GT-R non fault claim, like for like hire car?
Discussion
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?
Mr GTR has paid an additional £100 annual premium, so that covers the £500 per day extra GTR hire car charges. Oh, wait...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?
mph1977 said:
Thank you for contributing to raised premiums for all.
I'm sure someone will be along shortly from one of many of the accident management/taxi/ kebab/ visa agent / letting agencies to fleece us all with your like for like innit hire car.
'Like for like' with courtesy cars is to stop people being fobbed off with a up!/ ka/ adam/107 to 'replace' their towbar equipped large estate car, not so people can have extended test drives of premium cars.
The main problem I have with statements like this is that they are incorrect from the first sentence. Its actually the person that ran into the OP that is responsible for any and all contributions to future increases in premiums. If the accident haddnt happened there would not be loss to anyone.I'm sure someone will be along shortly from one of many of the accident management/taxi/ kebab/ visa agent / letting agencies to fleece us all with your like for like innit hire car.
'Like for like' with courtesy cars is to stop people being fobbed off with a up!/ ka/ adam/107 to 'replace' their towbar equipped large estate car, not so people can have extended test drives of premium cars.
Edited by mph1977 on Friday 14th November 11:23
Of course the "teenage idiot" started this ball rolling. However from that point onwards the final costs could go either way.
For example victim A might be happy with a normal hire car and make no fuss. Whilst worst case scenario, victim B might fancy a premium hire car and suddenly decide they have a sore neck. The final costs will be very different for the same accident, entirely depending upon how the victim reacts. In the example of case B, we all get the pleasure of picking up the tab to cover the thousands of pounds shortfall.
Not that I am suggesting the OP will be claiming for unnecessary neck injuries just to punish the "teenage idiot". It is merely an example.
For example victim A might be happy with a normal hire car and make no fuss. Whilst worst case scenario, victim B might fancy a premium hire car and suddenly decide they have a sore neck. The final costs will be very different for the same accident, entirely depending upon how the victim reacts. In the example of case B, we all get the pleasure of picking up the tab to cover the thousands of pounds shortfall.
Not that I am suggesting the OP will be claiming for unnecessary neck injuries just to punish the "teenage idiot". It is merely an example.
How many of you have taken out asset protection on your car? (GAP) What does it do.. it insures you against the risk that in case of a write off, the insurance pay out is not sufficient to pay off your finance or, in some cases it covers 'Return to Invoice' So, in theory, your 2 year old car gets written off - ins co pay out market value and GAP pays the difference to let you buy brand new again.
A few of you got that? ... I expect so
Anyone also pay extra to have "new for old" on house contents?.. I expect so
Now, as I read it, the OP has bought a policy that will cover him for the difference between what (any) ins co will fork out for a hire car and the cost of a 'like for like' hire car. Not difficult!
No difference between his 'like for like 'policy and any GAP or 'New for Old' policy and really don't know why peeps are getting so wound up with him!
A few of you got that? ... I expect so
Anyone also pay extra to have "new for old" on house contents?.. I expect so
Now, as I read it, the OP has bought a policy that will cover him for the difference between what (any) ins co will fork out for a hire car and the cost of a 'like for like' hire car. Not difficult!
No difference between his 'like for like 'policy and any GAP or 'New for Old' policy and really don't know why peeps are getting so wound up with him!
Edited by H6CJF on Saturday 15th November 11:10
k-ink 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?
Mr GTR has paid an additional £100 annual premium, so that covers the £500 per day extra GTR hire car charges. Oh, wait...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?
Oh wait!
There could very well be hundreds paying the small premium. However I suspect most of them would consider a "like for like" policy to equate to general car size, not the 0-60 or spec list, or badge etc, forcing an exact model replacement. Otherwise you would have Bugatti owners having a hissy fit not being given another Veyron.
I guess it comes down to where you draw the line with what you consider "like for like". To me "like" means similar / approximate, not identical.
I guess it comes down to where you draw the line with what you consider "like for like". To me "like" means similar / approximate, not identical.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why should the person who has worked hard for something have the pleasure of it removed through no fault of their own? and to suggest they would feel insecure if seen in a lesser car is insulting. He has worked hard to achieve what he wants in life and wants to continue to live that lifestyle despite the idiotic manouvres of another driver. What is wrong with that?I think all the "pushing up premiums" people have missed one of the key points here - the OP has already pushed up his premium, by paying extra for like-for-like cover. If he then doesn't use that cover, then by the same argument, he is subsidising everyone else's cover. So now that he is in a situation where he can use it, it seems wrong to suggest that he shouldn't - you're effectively saying that he should pay a charitable donation every year to the insurance pot.
I can understand if he wanted special arrangements to be made that required individual hire, but he only wants something from the same bracket. And in no way is a Mondeo the same bracket as a GTR.
I can understand if he wanted special arrangements to be made that required individual hire, but he only wants something from the same bracket. And in no way is a Mondeo the same bracket as a GTR.
k-ink said:
Of course the "teenage idiot" started this ball rolling. However from that point onwards the final costs could go either way.
For example victim A might be happy with a normal hire car and make no fuss. Whilst worst case scenario, victim B might fancy a premium hire car and suddenly decide they have a sore neck. The final costs will be very different for the same accident, entirely depending upon how the victim reacts. In the example of case B, we all get the pleasure of picking up the tab to cover the thousands of pounds shortfall.
Not that I am suggesting the OP will be claiming for unnecessary neck injuries just to punish the "teenage idiot". It is merely an example.
exactlyFor example victim A might be happy with a normal hire car and make no fuss. Whilst worst case scenario, victim B might fancy a premium hire car and suddenly decide they have a sore neck. The final costs will be very different for the same accident, entirely depending upon how the victim reacts. In the example of case B, we all get the pleasure of picking up the tab to cover the thousands of pounds shortfall.
Not that I am suggesting the OP will be claiming for unnecessary neck injuries just to punish the "teenage idiot". It is merely an example.
hence comments about mitigation of loss.
Very interesting read. I don't pay for like-for-like premium on my insurance and have a non fault accident few months back. Other party admitted 100% liability and was in company car so claimed on company policy.
I've got all the details, explained that I will be taking the car to BMW, called my insurance and let them sort it all out for me. I drive a E92 M3 and have not requested anything special but was offered a 2014 S Class. Pretty chuffed with that. Just got a letter saying case is finally closed as they have now recovered all costs and my NCD won't be affected. I didn't pay a penny and have no idea of what the total costs of the claim was except by guessing from the quote BMW gave.
However I do realise that this will put me into a higher risk category for then next renewal even though it's not something I could've avoided at all (car was parked/stationary in an almost empty company carpark when hit). Doesn't really matter though as the M3 was sold
I've got all the details, explained that I will be taking the car to BMW, called my insurance and let them sort it all out for me. I drive a E92 M3 and have not requested anything special but was offered a 2014 S Class. Pretty chuffed with that. Just got a letter saying case is finally closed as they have now recovered all costs and my NCD won't be affected. I didn't pay a penny and have no idea of what the total costs of the claim was except by guessing from the quote BMW gave.
However I do realise that this will put me into a higher risk category for then next renewal even though it's not something I could've avoided at all (car was parked/stationary in an almost empty company carpark when hit). Doesn't really matter though as the M3 was sold
The leasing cost comment completely changed my view.
If I was leasing a GTR for 36 months at a cost of £1000 odd a month I would not be happy to loosing a couple of months of that driving round in a bland Eco box while paying £1000 for the privilege. I'm sure it wouldn't take a legal genius to win a case against an insurer based on £1000 PCM to lease a GTR, £200pcm to lease a mondeo = an £800 loss PCM
If a car is owned outright a monthly cost over the course of ownership can be worked out and you have the same proof of loss as the person leasing.
Best of luck OP
If I was leasing a GTR for 36 months at a cost of £1000 odd a month I would not be happy to loosing a couple of months of that driving round in a bland Eco box while paying £1000 for the privilege. I'm sure it wouldn't take a legal genius to win a case against an insurer based on £1000 PCM to lease a GTR, £200pcm to lease a mondeo = an £800 loss PCM
If a car is owned outright a monthly cost over the course of ownership can be worked out and you have the same proof of loss as the person leasing.
Best of luck OP
Black_S3 said:
The leasing cost comment completely changed my view.
If I was leasing a GTR for 36 months at a cost of £1000 odd a month I would not be happy to loosing a couple of months of that driving round in a bland Eco box while paying £1000 for the privilege. I'm sure it wouldn't take a legal genius to win a case against an insurer based on £1000 PCM to lease a GTR, £200pcm to lease a mondeo = an £800 loss PCM
If a car is owned outright a monthly cost over the course of ownership can be worked out and you have the same proof of loss as the person leasing.
Best of luck OP
Why should it matter whether he is leasing it or paid for it outright, still the same car. The term of his insurance is like for like not monthly payment for monthly payment.If I was leasing a GTR for 36 months at a cost of £1000 odd a month I would not be happy to loosing a couple of months of that driving round in a bland Eco box while paying £1000 for the privilege. I'm sure it wouldn't take a legal genius to win a case against an insurer based on £1000 PCM to lease a GTR, £200pcm to lease a mondeo = an £800 loss PCM
If a car is owned outright a monthly cost over the course of ownership can be worked out and you have the same proof of loss as the person leasing.
Best of luck OP
J12KJR said:
Why should it matter whether he is leasing it or paid for it outright, still the same car. The term of his insurance is like for like not monthly payment for monthly payment.
I don't believe it matters. I just mentioned it as leasing is just the easiest way of visualising the monthly cost of car ownership and what made me change my thinking.Mave said:
I'm suggesting that there may be an arguement that if he turned up for a £M contract in a mondeo instead of a RR, maybe driving clients around between meetings, for golf, for a meal, then that may influence the outcome. If he can't make that arguement, then I see no reason to provide him with a RR as no loss would be incurred with the mondeo.
Out of interest, would you choose one potential client over another because he had a Mondeo rather than a Rolls-Royce?I would choose to do business with whoever was most suitable. One of my most reliable clients drives around in a '90s Vectra. It's not a reflection on his work ethic - it's a reflection on his lack of interest in cars.
I've happily accepted a lift in his old Vauxhall plenty of times.
Personally I would accept any hire car as long as it could meet my needs, although if like for like replacement was stipulated I think that the OP does have a right to it due to having paid for it.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Very well put but your argument is against a service the insurance company provide so have a go at them not someone who has chosen to avail themselves of that service.He has paid for it therefore he is entitled to it.
I wonder how much his insurance company would reduce his premium by if he said he didn't want a replacement car at all, I would hazard a guess of not much.
I don't think the OP comes across as someone who doesn't have sense of perspective on what is happening he is just looking to have his contract with the insurance company fulfilled. If someone purchases a designer label item of clothing but is sent out of the shop with a Tesco's own brand item they would want to have the error corrected, same with his level of insurance cover.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff