My 2003 1150RT beemer got mashed by a lorry whilst parked. I therefore have a claim against the lorry company - the driver luckily left a note on the bike. The bike was badly gouged and scratched all around and the front suspension caved-in leaving the bike undrivable.
By law I am entitled to be put in the same position I would have been in had the accident not happened.
BMW have quoted £6600 to do the repairs which includes £1200 labour! Presumably the lorry company insurance company will offer some low figure based on Parkers. To replace this bike retail from a dealer the cost is around £6800 - £7000.
What's the best tactics to get the best price? If the insurers won't play ball I will go back to the lorry company direct. If the insurance is not sufficient to meet the claim and allow me to replace the bike like for like, the lorry company (not me) should make up the difference.
|
> By law I am entitled
Nope. No such law in place. There is an insurance ombudsman rulling and guidance in place, but thats not legally binding.
It sounds like you havent had an offer yet?
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
TourVanMan - that is the law when someone bashes in your property - I know - I am part of the profession....its different of course when you are claiming on your own comprehensive insurance.
|
... in which case you'll also know that the third party insurance is there to cover for just that.
You'll also know that you're under a duty to mitigate your loss. You'll also be aware that the insurer's liability to you is the cost of a replacement in the same condition as yours, after haggling and less the benefit to you of any warranty over and above what you had on the old bike - otherwise there would be an element of double recovery.
If they won't settle and you sue the insured, the insurer will still end up paying - the insurer still makes the claim go away; their offer is just an offer to you before proceedings are (in all likelihood) even contemplated.
|
|
|
TourVanMan - that is the law when someone bashes in your property - I know -
i was going to post the case-law which shows tvm is wrong in having that opinion/view.
i was also going to give some advice until i saw your reply:I am part of the profession....its different of course when you are claiming on your own comprehensive insurance.
having seen that, i decided i would need to charge you £500 upfront before offering youthe benefit of my knowledge and experience. :: ;-) :: te he he.
|
Please post the case law for my education.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Please post the case law for my education.
HOUSE OF LORDS JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE
Lagden (Respondent) v. O'Connor (Appellant) ON THURSDAY 4 DECEMBER 2003
..... elementary rule that the purpose of an award of damages is to place the injured party in the same position as he was before the accident .....
|
Err thats an award of damages in court, not an insurance claim. Could you post a link to that please.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
err i don't know what you don't understand.
the o.p. said "..By law I am entitled to be put in the same position I would have been in had the accident not happened. .."
that is the law as per the highest court in the land. unless you of course live in a different land other than england.
as for your exact request for insurance claims, i am sure your ex-laguna's insurers will put you on the right track if you ask them nicely (as your insurance cost them quite dearly).
|
Looks like the question and principal exceeded your skills in meaninglessly surfing the web Dalgish
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
...question and principal ..."
eh? principal ?? loose??? independant ????
what's that? must find a link to a decent online dictionary for you.
i have many links in my favourites folder related to this topic, including the actual house of lords publications, but thoght i would let you do some surfing on your own this time.
|
|
|
|
I know that this case has been posted to elucidate the basic principle of damages in tort and I've no disagreement with that at all.
There's a very readable summary of the case here and it's brought me up to date with developments since I studied tort, so thanks for that:
www.onlinedmc.co.uk/lagden_v__o'connor.htm
Certainly it's very claimant friendly.
Note however that it doesn't set aside the duty to mitigate on the putative claiamant but rather reduces it so that where there is a prospect of betterment the full amount may still be recoverable if an additional element is inevitably incurred to no real benefit to the claimant, especially if this is due to the claimant's straitened circumstances.
|
|
Not really wanting to tangle with perry mason et al, but a little story to gladen the heart. My sister had the unfortunate experience of having her treasured Honda written off after a collision caused by an errant driver. Liability was not disputed, but the offer of financial recompense was woefully inadequate and would certainly not have provided enough funds to purchase a vehicle of equal condition. Luckily a good friend of mine is a solicitor, and although this subject is not his normal practice he took the case to try and ensure my sister would receive the best deal possible. After some deliberation and two carefully crafted letters, he was able to convince the insurance company to find a vehicle of very similar condition, a years road fund tax, MOT and some flowers and chocolates for my delighted sister. This was in 1987 and it cost me a case of fine french wine. So the principle of being reinstated to a position you were in prior to mishap does exist and can be enforced.Concrete
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the insurance is not sufficient to meet the claim and allow me to replace the bike like for like the lorry company (not me) should make up the difference.
Just make sure you don't spend a large amount of money pursuing any difference.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
