Slightly Odd Insurance Situation
Discussion
I think this is best in SP&TL, but it could probably just as well go in GG, it matters not really.
I was in a minor-ish RTA as passenger with my dad driving, when someone basically drove into us (independently witnessed, other driver admits fault). Details exchanged, claims lodged. Initially our insurer says that because it is an old car they won't repair and will probably make an offer. It had literally just (30 minutes before) had £1100 worth of work done, so we weren't happy at that, but anyway...
5 days or so on, our insurer (a major name) called to apologise and to say that they have been trying all week to contact the other party's insurer (a different major name) but they can't get through because of the phone queue length! And as a result, have written a letter to them, notifying them that they will be paying for all repairs, dad won't lose NCB or any excess. I have never heard of anything like that happening before!
So far so good anyway, we are currently waiting for the car to be taken away, but I'm guessing that being a 1998 car, the repair garage might struggle? Mk 2 Mondeo parts aren't exactly off the shelf, but I know panels and new bumpers are available from 3rd party manufacturers.
Has anyone heard of anything like this happening before? Usually even on an admission of fault, insurers wriggle. And the other party's insurers effectively defaulting because they don't reply to the phone?
No mention has been made about us getting a hire car and charging them, so we are reluctant to incur bills there. I guess I need to examine the rather hefty insurance doc!
I was in a minor-ish RTA as passenger with my dad driving, when someone basically drove into us (independently witnessed, other driver admits fault). Details exchanged, claims lodged. Initially our insurer says that because it is an old car they won't repair and will probably make an offer. It had literally just (30 minutes before) had £1100 worth of work done, so we weren't happy at that, but anyway...
5 days or so on, our insurer (a major name) called to apologise and to say that they have been trying all week to contact the other party's insurer (a different major name) but they can't get through because of the phone queue length! And as a result, have written a letter to them, notifying them that they will be paying for all repairs, dad won't lose NCB or any excess. I have never heard of anything like that happening before!
So far so good anyway, we are currently waiting for the car to be taken away, but I'm guessing that being a 1998 car, the repair garage might struggle? Mk 2 Mondeo parts aren't exactly off the shelf, but I know panels and new bumpers are available from 3rd party manufacturers.
Has anyone heard of anything like this happening before? Usually even on an admission of fault, insurers wriggle. And the other party's insurers effectively defaulting because they don't reply to the phone?
No mention has been made about us getting a hire car and charging them, so we are reluctant to incur bills there. I guess I need to examine the rather hefty insurance doc!
Due to the value of the typical 1998 Mondeo I would prepare for the car to be written off if the damage is anything other than minor.
Even a dented wing & repair at insurance repair costs can be over £8/900 and most insurance companies will write off at around 3/4 of car value, and unfortunately, just because it has had £1100 of work done doesn't make it £1100 more valuable, as i am sure you are aware.
Even a dented wing & repair at insurance repair costs can be over £8/900 and most insurance companies will write off at around 3/4 of car value, and unfortunately, just because it has had £1100 of work done doesn't make it £1100 more valuable, as i am sure you are aware.
Based on my experience with our family cars (I'm assuming your father is fully comp) his insurers will deal with his damage then seek to recover all from the other party.
Chances are he will have to pay his excess, but this will also be reclaimed from the other party & refunded to him.
This may take a little time - my youngest has recently been through this when his car was reversed into in the car park of the school he is a teacher at.
Excellent CCTV showing the entire incident.
Delivery van from one of the well known supermarket chains who had just made a delivery to the school kitchens & drove off after the collision.
Bit of nonsense from them that they couldn't identify their driver but that was quickly put to bed by our insurers.
Problem with the repairs is that the insurer's preferred repairer will quote for genuine panels & parts at MRRP & consequently the car will probably be written off.
Speak to the insurers & see if they will pay out - a reduced amount - & let you keep the car.
You can then arrange for the repairs using the money you will receive.
Been there, done that & never had an issue reinsuring the same car albeit we stayed with the same insurer.
Chances are he will have to pay his excess, but this will also be reclaimed from the other party & refunded to him.
This may take a little time - my youngest has recently been through this when his car was reversed into in the car park of the school he is a teacher at.
Excellent CCTV showing the entire incident.
Delivery van from one of the well known supermarket chains who had just made a delivery to the school kitchens & drove off after the collision.
Bit of nonsense from them that they couldn't identify their driver but that was quickly put to bed by our insurers.
Problem with the repairs is that the insurer's preferred repairer will quote for genuine panels & parts at MRRP & consequently the car will probably be written off.
Speak to the insurers & see if they will pay out - a reduced amount - & let you keep the car.
You can then arrange for the repairs using the money you will receive.
Been there, done that & never had an issue reinsuring the same car albeit we stayed with the same insurer.
As others have said, ask your insurers for the salvage value of the vehicle if they do write it off. Then if you decide you wan to to keep your car and arrange to repair it yourself, they’ll just pay you the pre accident value less the salvage and you keep the car.
As an aside, get joining some Mondeo groups on FB. There’s a wealth of knowledge out there that will help you get hold of parts.
As an aside, get joining some Mondeo groups on FB. There’s a wealth of knowledge out there that will help you get hold of parts.
Oh, I fully appreciate that a 98 Mondeo, even a V6 with all the toys, is worth slightly less than bugger all in commercial terms, but the car has great sentimental value for us both since my mum died, with lots of good memories of family journeys. And yes, I know memories are worth zero, I just need to explain my point of view. It is a cost versus value thing. It is also the only car we have between us now (hence spending money on repairing/restoring it) having downsized for space/money reasons, and so don't have the ability to go out looking at other cars. Not that finding something comparable to a V6, leather, under 100k miles and £300ish tax would be easy anyway.
To my mind, as our insurer isn't the one paying, and the other party has seemingly admitted responsibility, surely there is a legal responsibility for the other party to make good? No matter whether the car is worth 50p and the panels and fitting/paint/etc are expensive. I can't see any payout offer for "just an old car" being exactly large, so leaving us at a considerable loss for someone else's actions, which can't be right in a situation where both cars were fully comp.
Repairing the car ourselves is a vague possibility, (depending on any as yet unseen damage) but we don't really have anywhere to store it while various repairs are done. That would depend on money offered / valuation I think, but the valuation would have to be cheap and the payout generous.
Anyway, this is hypothetical for the moment as they haven't yet collected the car. It may be that they just fix it and return it, but I'm ready for the "they can't fix it" phone call, when what they mean is "it will be expensive to fix and the cars worth nothing, so we don't want to pay". Given the apparent admission of responsibility by the other party, does anyone know if we could reasonably charge the other party's insurers for a hire car until ours is repaired?
Thanks for your comments so far folks, it is helping to clarify things a bit, and are much appreciated
To my mind, as our insurer isn't the one paying, and the other party has seemingly admitted responsibility, surely there is a legal responsibility for the other party to make good? No matter whether the car is worth 50p and the panels and fitting/paint/etc are expensive. I can't see any payout offer for "just an old car" being exactly large, so leaving us at a considerable loss for someone else's actions, which can't be right in a situation where both cars were fully comp.
Repairing the car ourselves is a vague possibility, (depending on any as yet unseen damage) but we don't really have anywhere to store it while various repairs are done. That would depend on money offered / valuation I think, but the valuation would have to be cheap and the payout generous.
Anyway, this is hypothetical for the moment as they haven't yet collected the car. It may be that they just fix it and return it, but I'm ready for the "they can't fix it" phone call, when what they mean is "it will be expensive to fix and the cars worth nothing, so we don't want to pay". Given the apparent admission of responsibility by the other party, does anyone know if we could reasonably charge the other party's insurers for a hire car until ours is repaired?
Thanks for your comments so far folks, it is helping to clarify things a bit, and are much appreciated
KungFuPanda said:
As others have said, ask your insurers for the salvage value of the vehicle if they do write it off. Then if you decide you wan to to keep your car and arrange to repair it yourself, they’ll just pay you the pre accident value less the salvage and you keep the car.
As an aside, get joining some Mondeo groups on FB. There’s a wealth of knowledge out there that will help you get hold of parts.
Thanks, I'll do that. I was on the old MEGs group years ago, not sure what the situation is these days!As an aside, get joining some Mondeo groups on FB. There’s a wealth of knowledge out there that will help you get hold of parts.
Zad said:
To my mind, as our insurer isn't the one paying, and the other party has seemingly admitted responsibility, surely there is a legal responsibility for the other party to make good? No matter whether the car is worth 50p and the panels and fitting/paint/etc are expensive. I can't see any payout offer for "just an old car" being exactly large, so leaving us at a considerable loss for someone else's actions, which can't be right in a situation where both cars were fully comp.
Sadly no.Morally maybe but then we are talking about insurance companies here & how many of them operate like that?
Having said that, I DO hope you can get what you want out of it as it must REALLY mean a lot to you all from what you say.
Fingers crossed.
Something to consider should it be repaired & back on the road.
If the car is worth more to you than it’s typical smoker value then agreed value policies are available. There are obviously limits, criteria to match, often evidence to support & the premiums are higher but if the car has significant value to your father & is in matching condition it could be worth considering.
If the car is worth more to you than it’s typical smoker value then agreed value policies are available. There are obviously limits, criteria to match, often evidence to support & the premiums are higher but if the car has significant value to your father & is in matching condition it could be worth considering.
Zad said:
Oh, I fully appreciate that a 98 Mondeo, even a V6 with all the toys, is worth slightly less than bugger all in commercial terms, but the car has great sentimental value for us both since my mum died, with lots of good memories of family journeys. And yes, I know memories are worth zero, I just need to explain my point of view. It is a cost versus value thing. It is also the only car we have between us now (hence spending money on repairing/restoring it) having downsized for space/money reasons, and so don't have the ability to go out looking at other cars. Not that finding something comparable to a V6, leather, under 100k miles and £300ish tax would be easy anyway.
To my mind, as our insurer isn't the one paying, and the other party has seemingly admitted responsibility, surely there is a legal responsibility for the other party to make good? No matter whether the car is worth 50p and the panels and fitting/paint/etc are expensive. I can't see any payout offer for "just an old car" being exactly large, so leaving us at a considerable loss for someone else's actions, which can't be right in a situation where both cars were fully comp.
Repairing the car ourselves is a vague possibility, (depending on any as yet unseen damage) but we don't really have anywhere to store it while various repairs are done. That would depend on money offered / valuation I think, but the valuation would have to be cheap and the payout generous.
Anyway, this is hypothetical for the moment as they haven't yet collected the car. It may be that they just fix it and return it, but I'm ready for the "they can't fix it" phone call, when what they mean is "it will be expensive to fix and the cars worth nothing, so we don't want to pay". Given the apparent admission of responsibility by the other party, does anyone know if we could reasonably charge the other party's insurers for a hire car until ours is repaired?
Thanks for your comments so far folks, it is helping to clarify things a bit, and are much appreciated
Re: hire car - I would suggest you probably don't want to even explore that avenue, it'll only add to the cost and that makes it getting written off all the more likely.To my mind, as our insurer isn't the one paying, and the other party has seemingly admitted responsibility, surely there is a legal responsibility for the other party to make good? No matter whether the car is worth 50p and the panels and fitting/paint/etc are expensive. I can't see any payout offer for "just an old car" being exactly large, so leaving us at a considerable loss for someone else's actions, which can't be right in a situation where both cars were fully comp.
Repairing the car ourselves is a vague possibility, (depending on any as yet unseen damage) but we don't really have anywhere to store it while various repairs are done. That would depend on money offered / valuation I think, but the valuation would have to be cheap and the payout generous.
Anyway, this is hypothetical for the moment as they haven't yet collected the car. It may be that they just fix it and return it, but I'm ready for the "they can't fix it" phone call, when what they mean is "it will be expensive to fix and the cars worth nothing, so we don't want to pay". Given the apparent admission of responsibility by the other party, does anyone know if we could reasonably charge the other party's insurers for a hire car until ours is repaired?
Thanks for your comments so far folks, it is helping to clarify things a bit, and are much appreciated
As far as a duty to the other party to make good... Yes, but equally there's a responsibility on the part of your insurer to mitigate losses - they can't just throw 3x the value of the car at a repair when they could give you the money it'd cost you to buy an equivalent example, which would essentially be the same thing once the sentimentality is taken out of it...
If the other driver has admitted fault, what right does the other insurer have to deny meeting the costs for your car being repaired?
I can understand your insurer denying (if that was the terms of the agreement you signed) but the other person has damaged your property then I don't see legally how they can get out of them/their insurer paying it.
You own a piece of property which was damaged. It doesn't matter what an insurance company says is it's value. It was damaged, it costs X to repair it, so surely you pay X and you sue the other person, who has to sue their insurer to claim the money back?
I can understand your insurer denying (if that was the terms of the agreement you signed) but the other person has damaged your property then I don't see legally how they can get out of them/their insurer paying it.
You own a piece of property which was damaged. It doesn't matter what an insurance company says is it's value. It was damaged, it costs X to repair it, so surely you pay X and you sue the other person, who has to sue their insurer to claim the money back?
Edited by gt_12345 on Tuesday 29th November 14:44
gt_12345 said:
If the other driver has admitted fault, what right does the other insurer have to deny meeting the costs for your car being repaired?
I can understand your insurer denying (if that was the terms of the agreement you signed) but the other person has damaged your property then I don't see legally how they can get out of them/their insurer paying it.
You own a piece of property which was damaged. It doesn't matter what an insurance company says is it's value. It was damaged, it costs X to repair it, so surely you pay X and you sue the other person, who has to sue their insurer to claim the money back?
You don't have a right to have the exact same piece of property back, only to not be worse off than where you started in terms of asset value.I can understand your insurer denying (if that was the terms of the agreement you signed) but the other person has damaged your property then I don't see legally how they can get out of them/their insurer paying it.
You own a piece of property which was damaged. It doesn't matter what an insurance company says is it's value. It was damaged, it costs X to repair it, so surely you pay X and you sue the other person, who has to sue their insurer to claim the money back?
Edited by gt_12345 on Tuesday 29th November 14:44
This can mean either repairing or providing you with suitable funds to purchase an equivalent value replacement.
It's only logical that they'll choose whichever is the cheaper option to restore you to the same position as before the accident (ie: with a car/asset value of "X" as you had beforehand).
Not to mention, of course, that they sometimes cannot (legally) repair and return your vehicle - if it's Cat A or B write-off for example, it's not legally allowed back on the road.
Sometimes this is to your advantage (going back some years I had a car coming up for a major service including cambelt and with both tyres and brakes wearing towards the point they'd need replacing - book value let me buy something of equivalent value without said impending bills)... And sometimes, like this, it can hurt you.
Brassblaster said:
gt_12345 said:
If the other driver has admitted fault, what right does the other insurer have to deny meeting the costs for your car being repaired?
I can understand your insurer denying (if that was the terms of the agreement you signed) but the other person has damaged your property then I don't see legally how they can get out of them/their insurer paying it.
You own a piece of property which was damaged. It doesn't matter what an insurance company says is it's value. It was damaged, it costs X to repair it, so surely you pay X and you sue the other person, who has to sue their insurer to claim the money back?
You don't have a right to have the exact same piece of property back, only to not be worse off than where you started in terms of asset value.I can understand your insurer denying (if that was the terms of the agreement you signed) but the other person has damaged your property then I don't see legally how they can get out of them/their insurer paying it.
You own a piece of property which was damaged. It doesn't matter what an insurance company says is it's value. It was damaged, it costs X to repair it, so surely you pay X and you sue the other person, who has to sue their insurer to claim the money back?
Edited by gt_12345 on Tuesday 29th November 14:44
This can mean either repairing or providing you with suitable funds to purchase an equivalent value replacement.
It's only logical that they'll choose whichever is the cheaper option to restore you to the same position as before the accident (ie: with a car/asset value of "X" as you had beforehand).
Not to mention, of course, that they sometimes cannot (legally) repair and return your vehicle - if it's Cat A or B write-off for example, it's not legally allowed back on the road.
Sometimes this is to your advantage (going back some years I had a car coming up for a major service including cambelt and with both tyres and brakes wearing towards the point they'd need replacing - book value let me buy something of equivalent value without said impending bills)... And sometimes, like this, it can hurt you.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff