Main dealer has written car off
Discussion
janesmith1950 said:
The dealer is no longer involved. No point in talking to the dealer.
It's the dealer's insurer you need to negotiate with. If you're not happy with their offer, follow the normal procedure, provide with examples of similar models for sale as close as like for like. If it was a main dealer bought car with main dealer warranty and pricing, then look at main dealer cars. If not, don't.
If you're not happy with their final offer, then ombudsman.
Ultimately, if unhappy with the final result, I imagine you have recourse to small claims for the difference between what you want and what they've offered.
I disagreeIt's the dealer's insurer you need to negotiate with. If you're not happy with their offer, follow the normal procedure, provide with examples of similar models for sale as close as like for like. If it was a main dealer bought car with main dealer warranty and pricing, then look at main dealer cars. If not, don't.
If you're not happy with their final offer, then ombudsman.
Ultimately, if unhappy with the final result, I imagine you have recourse to small claims for the difference between what you want and what they've offered.
The "contract of work" [service or whatever] was between the OP's sister and the dealership.
So any issues are directly with the OP's sister and the dealer, not their insurer.
xjay1337 said:
janesmith1950 said:
The dealer is no longer involved. No point in talking to the dealer.
It's the dealer's insurer you need to negotiate with. If you're not happy with their offer, follow the normal procedure, provide with examples of similar models for sale as close as like for like. If it was a main dealer bought car with main dealer warranty and pricing, then look at main dealer cars. If not, don't.
If you're not happy with their final offer, then ombudsman.
Ultimately, if unhappy with the final result, I imagine you have recourse to small claims for the difference between what you want and what they've offered.
I disagreeIt's the dealer's insurer you need to negotiate with. If you're not happy with their offer, follow the normal procedure, provide with examples of similar models for sale as close as like for like. If it was a main dealer bought car with main dealer warranty and pricing, then look at main dealer cars. If not, don't.
If you're not happy with their final offer, then ombudsman.
Ultimately, if unhappy with the final result, I imagine you have recourse to small claims for the difference between what you want and what they've offered.
The "contract of work" [service or whatever] was between the OP's sister and the dealership.
So any issues are directly with the OP's sister and the dealer, not their insurer.
Mrr T said:
janesmith1950 said:
The dealer is no longer involved. No point in talking to the dealer.
It's the dealer's insurer you need to negotiate with. If you're not happy with their offer, follow the normal procedure, provide with examples of similar models for sale as close as like for like. If it was a main dealer bought car with main dealer warranty and pricing, then look at main dealer cars. If not, don't.
If you're not happy with their final offer, then ombudsman.
Ultimately, if unhappy with the final result, I imagine you have recourse to small claims for the difference between what you want and what they've offered.
Sorry this is complete rubbish. The contact is with the dealer. There is no contract between the claimant and the dealers insurance company. You need to negotiate with the dealer they then negotiate with their insurance company. If their cover is insufficient its not the claimants problem. You cannot complain about the insurance company to the financial ombudsman because you have no contract with them. It's the dealer's insurer you need to negotiate with. If you're not happy with their offer, follow the normal procedure, provide with examples of similar models for sale as close as like for like. If it was a main dealer bought car with main dealer warranty and pricing, then look at main dealer cars. If not, don't.
If you're not happy with their final offer, then ombudsman.
Ultimately, if unhappy with the final result, I imagine you have recourse to small claims for the difference between what you want and what they've offered.
For this amount write down all the details. Some seem to suggest the dealer has accepted liability because of the offer. But I bet its a without prejudice offer.
Find a local solicitor with litigation expeiance. Most will offer a free 30 minutes.
The easiest solution all around is for the dealer to provide a replacement, equivalent or better car, plus some free servicing thrown in.
I'd be speaking reqularly to the dealer, in person, to see what progress is being made.
Obviously difficult for the OP as it's not his issue...
The claim is against the dealer in negligence. I don't believe it's a claim in contract.
The dealer is insured and I imagine, like most insurance, the insured subrogates their decision making to the insurer once a claim is submitted.
If the dealer has passed to their insurers then it's their insurers you need to negotiate with.
If in the end you were unhappy with what the insurer offers you can claim in negligence for the difference between what was offered and what you'd accept. You would claim against the name of the dealership, however the insurer would be the one defending the claim under the subrogated rights.
The dealer is insured and I imagine, like most insurance, the insured subrogates their decision making to the insurer once a claim is submitted.
If the dealer has passed to their insurers then it's their insurers you need to negotiate with.
If in the end you were unhappy with what the insurer offers you can claim in negligence for the difference between what was offered and what you'd accept. You would claim against the name of the dealership, however the insurer would be the one defending the claim under the subrogated rights.
janesmith1950 said:
The dealer is no longer involved. No point in talking to the dealer.
It's the dealer's insurer you need to negotiate with. If you're not happy with their offer, follow the normal procedure, provide with examples of similar models for sale as close as like for like. If it was a main dealer bought car with main dealer warranty and pricing, then look at main dealer cars. If not, don't.
If you're not happy with their final offer, then ombudsman.
Ultimately, if unhappy with the final result, I imagine you have recourse to small claims for the difference between what you want and what they've offered.
I'm afraid you have totally misunderstood the situation, and hence your advice is complete nonsense.It's the dealer's insurer you need to negotiate with. If you're not happy with their offer, follow the normal procedure, provide with examples of similar models for sale as close as like for like. If it was a main dealer bought car with main dealer warranty and pricing, then look at main dealer cars. If not, don't.
If you're not happy with their final offer, then ombudsman.
Ultimately, if unhappy with the final result, I imagine you have recourse to small claims for the difference between what you want and what they've offered.
If the OP's sister had been out driving, been hit by someone from the dealership, and the dealer's insurance had contacted her to settle her claim as she was a third party, then your advice might have some merit. her claim would be settled on a market value basis directly with the dealer's insurance. But that is not the case here. This is not a third party claim. The dealer wrote off a car they were using and was in their care, custody or control. It's an "own damage" claim by the dealer, off their own motor trade policy, (if they even wish to claim), and as such will be settled on trade value. It's for the dealer to settle their customer's claim for market value.
janesmith1950 said:
The claim is against the dealer in negligence. I don't believe it's a claim in contract.
The dealer is insured and I imagine, like most insurance, the insured subrogates their decision making to the insurer once a claim is submitted.
If the dealer has passed to their insurers then it's their insurers you need to negotiate with.
If in the end you were unhappy with what the insurer offers you can claim in negligence for the difference between what was offered and what you'd accept. You would claim against the name of the dealership, however the insurer would be the one defending the claim under the subrogated rights.
Have you read the thread? The dealer collected the car to complete a service. I think you will find that will create a contract. The dealer is insured and I imagine, like most insurance, the insured subrogates their decision making to the insurer once a claim is submitted.
If the dealer has passed to their insurers then it's their insurers you need to negotiate with.
If in the end you were unhappy with what the insurer offers you can claim in negligence for the difference between what was offered and what you'd accept. You would claim against the name of the dealership, however the insurer would be the one defending the claim under the subrogated rights.
I think there's some cross purposes here.
No dispute the garage is liable.
On the practicality, if the garage is insured and passed to their insurance, it's the insurer (and/or their legal department/outsource) you'll be dealing with. Maybe the dealer group self insure this kind of work and the solicitor is engaged by them? All you have to do is ask for confirmation who the solicitor's client is.
If you refuse the insurers' offer, you can make a claim against the garage, I would expect it's the garage's insurer who would defend.
There's little point in a garage having insurance if it has to do all the running itself, no doubt has an excess, is at risk from direct uninsured litigation and/or has to make up itself any shortfall in an offer made by the insurer to the claimant.
So much frothing at the mouth as soon as dealers get mentioned.
About 4 years ago some work contractors working on the chimney next door let the whole stack fall off the roof and some of it landed on my wife's old 316. The roof was pretty dented and the windscreen smashed. The roofers insurer sent an engineer around, wrote it off and after some bartering we agreed a price and off we went, job jobbed.
We don't even know here whether the dealer has claimed on their motor policy or a business one or at all.
No dispute the garage is liable.
On the practicality, if the garage is insured and passed to their insurance, it's the insurer (and/or their legal department/outsource) you'll be dealing with. Maybe the dealer group self insure this kind of work and the solicitor is engaged by them? All you have to do is ask for confirmation who the solicitor's client is.
If you refuse the insurers' offer, you can make a claim against the garage, I would expect it's the garage's insurer who would defend.
There's little point in a garage having insurance if it has to do all the running itself, no doubt has an excess, is at risk from direct uninsured litigation and/or has to make up itself any shortfall in an offer made by the insurer to the claimant.
So much frothing at the mouth as soon as dealers get mentioned.
About 4 years ago some work contractors working on the chimney next door let the whole stack fall off the roof and some of it landed on my wife's old 316. The roof was pretty dented and the windscreen smashed. The roofers insurer sent an engineer around, wrote it off and after some bartering we agreed a price and off we went, job jobbed.
We don't even know here whether the dealer has claimed on their motor policy or a business one or at all.
ksjanesmith1950 said:
We don't even know here whether the dealer has claimed on their motor policy or a business one or at all.
The fact that you think they can claim on a business policy shows you really don't know much about this stuff. Business policies (public liability) exclude all claims arising out of the use of a motorised vehicle. They have either claimed on their motor trade road risks, or not at all. The main reason why the OP's sister should have no dealings with the garage's insurer is that the insurer will only settle on a trade value basis, for the reasons I've explained many times on this thread, whereas the OP's sister is entitled to market value.
janesmith1950 said:
About 4 years ago some work contractors working on the chimney next door let the whole stack fall off the roof and some of it landed on my wife's old 316. The roof was pretty dented and the windscreen smashed. The roofers insurer sent an engineer around, wrote it off and after some bartering we agreed a price and off we went, job jobbed.
That's because you were a third party in the claim, to the contractors public liability insurer. That isn't the case here.Please go back and read my initial post on this matter, that i posted on Tuesday. Then it might dawn on you why the example you've quoted above is completely different to what's happened here, and the OP's sister's position as regards the garage's insurer.
Without trying to be condescending, it's quite technical stuff, so if you don't have actual working knowledge of this kind of thing, please refrain from posting further.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm afraid you have totally misunderstood the situation, and hence your advice is complete nonsense.
If the OP's sister had been out driving, been hit by someone from the dealership, and the dealer's insurance had contacted her to settle her claim as she was a third party, then your advice might have some merit. her claim would be settled on a market value basis directly with the dealer's insurance. But that is not the case here. This is not a third party claim. The dealer wrote off a car they were using and was in their care, custody or control. It's an "own damage" claim by the dealer, off their own motor trade policy, (if they even wish to claim), and as such will be settled on trade value. It's for the dealer to settle their customer's claim for market value.
Exactly this, sorry Jane - you seem to have misunderstood the situation or your position on the legalities is incorrect.If the OP's sister had been out driving, been hit by someone from the dealership, and the dealer's insurance had contacted her to settle her claim as she was a third party, then your advice might have some merit. her claim would be settled on a market value basis directly with the dealer's insurance. But that is not the case here. This is not a third party claim. The dealer wrote off a car they were using and was in their care, custody or control. It's an "own damage" claim by the dealer, off their own motor trade policy, (if they even wish to claim), and as such will be settled on trade value. It's for the dealer to settle their customer's claim for market value.
OP keep us updated, as to what your sister is doing.
If you are close with her then I would suggesting taking ownership of it from her as unfortunately some dealers can fob off women, if you have the time.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's because you were a third party in the claim, to the contractors public liability insurer. That isn't the case here.
Please go back and read my initial post on this matter, that i posted on Tuesday. Then it might dawn on you why the example you've quoted above is completely different to what's happened here, and the OP's sister's position as regards the garage's insurer.
Without trying to be condescending, it's quite technical stuff, so if you don't have actual working knowledge of this kind of thing, please refrain from posting further.
Ok, so instead of being condescending, be educational;Please go back and read my initial post on this matter, that i posted on Tuesday. Then it might dawn on you why the example you've quoted above is completely different to what's happened here, and the OP's sister's position as regards the garage's insurer.
Without trying to be condescending, it's quite technical stuff, so if you don't have actual working knowledge of this kind of thing, please refrain from posting further.
1. Assuming the garage is claiming on on business insurance, why would the OP would need to chase the garage instead of the insurer or;
2. Assuming the garage is claiming on their motor insurance, why would the OP need to chase the garage instead of the insurer
3. If the OP was not paid their losses in full and sued the garage, under what cause of action would the garage be sued?
4. Assuming the garage is insured and has made a claim, would the garage or the insurer defend the claim against the garage?
The answers to the above and reasoning behind it will help me and others understand.
Thank you in advance.
janesmith1950 said:
Ok, so instead of being condescending, be educational;
1. Assuming the garage is claiming on on business insurance, why would the OP would need to chase the garage instead of the insurer or;
2. Assuming the garage is claiming on their motor insurance, why would the OP need to chase the garage instead of the insurer
3. If the OP was not paid their losses in full and sued the garage, under what cause of action would the garage be sued?
4. Assuming the garage is insured and has made a claim, would the garage or the insurer defend the claim against the garage?
The answers to the above and reasoning behind it will help me and others understand.
Thank you in advance.
1. for the umteenth time....business insurance excludes claims arising out of the use of motorised vehicles1. Assuming the garage is claiming on on business insurance, why would the OP would need to chase the garage instead of the insurer or;
2. Assuming the garage is claiming on their motor insurance, why would the OP need to chase the garage instead of the insurer
3. If the OP was not paid their losses in full and sued the garage, under what cause of action would the garage be sued?
4. Assuming the garage is insured and has made a claim, would the garage or the insurer defend the claim against the garage?
The answers to the above and reasoning behind it will help me and others understand.
Thank you in advance.
2. Because the OP's claim is against the garage. They had her car, and wrote it off
3. Failing to compensate the OP's sister fully following their negligence
4. The garage. The garage's insurer will have done their job, having paid out to the garage the trade value of the car.
janesmith1950 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's because you were a third party in the claim, to the contractors public liability insurer. That isn't the case here.
Please go back and read my initial post on this matter, that i posted on Tuesday. Then it might dawn on you why the example you've quoted above is completely different to what's happened here, and the OP's sister's position as regards the garage's insurer.
Without trying to be condescending, it's quite technical stuff, so if you don't have actual working knowledge of this kind of thing, please refrain from posting further.
Ok, so instead of being condescending, be educational;Please go back and read my initial post on this matter, that i posted on Tuesday. Then it might dawn on you why the example you've quoted above is completely different to what's happened here, and the OP's sister's position as regards the garage's insurer.
Without trying to be condescending, it's quite technical stuff, so if you don't have actual working knowledge of this kind of thing, please refrain from posting further.
1. Assuming the garage is claiming on on business insurance, why would the OP would need to chase the garage instead of the insurer or;
2. Assuming the garage is claiming on their motor insurance, why would the OP need to chase the garage instead of the insurer
3. If the OP was not paid their losses in full and sued the garage, under what cause of action would the garage be sued?
4. Assuming the garage is insured and has made a claim, would the garage or the insurer defend the claim against the garage?
The answers to the above and reasoning behind it will help me and others understand.
Thank you in advance.
Jane, can I put this another way.
You lend your £17K car to your brother, and he insures it. He loses control and crashes into Mrs Miggins, and writes the car off. Your brother is the policyholder, his insurance company are....the insurance company, Mrs Miggins is the third party. You are...well nobody. All you are is.....waiting for your brother to give you £17K, or to buy you an identical replacement car.
Now if your brother calls his insurance co and says please negotiate with the owner, my brother, and the insurer and you agree, that's fine. But you don't have to agree. You can tell your brother you don't wan the hassle, it's his problem, he needs to sort it. That's your decision.
In the end the claim gets settled, and your brother has a £5K excess, so they pay him £12K. Unfortunately, your brother is plain thick, and he doesn't quite understand that he just can't give you £12K. You want £17K.
That's where we stand at the moment. Except we don't know if insurers are involved at all, but it's not important from your standpoint.
Now imagine your brother worked for a car auction site. and is very handy with the spanners. Problem solved. Although your car is worth £17K, because that's what they cost from a dealer, he can pick one up for £12K at work. Take it home, give it a full service, fix a few niggles, and hand it over to you. Even tell you he'll guarantee it for 6 months or whatever. In fact, now he recalls that's why he selected a £5K excess in the first place, because he works in a car auction site and knows he can source cars at rock bottom prices.
That's where we need to get to. Your daft brother needs reminding where he works, and that the £5K excess isn't going to be a problem after all.
I hope that helps clear things up.
You lend your £17K car to your brother, and he insures it. He loses control and crashes into Mrs Miggins, and writes the car off. Your brother is the policyholder, his insurance company are....the insurance company, Mrs Miggins is the third party. You are...well nobody. All you are is.....waiting for your brother to give you £17K, or to buy you an identical replacement car.
Now if your brother calls his insurance co and says please negotiate with the owner, my brother, and the insurer and you agree, that's fine. But you don't have to agree. You can tell your brother you don't wan the hassle, it's his problem, he needs to sort it. That's your decision.
In the end the claim gets settled, and your brother has a £5K excess, so they pay him £12K. Unfortunately, your brother is plain thick, and he doesn't quite understand that he just can't give you £12K. You want £17K.
That's where we stand at the moment. Except we don't know if insurers are involved at all, but it's not important from your standpoint.
Now imagine your brother worked for a car auction site. and is very handy with the spanners. Problem solved. Although your car is worth £17K, because that's what they cost from a dealer, he can pick one up for £12K at work. Take it home, give it a full service, fix a few niggles, and hand it over to you. Even tell you he'll guarantee it for 6 months or whatever. In fact, now he recalls that's why he selected a £5K excess in the first place, because he works in a car auction site and knows he can source cars at rock bottom prices.
That's where we need to get to. Your daft brother needs reminding where he works, and that the £5K excess isn't going to be a problem after all.
I hope that helps clear things up.
janesmith1950 said:
Ok, so instead of being condescending, be educational;
1. Assuming the garage is claiming on on business insurance, why would the OP would need to chase the garage instead of the insurer or;
2. Assuming the garage is claiming on their motor insurance, why would the OP need to chase the garage instead of the insurer
3. If the OP was not paid their losses in full and sued the garage, under what cause of action would the garage be sued?
4. Assuming the garage is insured and has made a claim, would the garage or the insurer defend the claim against the garage?
The answers to the above and reasoning behind it will help me and others understand.
Thank you in advance.
Several of these points are not really relevant based on the details set out by the poster. 1. Assuming the garage is claiming on on business insurance, why would the OP would need to chase the garage instead of the insurer or;
2. Assuming the garage is claiming on their motor insurance, why would the OP need to chase the garage instead of the insurer
3. If the OP was not paid their losses in full and sued the garage, under what cause of action would the garage be sued?
4. Assuming the garage is insured and has made a claim, would the garage or the insurer defend the claim against the garage?
The answers to the above and reasoning behind it will help me and others understand.
Thank you in advance.
However, to answer the questions. There is a contact between the garage and the claimaint. The garage is unable to return the car so the claimaint can seek damages for breach of contract. It not the case here but often an insurance company will take over negotiations with the claimaint as agent for the insured. As happened in your negligence claim. However, if the case reached the courts the claim would be against the dealer or in your case the builders.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff