You have two sets of entitlements if the incident was the other party's fault. But you only have one set of entitlements, under TORT law. If the incident is your fault, then you are bound by contract. Under Tort law, you have the entitlement to be put back in the situation you were in prior to the incident. This is covered here fenchurchlaw.co.uk/coles-v-hetherton-implications-.../

In the contract it should say, "we ascertain the market value as being one by which you should be able to replace your car for one of the same make model year and condition and mileage as to the one you had." Now here is the con, should you raise a complaint and take this to the Financial Ombudsman Service, they do not take examples in the market place into consideration, they only refer to the Guides used in the industry. These being Glass Guide, CAP motor research and occasionally Parkers. The FOS compare them, and the version that stands out as being different than the other two, they dismiss. Should you take this to court, they DO take examples in the market place as evidence, as they look at the contract wording.
Your insurer CAN make adjustments for condition, if they have deducted £1250, this is usually 50 per cent of the cost to put your car back to "retailable" condition (i.e. the highest value). This is not damage that would "polish out". Contact the Insurer ( I am confident I know exactly who they are) and ask them for a full engineer's copy of their Audatex Report. Use this exact wording. This will show how they have adjusted the value for condition. Then also ask them for a screen print of their Glass guide. You will then know where you stand.