Last week on the eve of its MOT, daughter's beloved Visa was rear-ended by a Toyota Starlet, of all things. By hitting the offside corner it pushed the bumper under and buckled the boot floor and offside rear wing which is part of the bodyshell. After judicious use of a tow rope and a gate post, the bumper was heaved back from the tyre and it passed its MOT next day with flying colours since only the reversing light was cracked.
Trouble is what to now because, although the guilty party has held her hands up and her insurance company accepts full responsibility, the cost of repair is probably considerably more than the car is worth. Daughter reported the accident to her insurance company (Tesco), which said it would handle everything, got it assessed next day and it was deemed by them a total loss. The other insurance company has now rung her and said we will do everything too and don't bother pursuing through Tesco. If their own assessor writes the car off next week, they will pay "market value" and she can keep the car.
My concern for her is that if she carries on with the claim through her own insurance company then there is a risk they will dock her no claim discount if they don't get everything back to their satisfaction. If she goes with the other insurance company (Zurich, so quite respectable) then she need only declare the accident on a renewal and that her costs were recovered. I presume Zurich would rather not involve another insurance company because the administration costs will be higher.
What's the best option here? Deal direct with Zurich or let Tesco handle it using the legal expenses cover she took out?
I know there is an argument that she should be put back in the position she was in before the accident but realistically the chances of finding new Visa rear wing repair parts (it's part of the bodyshell which has buckled slightly) are somewhat remote. If "market value" is more than a derisory £100, she doesn't mind too much driving it around for the next 12 months once it's had a hammer applied here and there.
Thanks
David
|
>the guilty party has held her hands up and her insurance company accepts full responsibility,
>the cost of repair is probably considerably more than the car is worth.
>Daughter reported the accident to her insurance company (Tesco), which said it would handle everything, got it assessed next day and it was deemed
>by them a total loss.
>The other insurance company has now rung her and said we will do everything too and don't bother pursuing through Tesco. If their own assessor
>writes the car off next week, they will pay "market value" and she can keep the car.
There are risks for either of the two alternatives you are thinking of, but I could do with a little more information first.
There is something here I don`t understand.
What cover does your daugher have, comprehensive ? If so, what is the excess amount ?
Are you sure it was the other insurance company that spoke to you, it seems unusual and perhaps unlikely. Was it a broker or someone totally other ? Did you get a telephone number, and have you ever called it back ? Who did you get ?
Is it at all possible there is something iffy with the other person's insurance ?
>I presume Zurich would rather not involve another insurance company because the administration costs will be higher.
No. There is something else, although difficult to say what.
Given the slight smell to this, my first reaction would be that she should let it be handled by her own insurance company and only to get involved to make sure the excess is claimed back.
When is her renewal ?
Don`t forget also, that if Tescos pay for a write-off (whoever the underwriter is) it is likely that the policy will be cancelled potentially losing whatever bonus may have been earned next year. You need to know the underwriter's approach to a policy with a total loss payout.
|
Mark
To answer your points. She took out a comprehensive policy because it was only £2 a month extra and gave her slightly more cover (ie full windscreen) but on reading the small print now I find that she has a £250 under 25 excess as well as the £150 we knew about. Comprehensive was therefore a total luxury on a car worth less than the excess!
Zurich (from Cardiff) first got in touch with her and gave her a claim reference, said they would accept full responsibility and were putting it in the hands of their agents, a company called Lumacare, and that Zurich would cover any repairs and courtesy vehicle. Lumacare then called when she was out and repeated the responsibility story to me, gave a reference number of their own and a London call center number. Daughter rang them back OK and was given the same story but the woman this time told her that it was likely that a D-registration car would be regarded as a total loss and she would receive "market value" plus probably keep the car. Daughter mentioned telling her company and was told there was no need to involve them further because it could affect her excesses. The car hasn't been inspected yet because of the Bank Holiday here.
On top of this, the Tesco legal expenses solicitor has just written to her saying they will deal with an uninsured loss claim BUT their wording suggests they want to ensure that Tesco gets all its costs back which is the bit that rang alarm bells with me. Daughter is just coming to the end of her first year with her own insurance in June after three years of driving as a named driver while she was at university. She doesn't want to be hit with losing even just one year because of a no-fault claim which isn't fully agreed between the two insurance companies. It would be simpler for her future insurance history as a young driver just to forget the insurance claim if there is doubt and try to cut a private deal with the other driver.
To be fair, both insurance companies appear keen to sort it out but I'm not convinced they are doing so necessarily to the innocent party's best advantage, hence the query about who she should deal with primarily. I note the point about policy cancellation which inclines me to move away from the Tesco option and let Zurich handle it.
David
|
|
|
|
You say you have legal expenses cover.
let them deal with the claim but insist that the car is repaired.
I have been in a similar position and it works.
You should not lose out because of other's negligence.
|
|
|
The first thing is, if you withdraw the claim from Tesco, they will not accept it back again in the future if something goes wrong.
Insurance companies do not like claims being withdrawn. Essentially because they never know when an liability claim is going to pop out of nowhere, even when they were told there were no injuries involved. However, it is your right and you can insist. They may well insist that a claim form is completed anyway, which they are able to do. Make sure you write all over it that it is for information only and a copy of the withdrawal letter is attached, if the claim has already been started.
You would have to withdraw it completely, which would probably mean no assistance from the Legal Expenses policy either. Hopefully they have not actually started work, since if they have the could require payment of costs in order to withdraw the claim. This would not be likely from the car insurer, but some of these Uninsured Loss companies can be pretty picky.
By the way, I have little time for the uninsured loss policies. They do little other than save you some admin time, they don`t normally fight these things very hard, and gain you little advantage. However, that is my perwsonally opinion and your mileage may differ.
Having withdrawn it, then she would retain her insurance and her bonus. She would have to declare the incident, but as she will be not at fault and recovering her losses elsewhere, that is unlikely to be an issue.
Then you have to set about getting her losses back and the car repaired/replaced/whatever.
Firstly, you need to get Zurich's opinion in writing from them. I doubt if you will get it, and if you do it won't be very quick. It is already strange that they have admitted liability. I suspect that may be misinterpretation.. Typically even when they make a payment it is made without prejudice thus, even then, avoiding them having to accept liability.
Detail the claim, send it to them.
When they have paid you, make sure that you send a copy of the settlement letter to your insurance company to complete their records and further try to ensure that there are no future problems.
(by the way, a little while ago I wrote a long reply about choosing your cover. If you can search and find it, it is worth reading. It would have prevented your unneccessary comprehensive cover and warned you about size of excesses)
However, do remember that you are taking a risk. And if Zurich, for whatever reason, either do not pay the claim, or don't pay the whole claim, then you will receive no support from your daughter's policies.
If it was me, I would probably withdraw the claim - but then I wouldn't have had comprehensive and uninsured loss insurance in the first place. Tesco (and by the way, who is it underwritten by ?) will disallow her NCD if they so much as lose $1 or if they try to recover her unisnured losses and fail by so much as $1.
Do be prepared to sit on it, progress it and chase it all the time. It is important that you don`t allow them to lose steam.
It is far more important to your daughter's NCD and future insurance that you get a payout, then it is the size of that payout - which is something to bear in mind.
Is that sufficient comment ? Please feel free to ask if you need more.
Mark.
|
Mark
Thanks. Some useful things to clarify this week from what you have written. I assume the call centres involved tape their conversations and I don't believe either of them qualified the admission of responsibility (Zurich) or full liability (their agent). Unfortunately the calls were not on my business line or I would have also recorded them on my hard drive.
FYI Tesco's policy is issued by a company called UK Insurance. There were a couple of minor reasons for going comprehensive if I recall correctly but mainly it was because there was little difference in cost. It was an internet transaction and the under 25 excess was not highlighted in that transaction although I'm sure it would have been in the terms and conditions which were available but listed separately from the proposal pages. That will be watched in future.
Regards
David
|
|
|
|
|
p.s. if she gets a temporary car she has a duty to minimise her losses. Make sure she gets something small and cheap to rent.
|
Mark,
interesting point there.
If a £150K Bentley Red Label gets bent at 'no fault' does the owner have to rent a Nissan Micra while it's off the road ?
Kevin...
|
|
|
|
>If a £150K Bentley Red Label gets bent at 'no fault' does the owner have to
>rent a Nissan Micra while it's off the road ?
No, probably not. On the other hand, he probably wouldn't get away with renting a Bentley either.
It is all around your duty to minimise your losses. IF you could show that you *needed* to drive the Bntley, and you would have to prove it, then you'd be ok. But if a 7 Series would have been enough, but you rented a Bentley anyway, then the Insurance Company might get silly about it.
It is not by the same logic as claim settlement, which is intended to return you to the same position as before the accident, this other expenses and not related.
It is not usually acceptable to have your Vectra Top-of-the-range damaged and off the road, and to therefore hire another Vectra t-o-t-r when a 1.6L would have done.
If every in doubt, always hire a car slightly "less" than your own.
|
|
|
I think you are being a bit too suspicious of Zurich, they are just facing reality. Their Insured has reported to them that he has driven into another car. so being proactive they contact you, offer to collect your car, provide courtesy car, repair your car and return it. In short, keep you sweet and keep costs down by using their own repairer. I appreciate your car won't be repaired, but don't knock an insurance company that is trying to do the right thing.
Colleague at work had her 10 year old Micra 'rear-ended' by a Zurich policy holder. The above happened and in less than a fortnight, she had her car back repaired.
|
|
|
And you may well be right, however insurance compaies are typically suspicous of their own insured person.
The main reason that they do not accept liability [normally] is because they never believe that their own insured has told them the whole story, or the accurate story. And they have tons of evidence for supporting this point of view.
Zurich may well be trying to do the right thing, the concern would be about burning bridges, rather than disbelief.
For example, David's daughter has the accident. The other party submits a claim form. Zurich assure David's daughter of their best intentions. Then Zurich notice that there is a discrepancy, perhaps something leading them to believe that the car was being used for business on an SD&P policy.
They write to their insured to clarify. He never responds. Zurich will stop dealing with the claim until he responds. D's D is in trouble because Zurich won't deal and she has withdrawn her own claim from Tesco.
Its better to be careful.
|
|
|
|
Accepting that you have to minimise your losses, you really shouldn't have to put up with less than you need. Last year I hired a Volvo V70 to replace a Saab 9000 following an no fault accident on the basis that I needed to get a large family to Cornwall on hols. Not a murmur from the other party's insurers.
|
|
|
they didn't complain because..
>on the basis that I NEEDED to get a large family to Cornwall on hols
However, I assure you that sometimes they will. And typically after the even when it comes to paying for it.
It is, as you say, the difference between what you want and what you need.
|
David,
Don't forget to let us know how you get on.....
Mark.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave, not being funney here, but as the car WAS worth virtually nothing, and is NOW worth virtually nothing, is there any point in pursuing this? I know there's principals at stake, but with the risk of no claims bonus, record on insurance co. files etc, surely the most you have to gain is a modest amount for the car. And knowing insurance company's valuations, that won't be much. Personally, I wouldn't have even bothered contacting my insurance company as they keep these things on record, even if there is no claim, and this then has to be declared next time you change insurers, then they want an explanation, and it all gets messy.
|
Dave, not being funney here, but as the car WAS worth virtually nothing, and is NOW worth virtually nothing, is there any point in pursuing this?
I agree, I am sick of spouting my claims history and cannot wait untill the 3/4/5 years or what ever is up so i can say no claims / convictions etc and stop being treated like a something you have sc***ed off your shoe. Cancel the claim and approach the 3rd party asking for £100 or some token amount to make it go away, and then get on with your life.
|
|
So, David, I am interested in how its going.....
|
Mark
Slowly....the assessor from Zurich 'We accept all responsibility for our client' Insurance turned up today about two weeks on and spent roughly two minutes before admitting it was a foregone conclusion that the car would be written off because of age and low value.
More waiting now. For interest, have left Tesco (daughter's insurance company) to carry on with whatever they are doing but no further communication from them since they had their assessment two days after the accident.
Coincidentally, the minibus I was travelling in on a visit to Germany was rear-ended by a new Mercedes S-class in the queue for a railway level crossing. S-class struck the tow hitch and punctured radiator and something else that spilled what appeared to be a hydraulic or other clean oil on the road. I couldn't help but feel sorry for the early 20's driver who was nearly in tears as he contemplated explaining to Dad why the Merc was coming home on a trailer. Our accident 'specialist' on the 'bus explained the tow equipment had performed as it should by crumpling under and deforming under the rear doors which still opened and closed.
Will keep the thread posted on any progress or otherwise.
David
|
Slowly....the assessor from Zurich 'We accept all responsibility for our client' Insurance turned up today about two weeks on and spent roughly two minutes before admitting it was a foregone conclusion that the car would be written off because of age and low value.
And people accuse young drivers of pushing up primiums.... is this not a waste of everybodys time and money, for the sake of a couple of hundred quid.
The fact that each company has sent out an assessor, plus associted admin has at lease doubled the cost of this claim.
|
So you are arguing that a student, or other young person on a low first wage, should pay the same insurance premium for a banger as he or she would for a new car (with the same big excess)yet get no benefit from that insurance in the event of a no-fault claim because it is a cheapo car that is damaged. Presumably if it had been a brand new Saxo getting roughly £1000 worth of damage, that would have been OK.
I think the typical reaction to that scenario from a low-income driver is going to be 'Why bother with insurance in the first place?'
What does make sense is to have some system whereby the opinion of one assessor is acceptable to all parties and the admin is kept to a minimum. Even better would be for the guilty party in such cases (below a certain level of say £500) to reason that it is worth paying out cash to save future premium increases.
David
|
|
|
|
