Has my insurer stolen my car???

[GrazedNConfused]

I have read we can cancel a claim at any stage as long as money hasn't changed hands.

Anyone with any info on this?

[Gallen]

I'd say you're in a very strong position regarding the settlement.

ie - you want XXX or YOUR car back.

[Black_S3]

GrazedNConfused said:

Are you suggesting I hold the GP insurers responsible for my insurers negligence?

No, I'm saying it's nothing to do with your insurers unless you want it to be... You have a financial loss that was caused by GP, GPs insurers are responsible for compensating you for all your losses caused as a result of GP driving into your car, including the full market value of your car.

A separate issue is that your insurers claims management department disposed of your car without approval & potentially the 10k diamond ring you were about to propose with in the glove box .... If imagine if their terms are that car was in their custody and the terms allowed them to dispose of the car they are responsible for everything that may have been in it.... They should not really be disposing of it until the claim is settled because at the point of the claim being settled the car likely becomes the property of GPs insurance....

Hope that makes sense.

Edited by Black_S3 on Friday 14th December 18:33

[berlintaxi]

GrazedNConfused said:

Don't want to put any identifiable info, but it's a small car, quite old, but with rediculously low mileage for its age, and very high spec list for its size/model. Hence the undervalued payout, you just can't get another like it for any money. And hence why I want it back and planned on keeping it for many years.

By the sound of it you should have gone for agreed value, you will need to demonstrate that equivalent spec'd models are selling for more than they have offered if you hope to get a bigger payout.

[GrazedNConfused]

Black_S3 said:

GrazedNConfused said:

Are you suggesting I hold the GP insurers responsible for my insurers negligence?

No, I'm saying it's nothing to do with your insurers unless you want it to be... You have a financial loss that was caused by GP, GPs insurers are responsible for compensating you for all your losses caused as a result of GP driving into your car, including the full market value of your car.

A separate issue is that your insurers claims management department disposed of your car without approval & potentially the 10k diamond ring you were about to propose with in the glove box

Hope that makes sense.

OK, so I cancel the claim with my insurers, and pursue GP's for market value. Then file a civil case against my insurers for negligence or conversion?

Edited by GrazedNConfused on Friday 14th December 19:23

[paintman]

Go & see a properly qualified & insured legal practitioner.

[GrazedNConfused]

Gallen said:

I'd say you're in a very strong position regarding the settlement.

ie - you want XXX or YOUR car back.

And in this case, XXX would be far higher than "maket value" as I would never sell it for that!

I would only have sold it if it gave me cash for a SIGNIFICANTLY upgraded replacement car.

And if your home is compulsory purchased to make way for a bypass, you don't just get market value, you are also compensated for your involuntary loss; inconvenience, emotional distress etc.

Surely the only way they can legitamise the transfer of the title to a third party now would be to purchase said title from me.

And my price would be XXX not market value.

Any thoughts?

[Bill]

That's not how it works. You were insured for market value, you will receive market value. They got rid because storing an old shed (no matter how loved...) costs money.

Go back to them pointing out that it's worth more due to the mileage and condition. Bank the new cheque and move on.

[XRMike]

GrazedNConfudsed said:

Lol, that's who sold the car, 2 weeks ago. Insurers are currently pointing the finger at them as the negligent party.

Copart receive instruction from the insurance companies. Copart will collect salvage and store it whilst the insurers settle the claim. I would honestly blame the insurance company because as far as your concerned they are dealing directly with you.

[paintman]

GrazedNConfused said:

And in this case, XXX would be far higher than "maket value" as I would never sell it for that!

I would only have sold it if it gave me cash for a SIGNIFICANTLY upgraded replacement car.

And if your home is compulsory purchased to make way for a bypass, you don't just get market value, you are also compensated for your involuntary loss; inconvenience, emotional distress etc.

Surely the only way they can legitamise the transfer of the title to a third party now would be to purchase said title from me.

And my price would be XXX not market value.

Any thoughts?

At the risk of being a stuck record go & get properly qualified legal advice. You will then know whether you have a realistic chance or not.

Unless you have an agreed value insurance in place for the car with a proper independent valuation as to it being of significantly higher value than a vehicle of that type & age then you are going to struggle with your assertion that it is 'far higher than market value'.

[Black_S3]

Before canceling the claim, speak to your insurers explain you are not happy with the amount they have negotiated from the GPs insurers so you want to go direct to them but you will need to provide the car to GPs insurance for them to compensate you for it.

Hopefully this will make them think oh st he can't do that as we got rid of his car and hopefully get them to start pushing GPs insurance to give you a better amount.... You definitely don't want to end up in a situation of nothing open with your claims management company(your insurance company) and no car to provide GPs insurers as it could go round in circles with them passing responsibility to the other.

[John Laverick]

I experienced a very similar situation with a non fault crashed motorbike .... they recovered it then sold it without discussion or agreement of replacement value.

When I found out (it contained some personal belongings too) I kicked up a MASSIVE fuss on the basis I had'nt agreed to anything.... it put me in a very strong negotiating position to agree a settlement figure.

[GrazedNConfused]

Bill said:

That's not how it works. You were insured for market value, you will receive market value. They got rid because storing an old shed (no matter how loved...) costs money.

Go back to them pointing out that it's worth more due to the mileage and condition. Bank the new cheque and move on.

If I cancel the claim how much I was insured for or market value is irrelevant.

The only thing of relevance is their inibility to return my car, a tort of conversion.

By your logic, if someone assaulted me and took my watch, if I got the watch back, I should move on. That's not how I work!

Edited by GrazedNConfused on Friday 14th December 20:58

[Black_S3]

GrazedNConfused said:

Bill said:

That's not how it works. You were insured for market value, you will receive market value. They got rid because storing an old shed (no matter how loved...) costs money.

Go back to them pointing out that it's worth more due to the mileage and condition. Bank the new cheque and move on.

If I cancel the claim how much I was insured for or market value is irrelevant.

The only thing of relevance is their inibility to return my car, a tort of conversion.

By your logic, if someone assaulted me and took my watch, if I got the watch back, I should move on. That's not how I work!

Edited by GrazedNConfused on Friday 14th December 20:58

What bill says would apply if it was a claim against your policy, with your insurers that you were at fault for..... Not the case here and the damage that technically covered for whatever the maximum payout on GPs policy states - 20 million possibly but you obviously will only get what you can prove you lost.... there are no terms and conditions agreed between you 3rd partys insurance company before he smashed into your car.... They just pay you to stop you taking the GP to court personally to get your compensation - and if you do take him to court they will pick up what it costs him. The only thing your insurance company are involved for is that you're using their claims management service hence why they could be a bit fked for getting rid of your car unless there's a term that allowed them, but if there was a term that allowed for that it would have to come with a responsibility towards your possessions in the car or it would likely be an unfair term.

Think of it like this, if your car was parked up uninsured and was written off by an a car insured with say admiral, admiral would still be paying out for your car & you have signed nothing with admiral that allows them to dictate to you what will happen.

Edited by Black_S3 on Friday 14th December 21:13

Edited by Black_S3 on Friday 14th December 21:16

[Bill]

GrazedNConfused said:

If I cancel the claim how much I was insured for or market value is irrelevant.

The only thing of relevance is their inibility to return my car, a tort of conversion.

By your logic, if someone assaulted me and took my watch, if I got the watch back, I should move on. That's not how I work!

Edited by GrazedNConfused on Friday 14th December 20:58

They owe you your car. Or its value. That's what you'll get.

Good luck.

[Black_S3]

Bill said:

They owe you your car. Or its value. That's what you'll get.

Good luck.

It may well be what he gets but it is not what ''they owe'' him.

Re the comment you made getting rid of the car because it's an old shed and storing cars costs money... The bill for the storage is something GPs insurance company would be expected to pay - he has no contract with them so they couldn't request it gone without him agreeing. His insurers for some reason ditched his car before the claim was settled & they had no reason to because they were not covering the cost of storage, unless both were insured by the same (in which case they've royally screwed up by acting in their own interest not their clients)....

[Bill]

The third party insurers don't owe him anything his own wouldn't. Yes, they shouldn't have got rid of his car. But they did. It's just a car with a value. Establish the value, accept the cheque and move on.

[Black_S3]

Bill said:

The third party insurers don't owe him anything his own wouldn't. Yes, they shouldn't have got rid of his car. But they did. It's just a car with a value. Establish the value, accept the cheque and move on.

Slightly wrong... His insurers got him to agree to terms and conditions (like payout will be market value only, cover for possessions capped at around £200 etc etc) when he took out the policy, the lot who are responsible for picking up the tab for the GPs crash can't start dictating terms and conditions to random members of the public and have to compensate him in line with UK law without the benefit of any clauses or restrictions.

Edited by Black_S3 on Friday 14th December 22:00

[Bill]

Yes. They should compensate him for his loss. No more, no less.

His loss is the value of his car. Soz, I know he likes it, but that's the way it is.

[Black_S3]

Bill said:

His loss is the value of his car. Soz, I know he likes it, but that's the way it is.

Correct.... But what is that value? A value they choose? Market value based on? A value he chooses? pre Agreed value... wait he never got the chance to pick that did he?....