Is this normal? - Retrieving Excess

[Alex_225]

I've had a couple of posts on here following an accident my other half was involved in last year. Her Merc ML was rear ended by a transporter lorry and written off.

Transpires that despite the claim being settled back in January, it took a phone call in March to find that out as they hadn't bothered to tell us. Fortunately it ruled in her favour as well it should have.

Here's the thing, is it normal to have to contact the third party's insurance yourself to retrieve your £600 excess? I have never heard of this happening. They're saying that as she doesn't have the legal cover option, that she has to speak to them herself and retrieve it but, 'It's ok, they'll have all the details'.

I may just be totally naive but I can't help thinking it's cr*ppy that they put the claim in for literally the amount they wanted to cover the claim, despite having paid the excess to her insurance!

For additional info, the car was written off and the excess was paid directly to Esure.

Edited by Alex_225 on Monday 11th April 14:33

[carl_w]

Surely if the car is written off they should be paying you money, not the other way round. They deduct the excess from the settlement figure and yes it is then up to you to recover your uninsured loss from the third party's insurers.

[KungFuPanda]

An excess is an uninsured loss. At the inception of your policy, you agreed the first £X of any claim would be borne by you and not by your insurer in exchange for a cheaper premium.

In the event of a claim from a third party, you’re left to
your own devices to seek recovery of the excess.

[Muzzer79]

As stated above, if you don't have legal cover with your policy then it's up to you to claim your uninsured losses - in this case, your excess.

[deckster]

Just one of the reasons to go direct to the third party's insurers rather than involving your own.

[2Btoo]

Muzzer79 said:

As stated above, if you don't have legal cover with your policy then it's up to you to claim your uninsured losses - in this case, your excess.

As Muzzer said.

The other insurance company may be sticky about paying so you may need to be firm with them. If push comes to shove then I think you need to issue against the other driver to force them into action.

[Countdown]

Alex_225 said:

I've had a couple of posts on here following an accident my other half was involved in last year. Her Merc ML was rear ended by a transporter lorry and written off.

Transpires that despite the claim being settled back in January, it took a phone call in March to find that out as they hadn't bothered to tell us. Fortunately it ruled in her favour as well it should have.

Here's the thing, is it normal to have to contact the third party's insurance yourself to retrieve your £600 excess? I have never heard of this happening. They're saying that as she doesn't have the legal cover option, that she has to speak to them herself and retrieve it but, 'It's ok, they'll have all the details'.

I may just be totally naive but I can't help thinking it's cr*ppy that they put the claim in for literally the amount they wanted to cover the claim, despite having paid the excess to her insurance!

For additional info, the car was written off and the excess was paid directly to Esure.

Edited by Alex_225 on Monday 11th April 14:33

That seems odd to me. Why would your insurance company only claim for the losses they suffered?

[Alex_225]

Countdown said:

That seems odd to me. Why would your insurance company only claim for the losses they suffered?

Well I did find that baffling. They paid out on our car quickly as you’d imagine, the cost of the courtesy car etc. was all claimed off the third party.

Odd they wouldn’t put the extra £600 on that claim and hand it over to us.

It seems from the info on here that, that’s not the case so we’ll argue that one out. Let’s hope it’s not too much hassle.

Thanks for the info guys.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Countdown said:

That seems odd to me. Why would your insurance company only claim for the losses they suffered?

Well why would they claim for losses they hadn't suffered? If a car drove into your car and your neighbour's car, you'd contact their insurer and ask them to pay for your damage. You'd be a bit miffed if your neighbour said "well you might have asked them to pay for my losses at the same time".

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Alex_225 said:

For additional info, the car was written off and the excess was paid directly to Esure.

Edited by Alex_225 on Monday 11th April 14:33

Nothing was paid to Esure. They just deducted the £600 excess from your pay out, because when you took out the policy, you agreed to be responsible for the first £600 of any loss.

In the absence of legal cover, it's your job to get that back from the person who caused you to suffer that loss (or their insurers).

[dibblecorse]

Alex_225 said:

Countdown said:

That seems odd to me. Why would your insurance company only claim for the losses they suffered?

Well I did find that baffling. They paid out on our car quickly as you’d imagine, the cost of the courtesy car etc. was all claimed off the third party.

Odd they wouldn’t put the extra £600 on that claim and hand it over to us.

It seems from the info on here that, that’s not the case so we’ll argue that one out. Let’s hope it’s not too much hassle.

Thanks for the info guys.

They only claimed for their losses as per their contract with the OP, they have not insured his excess and therfore its not somehing they can claim.

To the OP, its uninsured and as has been mentioned its down to you to get it back, you chose the policy with the excess and chose not to take legal cover when offered, this is a situation you agreed to potentially be in.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

2Btoo said:

The other insurance company may be sticky about paying .

I doubt it. They've accepted responsibility, and have paid Esure £600 below market value (which is what Esure paid the OP). So they should have no issue no paying the remaining £600 to the OP.

[Countdown]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Countdown said:

That seems odd to me. Why would your insurance company only claim for the losses they suffered?

Well why would they claim for losses they hadn't suffered? If a car drove into your car and your neighbour's car, you'd contact their insurer and ask them to pay for your damage. You'd be a bit miffed if your neighbour said "well you might have asked them to pay for my losses at the same time".

If it's only losses that they have suffered then why bother paying out for the OP's car? Why not tell the OP to chase the 3rd party insurers for the full costs?

if there is a 3rd party that's admitted liability surely it makes more sense for the Insurance Company to recover all the outlay at once rather than only recovering their own and expecting the OP to chase for his separately.

[Muzzer79]

Countdown said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Countdown said:

That seems odd to me. Why would your insurance company only claim for the losses they suffered?

Well why would they claim for losses they hadn't suffered? If a car drove into your car and your neighbour's car, you'd contact their insurer and ask them to pay for your damage. You'd be a bit miffed if your neighbour said "well you might have asked them to pay for my losses at the same time".

If it's only losses that they have suffered then why bother paying out for the OP's car? Why not tell the OP to chase the 3rd party insurers for the full costs?

if there is a 3rd party that's admitted liability surely it makes more sense for the Insurance Company to recover all the outlay at once rather than only recovering their own and expecting the OP to chase for his separately.

The car (well, the value of it) was insured, hence the OP’s insurance company paid out for it.

But the first £600 of the claim wasn’t insured, because it was excess, therefore the insurance company have no interest in recovering it.

[Gary C]

Why would the OP's insurance have anything to do with the claim ?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Countdown said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Countdown said:

That seems odd to me. Why would your insurance company only claim for the losses they suffered?

Well why would they claim for losses they hadn't suffered? If a car drove into your car and your neighbour's car, you'd contact their insurer and ask them to pay for your damage. You'd be a bit miffed if your neighbour said "well you might have asked them to pay for my losses at the same time".

If it's only losses that they have suffered then why bother paying out for the OP's car? Why not tell the OP to chase the 3rd party insurers for the full costs?

Because they are contractually obliged to pay out for the OP's car. And having done that, they have a loss to recover from the TP or their insurers.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Gary C said:

Why would the OP's insurance have anything to do with the claim ?

Because the OP has comp cover and he's claimed off his own policy, as he is entitled to do under the contract he has with them.

[Gary C]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Gary C said:

Why would the OP's insurance have anything to do with the claim ?

Because the OP has comp cover and he's claimed off his own policy, as he is entitled to do under the contract he has with them.

and thus the ensuing pain.

[Sheepshanks]

Insurers don’t all do this - both non-fault claims we’ve put through our own insurance with LV=, including the write off of daughter’s car by an Argos van, they’ve waived the excess.

As for going direct to the third party, it can be awkward if there are issues with repairs as you have no contractural relationship with the other insurer. In the Argos case, their insurer wouldn’t respond until LV= started legal action.

Surely the point of fully comp is to choose a decent insurer and let them take care of it?

[carl_w]

Sheepshanks said:

Insurers don’t all do this - both non-fault claims we’ve put through our own insurance with LV=, including the write off of daughter’s car by an Argos van, they’ve waived the excess.

Presumably that policy came with Motor Legal Protection?