Car hit by Hertz rental. Can I deal directly with Hertz?
Discussion
Rubin215 said:
Okay, so correct me in lay-man's terms; I'm holding out the olive branch here.
Each insurer assesses the risk of insuring someone via many, many factors. Having a non-fault claim on your record is one of those factors.Some insurers may see it as a significant risk increasing factor and charge more. This is because their claims record shows that people with a non-fault claim will go on to make a fault claim in the following year.
Some insurers may see it as irrelevant in terms of risk and so leave the premium unaffected. This is because they don't see a connection between non-fault and subsequent fault claims in their book of business
Some insurers may see it as relevant and actually reducing risk and so charge less. This is because they see a correlation in their book of business that those who've made a non-fault claim in the previous few years are less likely to make a,fault claim than e who haven't had a non-fault claim.
The point is that there are c35m vehicles and the stats can and will differ between insurers and their books of business. Overly simplifying is, but one bookie will offer better odds than another for the same outcome.
LoonR1 said:
Rubin215 said:
Okay, so correct me in lay-man's terms; I'm holding out the olive branch here.
Each insurer assesses the risk of insuring someone via many, many factors. Having a non-fault claim on your record is one of those factors.Some insurers may see it as a significant risk increasing factor and charge more. This is because their claims record shows that people with a non-fault claim will go on to make a fault claim in the following year.
Some insurers may see it as irrelevant in terms of risk and so leave the premium unaffected. This is because they don't see a connection between non-fault and subsequent fault claims in their book of business
Some insurers may see it as relevant and actually reducing risk and so charge less. This is because they see a correlation in their book of business that those who've made a non-fault claim in the previous few years are less likely to make a,fault claim than e who haven't had a non-fault claim.
The point is that there are c35m vehicles and the stats can and will differ between insurers and their books of business. Overly simplifying is, but one bookie will offer better odds than another for the same outcome.
LoonR1 said:
JM said:
If the car was in the care of the car-wash/valet company is it not up to them to deal with getting it repaired?
Why would it be? They didn't damage it. It is in their care after all.
I agree with Loon......
Why, just because it was my wifes car was being washed, has it got anything to do with the Valet company? They were not negligent, nor had the keys to the car. It was parked by us and and hit by someone else. That someone else or their insurer must pay, not some poor sod who happened to be just washing it....
Why, just because it was my wifes car was being washed, has it got anything to do with the Valet company? They were not negligent, nor had the keys to the car. It was parked by us and and hit by someone else. That someone else or their insurer must pay, not some poor sod who happened to be just washing it....
Edited by jjr1 on Wednesday 2nd September 22:50
jjr1 said:
I agree with Loon......
I'm not disagreeing! Just asked a question that I, at least, felt was relevant. Maybe it's just my way of working/thinking. If it was me that had a customers car for any reason, and when it was in my care it was damaged by a third party, I would feel some sense of responsibility for it.
Cyberprog said:
Your car gets hit while it's parked up - why should you have to declare that to your insurer? Ditto for it being involved in an accident while in the car of a trade professional (be it mechanic or valeter).
Neither of these incidents should need declaring to your insurer, because the risk to them doesn't change - your driving is what is the risk they are covering, and that of your car if it had a mechanical problem (i.e. handbrake failure).
Completely and utterly wrong.Neither of these incidents should need declaring to your insurer, because the risk to them doesn't change - your driving is what is the risk they are covering, and that of your car if it had a mechanical problem (i.e. handbrake failure).
If the only risk is your driving and mechanical failure, why do they ask for your postcode, your occupation etc?
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Friday 4th September 20:07
mikeveal said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mikeveal said:
Oh, I see what you did there, now that's pedantry! 
If the third party is liable for damage to your vehicle, then you could pursue them through the courts to get them to pay for a repair. Yeah, that's a court "claim". Unlikely to get anywhere near a court room if you're going down this route.
The third party ask their insurers to pay you on their behalf. They make a "claim" against their insurance policy.
You have not made a claim against an insurance company. You've threatened to bring a claim against the third party (and probably haven't had to). Where the third party get the money to pay for the repair is irrelevant to you.
You state "You have not made a claim against an insurance company.". But the question doesn't ask if you've made a claim against an insurance company, it just askes for details of any claims. You should still disclose a claim where the tp paid you directly without involving their insurer.If the third party is liable for damage to your vehicle, then you could pursue them through the courts to get them to pay for a repair. Yeah, that's a court "claim". Unlikely to get anywhere near a court room if you're going down this route.
The third party ask their insurers to pay you on their behalf. They make a "claim" against their insurance policy.
You have not made a claim against an insurance company. You've threatened to bring a claim against the third party (and probably haven't had to). Where the third party get the money to pay for the repair is irrelevant to you.
You can juggle with the language all you like, but it should be disclosed.
It is not juggling with the language. Its a basic fact.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Cyberprog said:
Your car gets hit while it's parked up - why should you have to declare that to your insurer? Ditto for it being involved in an accident while in the car of a trade professional (be it mechanic or valeter).
Neither of these incidents should need declaring to your insurer, because the risk to them doesn't change - your driving is what is the risk they are covering, and that of your car if it had a mechanical problem (i.e. handbrake failure).
Completely and utterly wrong.Neither of these incidents should need declaring to your insurer, because the risk to them doesn't change - your driving is what is the risk they are covering, and that of your car if it had a mechanical problem (i.e. handbrake failure).
If the only risk is your driving and mechanical failure, why do they ask for your postcode, your occupation etc?
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Friday 4th September 20:07
Cyberprog said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Cyberprog said:
Your car gets hit while it's parked up - why should you have to declare that to your insurer? Ditto for it being involved in an accident while in the car of a trade professional (be it mechanic or valeter).
Neither of these incidents should need declaring to your insurer, because the risk to them doesn't change - your driving is what is the risk they are covering, and that of your car if it had a mechanical problem (i.e. handbrake failure).
Completely and utterly wrong.Neither of these incidents should need declaring to your insurer, because the risk to them doesn't change - your driving is what is the risk they are covering, and that of your car if it had a mechanical problem (i.e. handbrake failure).
If the only risk is your driving and mechanical failure, why do they ask for your postcode, your occupation etc?
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Friday 4th September 20:07
As for not declaring, why not? Surely it "all goes towards the profile"
LoonR1 said:
Cyberprog said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Cyberprog said:
Your car gets hit while it's parked up - why should you have to declare that to your insurer? Ditto for it being involved in an accident while in the car of a trade professional (be it mechanic or valeter).
Neither of these incidents should need declaring to your insurer, because the risk to them doesn't change - your driving is what is the risk they are covering, and that of your car if it had a mechanical problem (i.e. handbrake failure).
Completely and utterly wrong.Neither of these incidents should need declaring to your insurer, because the risk to them doesn't change - your driving is what is the risk they are covering, and that of your car if it had a mechanical problem (i.e. handbrake failure).
If the only risk is your driving and mechanical failure, why do they ask for your postcode, your occupation etc?
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Friday 4th September 20:07
As for not declaring, why not? Surely it "all goes towards the profile"
My gf is in a similar situation to the OP. Car hit by a rental car while she was in a car park.
The damage to my gfs car is probably not smart repairable (dent to plastic + cracks in paint) and I am concerned that it might be difficult for a respray to give a good match on 17 year old red paint.
The reduction in value of the car from the damage is likely to be less than the cost of a bumper repair & respray so it hardly seems worthwhile of having the hassle of having the car in a bodyshop for a few days, courtesy car etc.
Is the insurer likely to be open to a cash in lieu settlement in this situation? How would a reasonable amount be worked out for this?
The damage to my gfs car is probably not smart repairable (dent to plastic + cracks in paint) and I am concerned that it might be difficult for a respray to give a good match on 17 year old red paint.
The reduction in value of the car from the damage is likely to be less than the cost of a bumper repair & respray so it hardly seems worthwhile of having the hassle of having the car in a bodyshop for a few days, courtesy car etc.
Is the insurer likely to be open to a cash in lieu settlement in this situation? How would a reasonable amount be worked out for this?
LoonR1 said:
Handbrake failure? Really? How often does stuff like that really happen. Clue: I know an answer and it will be a lot nearer the actual industry wide answer than your guess will be.
As for not declaring, why not? Surely it "all goes towards the profile"
I imagine handbrake failures happen surprisingly often : I know of one friend whose uninsured car rolled off his driveway and across the road into his neighbour's car ( he paid for the damage out of his own pocket ) ; last year I returned to my parked car in Glasgow and , before I could drive off , the car in front just started rolling backwards and came to rest against my bumper ! I couldn't go anywhere , waited about half an hour then called the police on 101 , they sent a couple of beat cops round who managed to contact the owner , he appeared very sheepishly and waffled about his handbrake being on , once the car was moved I confirmed there was no damage to mine and I didn't want to pursue it further ; I don't know what transpired between the cops and the young man after I left .As for not declaring, why not? Surely it "all goes towards the profile"
What bemuses me is that people still leave cars relying solely on handbrakes , which are unreliable contraptions at best : in the case of my mate's Herald which rolled off the drive it was a broken cable ; the Clio which rolled into my car was , I'm guessing , a case of handbrake working on discs which cooled down and contracted , thus reducing contact pressure ... In all cases , it is a simple matter to also leave the car in gear and , if on a particularly steep hill , to turn the wheels so that they would lock against the kerb if the car moved . Failure to take these simple and obvious precautions is , in my book , negligent , and I suspect the two cops might have said something along these lines to the Clio driver .
Since a lot of the time , these things will just result in low speed 'nudges' and no damage , insurers may not hear about them ?
LoonR1 said:
Unbelievable
I highlighted a bit in bold for you, as you clearly have the comprehension ability of an amoeba. the but in bold has been confirmed by posters on this thread already.
Let's try an example that might be a bit closer to home for you. I had an accidental fire in my garden today, but I put it out on my own. Therefore all fires are
1. In my garden
2. Accidental
3. Able to be put out by me
Is my logic correct or fundamentally flawed?
Let's suppose further that your garden fire had destroyed a patch of Brussels Sprout plants , then that might be worthy of a public award for services to the community , since Brussels Sprouts are the spawn of the Devil and second only to the Giant Hogweed in plant horrors I highlighted a bit in bold for you, as you clearly have the comprehension ability of an amoeba. the but in bold has been confirmed by posters on this thread already.
Let's try an example that might be a bit closer to home for you. I had an accidental fire in my garden today, but I put it out on my own. Therefore all fires are
1. In my garden
2. Accidental
3. Able to be put out by me
Is my logic correct or fundamentally flawed?
Edited by LoonR1 on Wednesday 2nd September 20:17
LoonR1 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
He's an idiot. I'm not going to argue with him; he'll drag me down to his level and beat me with experience
True. I still wouldn't declare a claim on a TP insurer though, but that's my approach and not a professional recommendation. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff