Accident/Damage/Insurance....grrrrrrrrr!

[Mrbottomend]

Hi, been a while since visited. Done a fair few miles during COVID looking after vulnerable relatives. The old CLK still pulling well.

Hoping all of MBUK hanging on in there as best as can in these tough times!!

Meanwhile, though minor in greater scheme of things, a rotten, horrible, terrible driver pulled out into my near side flank the other day and caused some nasty damage from front wheel arch to rear wheel arch, including the front and rear alloys (this after an Audi drove me against the kerb a while back and damaged the driver side ones after a refurb last year...more grrrrrrrr!).

I was on main carriageway. The other car, emerging from a side T- junction, simply cannot have looked. Luckily if that words is appropriate here, the damage tells the story so no question of fault on my part. Also the car has been driveable since.

It is now due for collection to the repairers tomorrow P.M.

Now a fun bit. I had a wrap done last year as could not afford a respray. Some purists may scoff, but the reaction was generally positive to colour and job quality. I also checked with the insurance at the time and they were ok and said no issue with policy (now I am having a faff with them over it of course! more grrrrrr and wasted time I sadly can not charge to the at fault driver - shouldn't the no fault claimant be able to invoice for lost time claiming/sorting out repairs and replacement vehicle? About 3 or 4 hours now!)

Now, the big question! I believe that the extent of the damage down most of the side will require a full respray, wrap notwithstanding as that will have to be removed for repairs anyway. I do not think they can realistically match the rest of the car when it is at base an 11 year old silver paint job, Hence the need for a full respray. Am I right to say this?

Then, as I wanted and paid to have the car blue with the wrap, my argument is that if it needs a respray then I can choose a blue equivalent cost to the silver job.

The other option I have suggested is that if they if they insist on a respray to silver then I should get the wrap redone (again fully as matching after 1.5 years probably impossible).

Logically a respray in blue costs no more so it is not trying to pull a fast one on the other drivers insurance.

 

[MrGreedy]

I suspect the insurance company will be satisfied that it has acted reasonably and met its obligations if it gets the car back to close to its original condition/value (insurance categorie impacts aside).
Therefore I would expect them to paint the necessary bits and re-wrap that section, or paint the necessary bits, and de-wrap and polish the original paint.

I suspect anything else would be a bonus.

My reasoning is that if they 'brought the car back to a professional silver bodywork finish' (let's not worry about what this exactly means for a minute) and you were not happy with that and pursued them through court for your loss or costs of whatever else you might want to get it back to how you want, then I could imagine that your claim through the courts would be unsuccessful. This is probably the bar over which the insurance company expects to drag itself, rather than the likely higher bar of satisfying its customers. Coincidentally, those bars might sometimes be at the same level, but that will be a convenience for many insurance companies rather than their aim of delighting customers.

 

[Mrbottomend]

I appreciate the thoughts and the skepticism! I am awaiting a call to discuss with an engineer at my insurer.

First of course my insurer is less motivated by cost, other than by not acting fraudulently towards the other at fault driver/insurer, so I am hoping that my insurer will agree to claim for the full respray, which is, as I have suggested to them, probably cheaper or similar to respray all one side and rewrap....and I think it is fair to say matching 11 year old paintwork not easy. One side will look new and the rest not really! Hardly puttinf back to good and reasonable condition...as I will argue....

Anyhow, we shall see. I am staying polite and calm with my insurer and hopefully that will also help my cause.

 

[markjay]

Sorry to hear this.

I don't fully understand why your own policy comes into it?

If the other party admitted and accepted full liability, then you should be claiming directly off the other-party's policy, and not involving your own insurer at all (other than notifying them of the incident for the record as you are required to do by the terms if your policy). You will also not need to involve and accident management company.

What would happen (or rather, should have happened...?) is the following:

- You let the other-party's insurer know which garage you will be taking the car to and when (and rejecting their 'generous' offer to pick-up the car and fix the damage for you). If body panels need to be replaced, I would recommend that you take the car to the MB dealer.

- You will collect a rental car 'similar to yours' that will be provided to you by the other-party's insurer FOC for the duration of the repair. You can of course reject the offer of a rental car if you have another car you can use and have no need for the rental.

- The garage will get a visit from a loss-assesor working for the other-party's insurer to inspect the car and agree the repair cost. The repair will include stripping the wrap, repairing or replacing the damaged panels, respraying the panels, then re-wrapping the affected panels back to how they were before. It may also include checking the undercarriage and setting the suspension geometry if applicable.

- When done, you will collect your repaired car and return the rental, and this will be the end of the story. Nothing for you to pay.

- Just to let you know that you are also entitled to be refunded any reasonable costs you incurred, these will typically include taxi fairs, loss of work etc, but only if they are reasonable and could not be avoided.

I have (sadly) done the above more than once and it works just as I described it.

One potential pitfall is if the other party does not admit liability (even if all there's indisputable evidence), when this happens insurers have been known to make some very arbitrary and unreasonable decisions abd which oddly you can't legally dispute. But as long as the other party accepted liability, the process as described above will work every time.

The other potential issue is that - depending on the age of the car - the other-party's insurer might offer you a write-off settlement figure instead of a repair (they have the right to do so), which again can complicate matters if you do not want to have the car written-off.

Best of Luck.

 

[KennyN]

I would imagine with prices of garage labour rates the insurance claim on an 11 year old CLK that needs a full respray / alloy refurb / alignment checking and potentially sorting may take it into the "not economical for repair category"

K

 

[markjay]

And, off course, you can agree a settlement figure with the other-party's insurer (again, there's no need to involve your own insurer).

If this happens, then you get a payoff that you can use whichever way you like, and if the money will stretch then you can have your car fully resprayed instead of re-wrapped (once a settlement has been agreed, the insurer is out of the picture abd you can do with your car as you please).

 

[markjay]

Keep in mind that if the insurer is offering you a write-off settlement figure, they will have taken into account the value of your car in it's current state, as they will be taking your car from you and auctioning it to salvage firms (via COPART).

So the threshold for them for offering you a write-off figure is on fact significantly lower than the actual cost of repair.

 

[Mrbottomend]

Much appreciate the effort and value of the replies.

First off I reported the accident to my insurance company (AA) and they suggested tow relatively local repairers. I know i can choose but I took the view that as a no fault accident my insurer and their repairer are not motivated by cost saving as such.

Also that I did some research on the suggested repairer (Apollo) and they have a Prestige workshop not far, so the car is picked up, take there, worked on and I get a replacement - all handled by AA and their partners at much less time than if I had tried to get all the elements in order.

Now, some may say I am a fool, but...I do want the car repaired as I want to keep her going. I love the styling and the engine! She also has sentimental attachments connected with a relative who died. So, I do not want a write off offer, and repairs would probably be more.

I may be silly but I think the post-rust CLKs and later nicer rear end, are lovely, seem to survive well and are worth treasuring (despite I have spent far more than I should have done improving and keeping it in good-ish shape). Maybe they will become a minor classic Somebody at a garage said recently that as 2009 she was solidly built compared to years since.

So, we will see what the outcome is. I am of course pushing for a full respray...I cannot see logic in trying to mach respray one side and then rewrap that side. I don't think either will provide good matching...the wrap will have somewhat deteriorated in 1.5 years so new wrap would be obvious...same with the original paint but 11 years of wear to match.....

I will take somewhere after for a quick look and see if they think done well and if necessary pursue if not. There's a serious restorer outfit near here and for a beer or two I think he'll have a quick look and if it needs a report from him to claim again if the work is faulty then I'll do that.

I have mentioned need to check steering/alignment etc and the alloys.

I think it is only reasonable that I get something ok back. After all, the other person drove into the side of me for no good goddammmed reason! Well, other than their bloody inattention/stoopidity!

Cheers again for the great advice!

 

[markjay]

A proper job full-respray will cost what, £4k?

On top of that there may be a cost of replacing panels?

The car will need to be valued at £7-8k for the insurer to agree such a sum.

Sadly I think this is heading towards a write-off.

Unless you are willing to accept a low settlement figure from the insurer, keep the car, and sort yourself out. But in this case you'll likely end out-of-pocket, and also be careful that the car doesn't become a Cat N, or you'll incur further losses.

Sorry if this isnt what you wanted to hear.

 

[SlimJim]

I would be surprised if the insurance company offer any more than repairing the side of the car that was damaged.

 

[Mrbottomend]

A proper job full-respray will cost what, £4k?

On top of that there may be a cost of replacing panels?

The car will need to be valued at £7-8k for the insurer to agree such a sum.

Sadly I think this is heading towards a write-off.

Unless you are willing to accept a low settlement figure from the insurer, keep the car, and sort yourself out. But in this case you'll likely end out-of-pocket, and also be careful that the car doesn't become a Cat N, or you'll incur further losses.

Sorry if this isnt what you wanted to hear.

Appreciate the thoughts! Guess we'll see. If can get write off and repairs within that as best deal possible then ok, but I think the terms of my insurance and the no fault means I will argue hard to get her back as close to as was before the accident as possible...I just do not get that a reasonable outcome is I am out of pocket when I did nothing wrong! Not suggesting your thoughts wrong as such. Just won't lie down to be fleeced if possibly can help it!

 

[Mrbottomend]

I would be surprised if the insurance company offer any more than repairing the side of the car that was damaged.

I know you do not mean anything bad by this, but it is upsetting But as per my reply above, I am not going to just give up trying to get a decent outcome based on at least had I not been hit I would have none of his fuss and be largely very happy with my car. I do not see it as reasonable to get a half job unless they can match well, or be left out of pocket by low write off offer. The damage is no way sensibly a write off on such a lovely car and when only seems to be bodywork...ok, the lovely is i.m.h.o........ and I cannot at mo afford to subsidise repairs....

I'll see how well I can do

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Legally they have to put you back in the place where you were pre-accident so they’ll either try and write it off or they’ll want to keep costs down as much as possible in the repairing.

 

[MooseMiller]

...I do not think they can realistically match the rest of the car when it is at base an 11 year old silver paint job, Hence the need for a full respray. Am I right to say this?....

Having worked in a body repair shop for too many years and subsequently as an insurance engineer, in my opinion your expectations are a little ambitious. In simple terms car insurance is provided to return your car to it's pre-accident condition or if costs exceed the value of the vehicle, reimbursement. Their responsibility to you is to repair and respray the damaged areas and not the rest of the vehicle, that would be your responsibility if you so chose, to polish or restore your 11 year old paint up to a standard you wish to see.
By your argument, if someone slightly dinged or scratched the very edge of your front wing, would you demand a full respray??

 

[Will]

I can see this easily being a write-off just to avoid the hassles you mention with regards to the wrap and previous paintwork condition.

Out of interest, what was the condition of the paint/bodywork prior to the accident? I only ask as you say you had it wrapped because you couldn’t afford a respray - to then suggest that the insurance company should respray the whole car is crazy.

This doesn’t sound economically viable, just the repairs needed alone are probably going to make it potentially unviable as it is.

 

[markjay]

Legally they have to put you back in the place where you were pre-accident so they’ll either try and write it off or they’ll want to keep costs down as much as possible in the repairing.

Insurance companies are financial institutes. Their obligation is to put you back where you were financially, but not necessarily physically. Strictly speaking, they are not in the business of repairing cars (although some of them actually own car repair businesses).

They are well within their rights to offer you the value of your car instead of repairing it, this is legally entirely at their discretion. Having offered you the value of your car they have made an offer of full restitution, financially speaking, and have no further obligations.

The emotional value of the car isn't being monetised, and should you decide to reject their write-off offer and take it to court, you'll have to convince a judge of the monetary value of the emotional element, and in the UK you are unlikely to be successful.

You can of course, maintain that your car is worth more than what they offered you, or that your far is worth more than other similar cars on the market, but this is down to negotiations. There's always a grey area when it comes to valuing second-hand cars, and additionally there's some give-and-take because in most cases the insurer will prefer to settle the claim rather than go to court over it.

But ultimately, once they make an offer of - in effect - 'buying your car' at its pre-accident value, they have fully discharged their legal responsibilities.

And, in some cases the insurer will argue that by spending on the car more than it's worth, there will be an element of betterment, which you are not entitled to.

If this all sounds unfair, we should keep in mind that this is forum for enthusiasts, and we will typically have cars that are unique or special in some way, that we have spent time and money on, and got attached to. But for the majority of the populace a car is just a car, and as long as they get paid in full for it, they'll be happy for the insurer to take it off their hands.

 

[markjay]

...be left out of pocket by low write off offer...

There's no reason to be left out of pocket with a write-off offer.

I've bought a 2010 car from a dealer in 2013, and it was written-off in 2019 in a no-fault accident.

The agreed write-off was in fact exactly 70% of what I paid 6 years earlier.

My experience is that the key when negotiating with insures is to do so persistently, consistently, and above all in good faith.

Insurers will very quickly detect chancers (not to mention outright fraudsters) and will 'lock-up' immediately.

That said, not everyone likes to negotiate with insurers (or in general), in which case the prospect of having to do so may rightly seem daunting to them.

But just to say that a write-off won't necessarily put you out of pocket.

 

[Muckypaps]

After a quick look on Autoloader looking at the price of an eleven year old CLK, your's probably won't be getting repaired.
You should spend your time planning your next car.
Sorry if it hurts.

 

[markjay]

Appreciate the thoughts! Guess we'll see. If can get write off and repairs within that as best deal possible then ok, but I think the terms of my insurance and the no fault means I will argue hard to get her back as close to as was before the accident as possible...I just do not get that a reasonable outcome is I am out of pocket when I did nothing wrong! Not suggesting your thoughts wrong as such. Just won't lie down to be fleeced if possibly can help it!

There are no 'terms of your insurance' involved. For the purpose of the accident, you are not insured. You are in effect using your insurer as an accident management company, and not as an insurer. You own policy has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It may help if you tried thinking of your vehicle as SORNed and uninsured, parked on your drive, and hit by another driver who lost control of his own vehicle. Then think of your own insurer as 'Fred Blogs & Sons Accident Management Company Ltd'. Simply manage the incident from now on with this point of view in mind.

You will be contacting the other-party's insure, and submitting a claim against the other-party's policy (not against your own policy).

So there are no 'terms and condition' that affect you - the other-party's policy is between the other-party and his own insurer, the T&Cs in that policy have absolutely nothing to do with you.

You are affected by one thing, and one thing only - UK civil laws. This is the only thing that governs the relationship between yourself and the other-party's insurer. Nothing else.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Insurance companies are financial institutes. Their obligation is to put you back where you were financially, but not necessarily physically. Strictly speaking, they are not in the business of repairing cars (although some of them actually own car repair businesses).

They are well within their rights to offer you the value of your car instead of repairing it, this is legally entirely at their discretion. Having offered you the value of your car they have made an offer of full restitution, financially speaking, and have no further obligations.

The emotional value of the car isn't being monetised, and should you decide to reject their write-off offer and take it to court, you'll have to convince a judge of the monetary value of the emotional element, and in the UK you are unlikely to be successful.

You can of course, maintain that your car is worth more than what they offered you, or that your far is worth more than other similar cars on the market, but this is down to negotiations. There's always a grey area when it comes to valuing second-hand cars, and additionally there's some give-and-take because in most cases the insurer will prefer to settle the claim rather than go to court over it.

But ultimately, once they make an offer of - in effect - 'buying your car' at its pre-accident value, they have fully discharged their legal responsibilities.

And, in some cases the insurer will argue that by spending on the car more than it's worth, there will be an element of betterment, which you are not entitled to.

If this all sounds unfair, we should keep in mind that this is forum for enthusiasts, and we will typically have cars that are unique or special in some way, that we have spent time and money on, and got attached to. But for the majority of the populace a car is just a car, and as long as they get paid in full for it, they'll be happy for the insurer to take it off their hands.

This has played out many times on the forum over the years and what I’m saying is not supposition; it’s a fact.

The at fault insurance company *legally* has to put you back to where you were beforehand irrespective of cost.