GT-R non fault claim, like for like hire car?
Discussion
amusingduck said:
Mave said:
Girl has accident, insurance industry pays out to repair car, premiums go up because money has been spent.
Someone wants a better courtesy car, insurance industry pays for better car, premiums go up because more money has been spent.
Which bit of this do you disagree with?
OP has paid an additional premium to cover a like for like car. Why shouldn't he make use of it?Someone wants a better courtesy car, insurance industry pays for better car, premiums go up because more money has been spent.
Which bit of this do you disagree with?
By the same rationale, if you crash your car, you shouldn't make a claim at all. Premiums go up because more money has been spent.
Whilst we're at it, everybody should just agree to never claim under any circumstances. The insurance premiums will plummet!
Mave said:
Do you disagree with any of the statements I made? Or are you just disagreeing with something i didn't say?
Your post comes across that OP shouldn't make use of the cover he has paid extra for. Why shouldn't he?I don't know much about how the insurers set their pricing, but I would be surprised if the premiums were reactive, rather than pro-active. I think it's reasonable to assume that his insurer has set the "like-for-like" additional premium at a rate which is profitable overall, thus not requiring increased premiums for the rest of us. I may be wrong.
Mave said:
amusingduck said:
Mave said:
Girl has accident, insurance industry pays out to repair car, premiums go up because money has been spent.
Someone wants a better courtesy car, insurance industry pays for better car, premiums go up because more money has been spent.
Which bit of this do you disagree with?
OP has paid an additional premium to cover a like for like car. Why shouldn't he make use of it?Someone wants a better courtesy car, insurance industry pays for better car, premiums go up because more money has been spent.
Which bit of this do you disagree with?
By the same rationale, if you crash your car, you shouldn't make a claim at all. Premiums go up because more money has been spent.
Whilst we're at it, everybody should just agree to never claim under any circumstances. The insurance premiums will plummet!
t happens, but the innocent party should be inconvenienced as little as possible. amusingduck said:
Mave said:
Do you disagree with any of the statements I made? Or are you just disagreeing with something i didn't say?
Your post comes across that OP shouldn't make use of the cover he has paid extra for. Why shouldn't he?RYH64E said:
Mave said:
amusingduck said:
Mave said:
Girl has accident, insurance industry pays out to repair car, premiums go up because money has been spent.
Someone wants a better courtesy car, insurance industry pays for better car, premiums go up because more money has been spent.
Which bit of this do you disagree with?
OP has paid an additional premium to cover a like for like car. Why shouldn't he make use of it?Someone wants a better courtesy car, insurance industry pays for better car, premiums go up because more money has been spent.
Which bit of this do you disagree with?
By the same rationale, if you crash your car, you shouldn't make a claim at all. Premiums go up because more money has been spent.
Whilst we're at it, everybody should just agree to never claim under any circumstances. The insurance premiums will plummet!
t happens, but the innocent party should be inconvenienced as little as possible. Where did I suggest that the insurance industry shouldn't pay the full cost to repair the car, whether it be a cheap car or an expensive car?
After a recent knock I was given a 57 plate oil burning Megane with OAP beige interior. I wasn't fussed what I got, I use the car to get to work, no kids etc but I was hoping for something new / nice so was a tad disappointed!
After 3 weeks with it and 800 miles I had saved over £200 in fuel costs so I was chuffed!
I had all sorts of ACM's calling me offering me "a like for like performance hot hatch" but I really don't see the need... Just another agency taking a bite of pie (and I'm in recruitment!!).
After 3 weeks with it and 800 miles I had saved over £200 in fuel costs so I was chuffed!
I had all sorts of ACM's calling me offering me "a like for like performance hot hatch" but I really don't see the need... Just another agency taking a bite of pie (and I'm in recruitment!!).
IATM said:
In the the OP's defence if he has paid for a like for like or even a replacement car it should really be fair. At the end of the day if he is insuring a GTR it can't be cheap depending on other variables but they should give me a 530d, e350 or equivlant of some sort.
Agreed, but he paid that premium to his own insurer, not the 3rd party - so having had the accident he should be trying to get the better car from his own insurer, not using an accident management company to get it from the 3rd party.Sorry I'm late.
The third party insurer and the first party insurer are the same thing.
On that day, on that road, I can see why you may overlook that fact.
Back in the real world, flash hire cars and legal hangers on cost everyone else money.
I had a non-fault claim years ago and I drove to the bodyshop and walked home, and used my other car for a week. Not because I wasn't entitled to far more, but because I don't live in a bubble.
If you're intelligent enough to own four cars then you're intelligent enough to see that the argument of entitlement doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Don't care what you've paid in. That's why its called insurance and not your personal savings fund.
The third party insurer and the first party insurer are the same thing.
On that day, on that road, I can see why you may overlook that fact.
Back in the real world, flash hire cars and legal hangers on cost everyone else money.
I had a non-fault claim years ago and I drove to the bodyshop and walked home, and used my other car for a week. Not because I wasn't entitled to far more, but because I don't live in a bubble.
If you're intelligent enough to own four cars then you're intelligent enough to see that the argument of entitlement doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Don't care what you've paid in. That's why its called insurance and not your personal savings fund.
Mave said:
My post was in response to a post that implied that only the person causing the accident influenced the cost of a claim. Do you concur with that viewpoint, or agree that the hire car costs of the third party can also influence the total cost of the claim?
Yes, I agree.Mave said:
Agreed, but he paid that premium to his own insurer, not the 3rd party - so having had the accident he should be trying to get the better car from his own insurer, not using an accident management company to get it from the 3rd party.
But I don't agree with this. OP explicitly said that his insurer were providing the better car.DonnyMac said:
...
... I pay a premium to INSURE the difference between what the 3rd party will pay for a hire car and what I want to have as a hire car. Hence the reason I asked if there was a trusted PH source to make it happen AFTER I'd paid for it.
I reminded my insurer and they were most upset that a third party had fobbed me off, and gave me a premium vehicle I'd insured myself to have.
What exactly is the problem here?... I pay a premium to INSURE the difference between what the 3rd party will pay for a hire car and what I want to have as a hire car. Hence the reason I asked if there was a trusted PH source to make it happen AFTER I'd paid for it.
I reminded my insurer and they were most upset that a third party had fobbed me off, and gave me a premium vehicle I'd insured myself to have.
Ian Griffiths said:
I had a non-fault claim years ago and I drove to the bodyshop and walked home, and used my other car for a week. Not because I wasn't entitled to far more, but because I don't live in a bubble.
Quite clearly you had no need for a hire car, as you had use of another. How were you entitled exactly? Why would the insurer pay for your hire car when you had no need for it?Ian Griffiths said:
If you're intelligent enough to own four cars then you're intelligent enough to see that the argument of entitlement doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Don't care what you've paid in. That's why its called insurance and not your personal savings fund.
Right. It was established many posts ago that OP has paid his insurer an additional premium to cover a like-for-like hire car. He has then made use of the cover which he has paid for, through his own insurer.
What is your problem here?
a. The insurance industry should not offer additional cover for like-for-like hire cars.
b. OP can afford a GT-R, so he should pay for insurance and not use it.
c. ????
After a lorry reversed into my ST without using his mirrors, I wanted a similar car, after a day of refusing cars and telling them I will hire my own and charge it back, they offered me a GT86 or a C220 Mercedes Coupe which I accepted. Raising everyone else's claims you say? Well not really, I was told in no uncertain terms that If I claimed I was now intimidated by lorries and suffered with a sore neck, I could be £4k richer without a fight. I don't see why I should suffer because some tt can't check his mirrors?
IMO, Offering a Mondeo to replace a GTR is taking the piss. I'd be expecting at least a well specced Merc/BMW/Audi, maybe even a Focus ST3, Mondeo? No Chance I'd take that!
t can't check his mirrors?IMO, Offering a Mondeo to replace a GTR is taking the piss. I'd be expecting at least a well specced Merc/BMW/Audi, maybe even a Focus ST3, Mondeo? No Chance I'd take that!
amusingduck said:
It was established many posts ago that OP has paid his insurer an additional premium to cover a like-for-like hire car. He has then made use of the cover which he has paid for, through his own insurer.
What is your problem here?
a. The insurance industry should not offer additional cover for like-for-like hire cars.
b. OP can afford a GT-R, so he should pay for insurance and not use it.
c. ????
I like to have a moan about entitled people insisting on a like for like replacement when there is no need but in this case, having paid specifically for that service then it is fair enough that he has it.What is your problem here?
a. The insurance industry should not offer additional cover for like-for-like hire cars.
b. OP can afford a GT-R, so he should pay for insurance and not use it.
c. ????
Tuvra said:
After a lorry reversed into my ST without using his mirrors, I wanted a similar car, after a day of refusing cars and telling them I will hire my own and charge it back, they offered me a GT86 or a C220 Mercedes Coupe which I accepted. Raising everyone else's claims you say? Well not really, I was told in no uncertain terms that If I claimed I was now intimidated by lorries and suffered with a sore neck, I could be £4k richer without a fight. I don't see why I should suffer because some tt can't check his mirrors?
IMO, Offering a Mondeo to replace a GTR is taking the piss. I'd be expecting at least a well specced Merc/BMW/Audi, maybe even a Focus ST3, Mondeo? No Chance I'd take that!
Intimidated by lorries. And how do you prove that? Also 4k for a reversing incident. Id be interested to hear how hard the at fault insurers laughed at you.t can't check his mirrors?IMO, Offering a Mondeo to replace a GTR is taking the piss. I'd be expecting at least a well specced Merc/BMW/Audi, maybe even a Focus ST3, Mondeo? No Chance I'd take that!
Also refusing cars nowadays is likely to end up in court with you trying to explain to a judge exactly why a Focus 1.6 wont do for a week when your car is a Focus ST.
nipsips said:
Intimidated by lorries. And how do you prove that? Also 4k for a reversing incident. Id be interested to hear how hard the at fault insurers laughed at you.
Also refusing cars nowadays is likely to end up in court with you trying to explain to a judge exactly why a Focus 1.6 wont do for a week when your car is a Focus ST.
It's what I was told by various parties phoning me following the accident, I didn't entertain them. I doubt the at fault insurers laughed, not after the £4.5k repair bill.... Also refusing cars nowadays is likely to end up in court with you trying to explain to a judge exactly why a Focus 1.6 wont do for a week when your car is a Focus ST.
Refusing a 1.6 Focus got me a GT86, but thanks for your concern and obvious in depth knowledge
Oh, just to stoke the fires further, heres a link showing historical and current maximum hire rates chargeable by companies to insurers who are subscribed to the ABI GTA...
http://apps.abi.org.uk/tphire/
I'd say OP's car would be classed as SP11 warranting a daily charge of £310.17...
http://apps.abi.org.uk/tphire/
I'd say OP's car would be classed as SP11 warranting a daily charge of £310.17...
KungFuPanda said:
OP, I think if they've deemed it a write off, you're allowed to keep the hire car for 7 days after you receive the cheque to allow you sufficient time to buy another. I'm a bit rusty on this kind of thing having been out of the game for a while.
Thanks for the info KFP.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff