the lesson to learn is NOT to have named drivers on your insurance policy
but im sure you realise that now
|
|
|
my F-in-L does have insurance on his car but as he was named on mine it has to go through mine for some reason.
Who is telling you it has to go through yours, surely if he has valid insurance of his own he can insist on who deals with the claim.
Admittedly now about 8 or 9 years ago, my wife had a minor accident in her father's car and insisted on her own insurance DOC being used rather than her father's insurance, was no problem at the time.
Edited by commerdriver on 28/09/2009 at 12:23
|
|
If you get this done on your insurance, you should be able to choose your preferred repairer instead of the ins.co.'s suggestion. That could be more convenient for you or your neighbour (much nearer home for example) and even end in a better repair. Ask your usual servicing people (if you trust them) who they would recommend.
|
There is certainly a diffence between private work and insurance work at most bodyshops - the insurance work is done by the most unskilled person in the place in the shortest time possible in the most slapdash way possible. The policy of most is do it on the cheap on the basis that only 10% will complain and have to come back for rectification.
That said, the SEAT owner is obiously not confident of judging good or bad repairs so needs/wants the reassurance of a recommended repairer. That fact that the recommended repairer is probably the SEAT dealer's service manager's brother in law is not the point, if she is not confident when it comes to car repairs (which puts her in the large majority) one can hardly blame her.
She's in her rights for her car to be put back into the same position as before the bump so if she is offering the chouce of her chosen repairer or through insurance then they are the two options open to you.
|
She's in her rights for her car to be put back into the same position as before the bump .. >>
pd: Agreed. Got it it one. She can choose whoever she wants to ensure that her bodywork warranty remains intact and that the car looks just as it did before the bump.
commerdriver asked: >> "Who is telling you it has to go through yours, surely if he has valid insurance of his own he can insist on who deals with the claim." >>
IMO - I should think that the relevant insurance cover is the one with the named driver. "Driving other cars" extension of the F-i-L will not apply.
Andre-T said: >> "If you get this done on your insurance, you should be able to choose your preferred repairer instead of the ins.co.'s suggestion." >>
IMO, that does not apply. The choice is for the neighbour to make, her car has been damaged by the negligence of F-i-L, and neighbour is entitled to be put back in the position she was in before the bump. It is her call how she gets it done to achieve that position, and it is up to the OP to find an acceptable solution. Insurance is there to meet OP's costs in settling the claim from neighbour.
|
She can choose whoever she wants to ensure that her bodywork warranty remains intact and that the car looks just as it did before the bump.
Not entirely.
She's entitled to be put back in the position she was in before the bump, but she also has a responsibility to mitigate her losses. In this case, one of the ways to mitigate her losses is by accepting the most cost-effective way of having the work done to to the required standard.
Of course, it's rather difficult for those of us not in trade to assess the capabilities of a repairer, so it's a rather hard question to answer.
It seems to me that the conversation between OP and owner has deteriorated to the point where there isn't much goodwill left on either side, which makes it very difficult to resolve things.
|
Not entirely. >>
Ok, let me be precise, to paraphrase a recent (June 2009) Court of Appeal ruling:
A claimant who has ..... car by the negligence of a tortfeasor only has to take reasonable steps to mitigate his claim for that ..... and he cannot, ..... ..... , be said to act unreasonably if he makes (or continues) his own arrangements ........ , unless he is made aware that this ...... ... can be undertaken more cheaply by the defendant than by his own arrangements. "
So if the neighbour chooses a repairer, it is up to the OP to prove that the same standard of work can be undertaken more cheaply by an alternative suggested repairer.
|
|
|
|
IMO - I should think that the relevant insurance cover is the one with the named driver. "Driving other cars" extension of the F-i-L will not apply.
In my wife's case either insurance covered it, that's what DOC is for, to cover you while driving someone else's car for third party liabilities. Surely it's your choice on which policy to claim under if 2 policies potentially apply
|
Surely it's your choice on which policy to claim under if 2 policies potentially apply >>
Perhaps your wife could do us a service by phoning (or writing to) senior managers at her two insurance companies and getting an official reply.
p.s. I have a different understanding of what DOC is for. Also, I have a different understanding of what happens when the same risk is covered by two different policies.
Edited by jbif on 28/09/2009 at 14:46
|
Perhaps your wife could do us a service by phoning (or writing to) senior managers at her two insurance companies and getting an official reply.
Jbif my post was based on a real situation equivalent to the OP's and the real claim that was made under my wife's policy rather than her father's.
If you want an official statement from a senior manager of a major insurance company please feel free to waste your time on that.
|
With regard to claiming under "driving other cars" part of a policy you can normally only claim on this if there is no other insurance in place.
In this case, if the driver was a named driver then obviously there is insurance in place so will take priority.
|
With regard to claiming under "driving other cars" part of a policy you can normally only claim on this if there is no other insurance in place. In this case if the driver was a named driver then obviously there is insurance in place so will take priority.
That makes perfect sense to me, just as I would expect it to be.
However just what effect would a claim have on the OP's policy anyway because the claim is his F-i-L's so it is his F-i-L's driving record that is blemished.
|
However just what effect would a claim have on the OP's policy anyway because the claim is his F-i-L's so it is his F-i-L's driving record that is blemished.
NCB and driving record are diffent things. Have you had any accidents? No. Have you had any claims? Yes.
Claims can be for a number of things - theft etc.
Obviously the driver should technically declare the accident on their insurance even though it will not effect their NCB.
|
|
Jbif my post was based on a real situation equivalent to the OP's and the real claim that was made under my wife's policy rather than her father's. >>
in reply to commerdriver. Good for you. IMO:
a. either someone at the insurance company that paid the claim goofed,
b. or your wife and F-i-L have found an insurance company that behaves differently[*] in these situations.
[*] Notes:
1. Sometimes the amount that each company pays is determined by which insurance company is considered primary. This method of determining insurance payouts is commonly used where insurance by different people's policies cover the same loss or with insurance that was not purchased directly by the insured.
2. If a loss occurs that is covered by more than one insurance policy that was purchased by the insured, then each policy pays a portion of the loss that is proportional to the amount of that policy over the total amount of all policies for the loss—each policy pays its pro rata share.
3. Some policies handle multiple coverage through payments of equal shares rather than pro rata payments. Each company pays an equal amount until the loss is covered, or the policy limit of any policy is reached. If one or more of the policy limits are reached, then the equal share principle applies to the remaining insurers. As each policy limit is reached, the remaining insurers make equal payments with the remaining amount of uncovered loss until the loss is covered or all policies are maxed out.
Edited by jbif on 28/09/2009 at 19:03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
