Insurance question
Discussion
Apologies in advance this has probably been done to death.
A friend has had a minor accident she feels it wasn’t her fault she was in the centre lane at a junction / roundabout going straight on, someone on the near side lane wanted to turn right and turned into her. (Across two lanes)
This has done minor damage bumper and wing but unfortunately the door doesn’t open because the wing has pushed back slightly and overlaps.
She has spoken to the insurence who understandably won’t repair until third party admits liability, however they won’t let her pull the wing out so the door will open so she is unable to use car for an undetermined time. Am I wrong in thing that would be reasonable request if she offered to take photos before or get it examined?
Am I right in thinking that if she authorises repair and pays excess the insurance company won’t claim that back from the third party as it’s an uninsured loss?
Thoughts please?
A friend has had a minor accident she feels it wasn’t her fault she was in the centre lane at a junction / roundabout going straight on, someone on the near side lane wanted to turn right and turned into her. (Across two lanes)
This has done minor damage bumper and wing but unfortunately the door doesn’t open because the wing has pushed back slightly and overlaps.
She has spoken to the insurence who understandably won’t repair until third party admits liability, however they won’t let her pull the wing out so the door will open so she is unable to use car for an undetermined time. Am I wrong in thing that would be reasonable request if she offered to take photos before or get it examined?
Am I right in thinking that if she authorises repair and pays excess the insurance company won’t claim that back from the third party as it’s an uninsured loss?
Thoughts please?
Presumably she doesn’t have full comp insurance?
As it would be unsafe to carry a passenger being unable to open the door then it’s normally accepted by insurers that you make emergency repairs to minimise your loss (so would they rather you did that than rent a car until it goes in for repair). I replaced a rear light cluster so the car was legal, no problem in getting paid for it.
As it would be unsafe to carry a passenger being unable to open the door then it’s normally accepted by insurers that you make emergency repairs to minimise your loss (so would they rather you did that than rent a car until it goes in for repair). I replaced a rear light cluster so the car was legal, no problem in getting paid for it.
MGB3405 said:
She has spoken to the insurence who understandably won’t repair until third party admits liability, however they won’t let her pull the wing out so the door will open so she is unable to use car for an undetermined time.
If she has comp cover, they should repair her car regardless of liability. If she has tp cover, they won't get involved in repairing her car regardless of liability. So somewhere along the line, she has her wired crossed.
Unless she's spoke to the other parties insurance company? In which case she doesn't have a contract with them and they cannot tell her what she can and can't do.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
MGB3405 said:
She is fully comp but they are saying that the excess is an uninsured loss?
OK, that's correct. Is the excess more than the cost of repair? Hi thanks for you help so far; update is the insurance is fully comp; but they are saying that she can’t get the door to open but are a bit vague why. They ha e now offered to repair under fully comp but won’t claim the excess back if she pays it. Surprisingly third party won’t answer phone to insurance company despite admitting full liability at the time
MGB3405 said:
Hi thanks for you help so far; update is the insurance is fully comp; but they are saying that she can’t get the door to open but are a bit vague why. They ha e now offered to repair under fully comp but won’t claim the excess back if she pays it. Surprisingly third party won’t answer phone to insurance company despite admitting full liability at the time
The insurance company doesn't claim the excess back - the insured does.So she pays the excess and sends proof to the third party - if they accept liability they pay, if they don't she either sucks it up or sues them for it. It's a very straightforward process.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 17th January 22:47
desolate said:
MGB3405 said:
Sorry if this ends up as knock for knock and she doesn’t get her car repaired will she loose no claims?
If her insurance company repair her car yes.If she withdraws the claim, no.
Red Devil said:
desolate said:
MGB3405 said:
Sorry if this ends up as knock for knock and she doesn’t get her car repaired will she loose no claims?
If her insurance company repair her car yes.If she withdraws the claim, no.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Friday 19th January 16:24
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Red Devil said:
desolate said:
MGB3405 said:
Sorry if this ends up as knock for knock and she doesn’t get her car repaired will she loose no claims?
If her insurance company repair her car yes.If she withdraws the claim, no.
Knock for knock was a (now defunct) agreement between insurance companies not to pursue each other for costs, regardless of which driver was to blame for particular accidents.
A split liability settlement occurs when both parties are held to share blame for an accident (or sometimes when it's impossible to prove who was to blame). So a 50/50 settlement would mean that each insurer pays half of the total costs.
The two sound the same at first which is why people confuse them, but actually they're very different beasts. Imagine you're driving a Ford Focus and you collide with a Ferrari, writing both cars off. Under knock for knock your insurer would be paying for a Ford Focus. Under 50/50 they'd be paying for half a Focus, and half a Ferrari.
As above under a 50/50 settlement even if she doesn't claim for her own car, her insurer would still be on the hook for for half of the damage to the other car, so that will affect her NCD. If the damage to the other car is minor it may be worth asking if she can reimburse her insurer their costs and "buy back" her NCD. Alternatively if she does get the car fixed, she'd be able to claim half the excess from the third party insurer.
AlwynMike said:
...And in any case, she has reported the accident, so her Insurers will re-rate her premiums for the next 5 years or so.
Irrespective of who was at fault - although if it wasn't, then her premiums won't go up by the same amount.
Might, not will. Irrespective of who was at fault - although if it wasn't, then her premiums won't go up by the same amount.
Some insurers aren't bothered by a single non fault claim. Depending on age/vehicle/area and other factors, even a fault claim may have little or no effect. Others ramp up premiums regardless.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff