Someone crashed into my car today

[lufbramatt]

MJK 24 said:

750turbo said:

sandman77 said:

The Beetle is an 02 plate so I don't imagine it will take much to write it off.

Insurance wise possibly, easy fix though.

Easy fix? A new rear quarter?!

It's probably worth about £2000? That rear quarter panel goes along the side of the roof and down the A-pillar. Once you've cut that out, welded a new one in, resprayed it and sorted the rear arch that's going to be Cat D territory I expect.

[750turbo]

lufbramatt said:

It's probably worth about £2000? That rear quarter panel goes along the side of the roof and down the A-pillar. Once you've cut that out, welded a new one in, resprayed it and sorted the rear arch that's going to be Cat D territory I expect.

Panels can be pulled and repaired, takes a decent tradesman, that is all.

(If we still have them now )

[stewy68]

On the brighter side, it's one less Beetle on the road.

[Jim AK]

I think Beetle will be a total loss. Apart from the body repairs there will probably be airbags & seatbelt tensioners that are recommended to be replaced even if they had not deployed.

I have also noticed on some cars instruction denoting a 10 year replacement of these items. Bit like they say with marine flares.

Methinks Mr Beetle is probably getting the silent treatment tonight!

[Alfahorn]

750turbo said:

lufbramatt said:

It's probably worth about £2000? That rear quarter panel goes along the side of the roof and down the A-pillar. Once you've cut that out, welded a new one in, resprayed it and sorted the rear arch that's going to be Cat D territory I expect.

Panels can be pulled and repaired, takes a decent tradesman, that is all.

(If we still have them now )

It takes too long, easier to replace than repair.

[750turbo]

Alfahorn said:

It takes too long, easier to replace than repair.

No it doesn't.

Let us agree to differ, time for a beer!

[Sensibleboy]

lufbramatt said:

It's probably worth about £2000? That rear quarter panel goes along the side of the roof and down the A-pillar. Once you've cut that out, welded a new one in, resprayed it and sorted the rear arch that's going to be Cat D territory I expect.

Most rear quarters aren't like the originals from the factory. They are repair sections and don't go all the way to the A-pillar.

[Clivey]

sandman77 said:

He did say it was his wife's car. Anyway I can talk - I drive a boxster

Actually, on a serious note, anyone dismissing the Boxster that way is very short-sighted IMO.

poing said:

I believe someone on here managed to claim for that as part of the settlement though because they argued that the point of insurance is not to leave you worse off so he wanted the difference back to cover the increased premiums for the next few years.

I'm very interested to hear if you can do this!

[SMcP114]

750turbo said:

Christ! The Saab came off well there OP.

The Beetle will not be a write off though, looks fairly cosmetic. (IMO)

That's an insurance write off, no question.

[sparks_E39]

That Beetle will be written off, no doubt about that.

[poing]

Clivey said:

poing said:

I believe someone on here managed to claim for that as part of the settlement though because they argued that the point of insurance is not to leave you worse off so he wanted the difference back to cover the increased premiums for the next few years.

I'm very interested to hear if you can do this!

Confirmed by this person and advice on how to do it: (I'll be doing it if I ever have another non fault claim)

yellowtang said:

You can indeed claim for the increase in premium. There is case law to support this - speak to your insurer appointed solicitors.

[blank]

Would you actually see an increase in premium?

The usual questions are:

Have you made any claims? I assumed this was on your own policy? So if you claim off Mr Beetle then it's a no?

Have you had any accidents? The car did, but you didn't.

Depends on the wording of the questions I guess...

[LoonR1]

yellowtang said:

You can indeed claim for the increase in premium. There is case law to support this - speak to your insurer appointed solicitors.

Please, please,please show me this case law. I've yet to see one of these bullst comments ever have any substance. I know it's BS, but I do like to see people trying to find this. You've stated case law, now find it.

[LoonR1]

mini1380cc said:

Unfortunately he will be stung regardless of where the claim lies. Through no fault of your own the renewal will go up because he will now be considered a higher risk. Its a terrible situation to accept.

And completely untrue. Some insurers may increase premium, some don't, as per the posters above and some even reduce it. Don't let that stop you perpetuating an Urban Myth though.

On a full moon, many people turn into wolves.

[robdcfc]

750turbo said:

lufbramatt said:

It's probably worth about £2000? That rear quarter panel goes along the side of the roof and down the A-pillar. Once you've cut that out, welded a new one in, resprayed it and sorted the rear arch that's going to be Cat D territory I expect.

Panels can be pulled and repaired, takes a decent tradesman, that is all.

(If we still have them now )

Im a decent tradesman and that's a write off!

First guess would be circa 3.5k to repair.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

LoonR1 said:

yellowtang said:

You can indeed claim for the increase in premium. There is case law to support this - speak to your insurer appointed solicitors.

Please, please,please show me this case law. I've yet to see one of these bullst comments ever have any substance. I know it's BS, but I do like to see people trying to find this. You've stated case law, now find it.

Someone said this on PH before, but when the full story emerged, there was no case law at all to support it, but just an error made by tp insurers.

So I too would be interested in seeing case law, because I don't believe it exists.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

mini1380cc said:

Unfortunately he will be stung regardless of where the claim lies. Through no fault of your own the renewal will go up because he will now be considered a higher risk. Its a terrible situation to accept.

A) That's not true. Some charge for a non fault accident, some don't. Why come on here and post stuff like this when it just isn't true.

B) The OP is a higher risk. From the first post, we've learnt that despite having a driveway, he kept his car on the road because he thought he'd move it on to the drive later. He couldn't be bothered to move the existing car that was on the driveway back. Another person, seeing that it was icy, may well have put the effort in to get both cars on the driveway straight away. The OP was willing to take an unnecessary risk for the sake of convenience. That makes him a higher risk for the future. The next car that hits him might drive off leaving the OP's insurers to pick up the bill. That's why some insurers charge for non fault claims.

[HannsG]

Is that a TTID? My wife has the exact same car. Thise lights on the saab are VERY tough. Beetle must have been doing some speed!

[LoonR1]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Someone said this on PH before, but when the full story emerged, there was no case law at all to support it, but just an error made by tp insurers.

So I too would be interested in seeing case law, because I don't believe it exists.

The nearest I saw was someone complaining to their own insurers about the hike (Admiral I think) who decided to make an ex gratis payment to get him to go away. Nothing at all to do with claiming from the other side and a duffexample if ever there was one.

[Clivey]

LoonR1 said:

The nearest I saw was someone complaining to their own insurers about the hike (Admiral I think) who decided to make an ex gratis payment to get him to go away. Nothing at all to do with claiming from the other side and a duffexample if ever there was one.

The question we need to ask is: Should you be able to claim for increased insurance costs from the party responsible? To me this:

poing said:

I believe someone on here managed to claim for that as part of the settlement though because they argued that the point of insurance is not to leave you worse off so he wanted the difference back to cover the increased premiums for the next few years.

makes sense. - It's not the OP's fault that someone crashed into his car so why should he, rather than the person who crashed, have to pay the increase in premium that may result?