have a trawl in McGregor on Damages to see if there is any case law if i get a moment..
|
OK, McGregor has confirmed what I thought. There are a number of cases (actually all involving cars) that make it clear that the measure of damages is the difference in value of the asset as a result of the negligence. This is likely to equate to the cost of repair, but the damages can never exceed the value of the car.
For the legal anoraks, the case citation is Darbishire v Warren [1963] 1 W.L.R 1067.
This is not to say that you should ever accept the insurance company's first offer. They may have based their decision on a low value for your car. If it was mint, make sure that they have given a realistic valuation, and remember that it is worth what it is worth, not what you paid for it. If you got a real bargain, the insurance company are not entitled to say that it is only worth what you paid for it and no more.
I ran this point on behalf of my secretary recently, and we got a much better settlement than was first offered.
|
Like I said, you can use your legal cover, that's what it's for!
For example it can be used to sue a pedestrian or uninsured road user. Now, you get them to sue the other driver for your costs, and it may help to have an independant inspection of the vehicle. The third party should then pass any documents served on him to his insurer to fight or pay up.
I once got £1300 and bent the wing straight on an old E28 BMW, used a bit of touch up stick, I think I replaced some bumper parts too. Cost me about £100. The car was not back in it's original condition but was 7 years old, so was more sensible to keep the change as recompense.
Then I was hit up the back by an uninsured 17 year old girl rushing her sister to GCSE exams, the loss recovery people got her mum to stump up the £900 for repairs plus the £250 excess.
Both cases took months and several letters and phonecalls, as the companies were a bit useless. It would seem the legal cover is seperate to the main insurance much like breakdown cover would be. It was a seperate company I was in touch with in both cases with different insurers.
|
|
|
This is not to say that you should ever accept the insurance company's first offer. ... . If you got a real bargain, the insurance company are not entitled to say that it is only worth what you paid for it and no more.
>>
interesting reading at
freefind.com/find.html?lang=en&id=3458516&pageid=r...e
and
www.theiob.org.uk/about/faq.html
and
www.theiob.org.uk/digest/v/valuation_of_motor_vehi...l
In most vehicle valuation disputes, a decision on the market value of the vehicle is the end of the problem. In one case, it was only the beginning. The unfortunate policyholder' s car was stolen. When recovered, it was in such a terrible state that the insurer agreed it should be considered a total loss. The car had been a considerable bargain. It had been bought at auction only three months prior to the loss, for £2,800. The insurer' s engineer had valued the vehicle at £4,250. The insurer did not disclose this to the policyholder, but said that as the vehicle had been purchased in an auction, it would offer £2,700, subject to the policy excess of £350. It subsequently increased this offer to £3,500, but the policyholder was still not satisfied that that would enable him to obtain a comparable vehicle, whether at auction or elsewhere, so the matter came to me. The insurer' s main argument was that to pay the policyholder anything substantially more than he had paid for the vehicle would enable him to profit from his loss. This was a logic which I could not accept. The policyholder had made a good buy. It was not something he could necessarily repeat, even at auction, and in any case he was not obliged to replace the vehicle in that way. He was entitled to be indemnified on the basis of the actual value of the car, not what he had paid.
We concluded (with the help of a standard trade guide) that the value of the car was in the region of £4,575. This was not so different from the engineer' s valuation. We had to point out to the insurer our considerable concern over its failure to tell the policyholder that the actual value of the vehicle, as assessed by its engineer, was so much greater than the amount it was offering. For it to tell the policyholder that its offer took into account the fact that the vehicle had been purchased at auction was not enough. They must accept that the obligation is mutual. If the insurer has had the benefit of a professional valuation for the vehicle in one of these valuation disputes, it should normally tell the policyholder what that is. If the insurer does not accept the valuation, the policyholder should be told why. Then everyone is on a more or less level playing field when it comes to agreeing on a figure that is fair.
|
|
|
|
It will often come down to what is reasonable. If the car in question is a rarity or has sentimental value, the court will be more minded to order a repair. If it is a Mondeo, they will simply look at its Glasses Guide value.
What if its a Mondeo thats a bit rare and has sentimental value? ;)
I've always worried about this - it took me 6 months to find the right Mondeo in the right specification and colour, and I was then very fortunate to be able to have the genuine Ford Sports Appearance Pack fitted - there are very, very few 2.0's with this. I've only ever seen another 2 for sale in the year since I bought my car.
Its worth, trade, no more than £1500 I'd have thought (99V Ghia X, 120k). It's always at the back of my mind that should somebody run into it, I'd never be able to replace it for £1500, and even if I could replace it, it would take a long time.
|
What if its a Mondeo thats a bit rare and has sentimental value? ;)
Nope in their eyes it's just another old mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess not, might be wroth you taking the settlement figure and looking for another one because at the end of the day, the car wont be original n'more.
>>
www.theiob.org.uk/digest/v/valuation_of_motor_vehi...l
Usually the policy provides for payment of the ' market value' of the vehicle (or words to that effect). How do we establish that? So far as the Bureau is concerned, two points are now clear. First, that market value is not the second-hand value of the car (unless the policyholder was in fact intending to sell it before it was stolen or written off) but what a replacement of similar age, condition and so on would cost. Second, [See: VALUATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES para 2] there are different markets. The appropriate one is not, as insurers often assume, the market for private sale and purchase of vehicles, through newspaper ads and the like, unless there is evidence to suggest that that is the market in which the policyholder intends to buy a replacement. As a general rule, the appropriate market will be the public one, so the policyholder gets what it would cost to replace the vehicle through a motor dealer.
|
Gosh why do we need to follow the Yanks into legal quagmire???
As far as I'm concerned as long as no-one was physically hurt by the accident and the other person wasn't speeding/drink driving/on drugs/driving without lic,ins,mot then you should let the insurance company deal with it and leave it at that.
I think that driving is a calculated risk and you have to accept that sometimes you "loose" and IMHO we shouldnt get into the rather anal blame culture over "small" prangs.
Clouddz
|
Gosh why do we need to follow the Yanks into legal quagmire??? As far as I'm concerned as long as no-one was physically hurt by the accident and the other person wasn't speeding/drink driving/on drugs/driving without lic,ins,mot then you should let the insurance company deal with it and leave it at that. I think that driving is a calculated risk and you have to accept that sometimes you "loose" and IMHO we shouldnt get into the rather anal blame culture over "small" prangs. Clouddz
I think there is a vast difference between tripping over a kerb and suing the council for millions, and having someone trash your car and expecting to be set right again.
If we should just turn around and say 'don't bother' in these circumstances, whats the point in having the insurance in the first place?
|
|
|
The reason I'm razzed off beyond belief is because this car had been in my possesion for only 90 minutes.This was not a "small prang" as it involved three vehicles, one of which had a mother and two children onboard at the time. Her car is a total write off.I agree that the health of everyone should be the immediate concern but once that has been ensured, then appropriate and accurate amends should be made.
My thanks to all of you who have contributed to this discussion so far you have been great!
|
|
|
|
|
|
