In my opinion the BMW driver should not claim on his insurance but claim against the 3rd party and her insurer - the Ford driver was 100% at fault as described by OP
It is the 3rd party & insurer that is to put you back in the position you were before the accident - same model / age / quality of car+ any reasonable expenses - lawyer, car hire, injuries/medical costs........... If the 3rd party Ins Co delays they over cost of car replacement then they lose on cost of hire car increasing daily, increased legal bill etc.
If you go through your own insurance they may restrict you to a temp hire of a Ford Ka for 2 weeks and insist on miserly payout!
|
In my opinion the BMW driver should not claim on his insurance but claim against the 3rd party and her insurer -
I'd say that the BMW driver should just tell his insurance to sort it out... that's what he pays them for!
Why should he waste his time and effort getting them to do the job they are supposed to do?
Simple: "Hey - I want to be put back into the position I was in... do it."
|
... BMW driver should just tell his insurance to sort it out... that's what he pays them for! Why should he waste his time and effort getting them to do the job they are supposed to do? ... >>
IMO, that is simply wrong advice in the UK.
It may be what insurance contracts say in Cape Town, but I am not aware of any Ins Cos in the UK which offers a Policy where you can say to them "Hey - I want to be put back into the position I was in... do it".
Read HJ's FAQ and search for case law referred to in previous threads.
|
|
Personal injury, loss of earnings, hire cars, premium excess etc and NCB are all (so far as the car insurance is concerned) "uninsured losses". This usually requires the victim to instruct solicitors: your car insurance company are not involved in this, if it is not covered by the policy.
|
jbif is correct. OP should be keeping her (father's) insurance company out of it. It's a shame they've already picked up the car.
Deal directly with the thrid party's insurance company. I suspect it will cost them less money, so they'll be happy to.
Don't forget to claim for the increase in insurance costs over the next three/five years as a result of having a no-fault accident.
nortones2>> excess, ncb etc.... usually requires the victim to instruct solicitors
No. The other party's insurance co will be used to dealing with claims like this all the time, and will pay out a sensible amount.
You may have to if you want personal injury claims etc. if settled through the courts, but for a start, just go directly to the other party's insurance company.
Your insurance company will not be interested in these parts of the insurance claim, so you'll have to deal directly with the other party's insurance anyway, so you might as well do it for the rest of the claim.
Unless you are down to your last £100, under NO circumstances accept a "free" hire car from anybody other than the other party's insurance company. (Or your own if you insist on taking the claim through them.) Go and hire a sensible car from the nearest hire company. You paid 10k for your car, so unless you NEED a large car for business/to fit your surf board etc., you should be hiring an Astra (which would have cost the hire company 10k). If you don't follow my advice, you may find they refuse to pay for more than an Astra.
|
|
If the person in question has legal expenses cover, it would be unwise to approach the 3rd party insurance company. Probably it will be a condition of cover that they do not! The legal expenses cover will work for the injured party. The insurer will not, and will seek to mitigate losses. They are not the injured parties friend.
Edited by nortones2 on 08/01/2009 at 12:06
|
Just a quick point on the valuation, if your dad bought the car from a franchised dealer he is entitled to get a replacement from a franchised dealer. If that is the case find evidence (including as stated above a letter from the dealer) as to what this would cost. If he got it from ebay / privately etc.. then the insurance comapny will only match the prices you can replace the vehicle from such sources.
Again as said above, polite but firm rejection of the offer and plenty of evidence as to why you are rejecting it.
|
Thanks for your advice everyone.
Dad rang his insurance company at the time of the accident as he didn't realise he could claim on the 3rd party's policy. It may still be possible for them to liaise? We will definitely ask the question.
He does have legal expenses cover on his policy so this may have an impact on which insurance company deals with the claim. Unfortunately my grandfather was rushed into hospital this morning so we have been a bid sidetracked from the car saga. (What a week this has been!).
We will be in touch with his insurers later on today and try and work out the best resolution for him.
Thanks once again!
|
.. It may still be possible for them to liaise? We will definitely ask the question. ..
Yes, it should still be possible to tell own Insurer to treat the position as "for information only until further notice" and get in touch direct with the 3rd party. If they prove difficult, then revert back to own insurer and at that point officially lodge/convert your previous " for info only" status in to a claim.
|
|
>To put you back in the position you were before the accident ..
Don't want to sound harsh, but I don't think finding out the forecourt price of a similar car holds water. The 'position you were in' was that you had a BMW with a trade-in value of £xx. That is what you should try to find out. It would probably be much less than £7200.
|
Don't want to sound harsh, but I don't think finding out the forecourt price of a similar car holds water. ... he 'position you were in' was that you had a BMW with a trade-in value of £xx. ... >>
IMO, that is either inaccurate or poor or wrong advice.
I think my view is confirmed by Financial Ombudsman rulings.
Check the ombudsman links from previous threads to find out correct positon on valuations.
Also quoted in this HJ faq which I omitted to mention before:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/faq.htm?id=33
"Disputes about the valuation of 'written off' motor vehicles arbitrated by The Financial Ombudsman:
From www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombuds...m
"We regularly deal with complaints from people who believe that their insurer has not properly valued their car or motorbike. The problem usually arises after a vehicle has been so badly damaged in an accident that the insurer decides it is a ‘total loss’ (popularly known as a ‘write-off’) and not worth repairing."
"In these circumstances, the policyholder is entitled to receive an amount equal to the vehicle’s market value immediately before it was damaged – and the insurer should offer this amount straightaway."
"These case studies are based on disputes we have dealt with recently. They illustrate some of the issues that can arise after a vehicle has been declared a total loss – as well as showing how we assess whether or not a disputed valuation was correct." "
Examples of cases and details in that FAQ.
Edited by jbif on 08/01/2009 at 16:09
|
|
|
Andrew-T>> The 'position you were in' was that you had aBMW with a trade-in value of £xx. That is what you should try to find out. It would probably be much less than £7200.
Indeed, you are absolutely correct. But the position OP was in was that he had a car with a trade-in value of say £5,000. In order to be put back in that position, he will have to spend £7,200 at the dealer... which will be worth £5,000 the moment he drives through the door. Perfectly sensible.
And for the points that the other party's insurance cmopany is not working for you; absolutely correct. However, it is in their interest to get the issue settled as quickly as possible. They don't necessarily want to have to pay for your solicitor - and their own plus two sets of barristers if it gets to court as well.
If it is clear to you what you want then set out a list of what you want from them, and ask them for it. If you are going to be instructing medics, then you are into a whole different ball game.
|
.. the points that the other party's insurance cmopany is not working for you; absolutely correct. However, it is in their interest to get the issue settled as quickly as possible .. >>
Agreed. The ombudsman had got fed up witht he tactics that insureres were using in such cases, and told them so in no uncertain terms, and so now it is rarely that they don't play fair.
|
Does car insurance work the same as house insurance?
Reason I am asking is when my neighbour caused both our houses to go on fire, I have only dealt with my own ins co. However my loss adjustor has advised me that my ins co is not querying much at all as they are basically going to claim it all back from my neighbour's insurance.
If the same exists with car ins, surely better to deal through your own if they cross charge it back then they are less likely to query things?
Also, surely if OP father has comp with legal protection, he should be using that to deal with all this rather than having to do all the running about / fact finding himself?
|
>Also, surely if OP father has comp with legal protection, he should be using that to deal
>with all this rather than having to do all the running about / fact finding himself?
Yes. If he has legal cover, he should use it. It's what it's there for.
He shouldn't try and deal directly with the other party's insurer. The solicitor appointed by his own insurance company will deal with everything on his behalf and it won't cost him anything. All he will have to do is provide his own version of what happened, contact details for any witnesses, police report numbers etc.
I used my legal cover when someone reversed into my car in a car park and drove off. The appointed solicitor was very efficient and the whole issue was sorted within a few weeks.
Knowing a solicitor is involved, and will have to be paid for, is an incentive for the insurance Co. to get things sorted quickly.
There was no change in my insurance premium either.
Kevin...
|
|
|
|
>He will have to spend £7,200 at the dealer... which will be worth £5,000 the moment he drives through the door.
Fair point. But when an ins.co. decides whether to write-off, on the basis of estimated repair cost, which figure do they use?
|
I'm afraid that my niece was in this position a couple of years ago, and she lost out very badly. She was hit by another driver who admitted she was completely responsible for what had happened. My niece claimed via her insurance company, and, basically, she was ripped off by them big time.
Her car was, unfortunately, written off, and they offered her about £1K less than what a similar replacement car would have cost her at the time (£5K). Also, they cancelled her insurance, which she had only just renewed, which had cost her several hundred pounds, so, all in all, she was about £2K out of pocket for something that was entirely not her fault and she couldn't possibly have avoided (nor could I had I been driving her car, as it happens).
She probably would have done much better to have just informed her own insurance company of the accident and then pursured the third party's insurers and made a direct claim from them. They would have had a much more difficult time writing off her car as it wasn't the car they were themselves insuring, and, also, they clearly couldn't have cancelled her insurance, either! She was entitled to be put back into the same position she was in before the accident happened, and this clearly wasn't the result she obtained.
Had it been myself involved in the accident then I would certainly have sued the third party personally for any sum of which I happened to be out of pocket resulting from the accident. Not her insurers, her personally! I know someone who did this some years ago, or, at least, threatened to, and very effective it was, too!
|
>>I would certainly have sued the third party personally for any sum of which I
>>happened to be out of pocket resulting from the accident. Not her insurers, her
>>personally!
It's exactly the same thing. One has insurance to cover ones own potential liabilities. So if you sue the individual, and win, it will be the ins. co that pay up.
You don't, BTW, pay your insurance company to do all the work. You pay your ins. co. to insure your car. If you then require them to do the work in settling a claim, they will hit you in future years with increased premium, lost NCD (even if you've insured it...). And they possibly won't bother reclaiming your excess from the third party's ins co either. Why should they bother? it doesn't cost them anything one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
