Insurance

[Dieselman]

Technically they could use ready painted 2nd hand panels from another car of the same age.

Insurance companies can and do this already.

That would just leave you to count the chips on the bonnet...

 

[MBManInKen]

Technically they could use ready painted 2nd hand panels from another car of the same age.

Interesting!

Would there not be a colour difference though?

 

[glojo]

Technically they could use ready painted 2nd hand panels from another car of the same age.

Insurance companies can and do this already.

That would just leave you to count the chips on the bonnet...

In reality I woould much prefer this option if the paint is an exact match. The difference between nano and non nano paints is significant.

Would they not have a dedicated "body shop" for this? I can imagine that there might be some demand for this.

Obviously, demanding the impossible might not fly in a court .

The problem with this paint is that it MUST be cured in temperatures above 140c and that is blooming hot.

A far more knowledgable member once summed this up far better than what I could do:

you are 100% correct and as you say the paint is almost fired and not cured as I said earlier.

All of the info that I looked at last night refers to the swirl marks and glance after being through a car wash.

So there is no way that any repair work can be done using Nano paint, its impossible, so there we are, thank you for your big input

Is it our fault that our car is damaged? There are three options. The car is wrote off and we are offered a car with the exact options of our own??? Look at the spec of my vehicle

Second-hand parts are sourced and then fitted to our vehicle... Would they match the exact colours.

Our car is wrote off and we are offered a new vehicle of the exact spec.

In reality would this happen?

I have personal knowledge of this last option happening in America, but the dmaged vehicle was less than 12 months old. BUT the damage was not even 25% of the value of the car.

John

 

[MBManInKen]

Hmm, good points and interesting thread.

I guess it boils down to reasonableness? The example of a very young vehicle being replaced by a new one might be reasonable in light of the damaged vehicle's age, whereas for a very old vehicle it might just not be possible to rectify things to exact the same standard.

I would be very interested in a legal view on this, i.e. what test in law is used to define what is possible and what is not.

 

[glojo]

Hmm, good points and interesting thread.

I guess it boils down to reasonableness? The example of a very young vehicle being replaced by a new one might be reasonable in light of the damaged vehicle's age, whereas for a very old vehicle it might just not be possible to rectify things to exact the same standard.

I would be very interested in a legal view on this, i.e. what test in law is used to define what is possible and what is not.

I can be a little critta when I want to

The E-class was one of the first Mercedes-Benz to have tis paint and that took place at the beginning of 2004 (although a number of earlier cars have been seen with this coating)

I personally do not think it unreasonable to simply want the car restored to the condition it was in prior to the accident. Why should we settle for a softer paint that is more prone to chip damage??

John

I ahve heard of bodyshops claiming to use this paint, they even claim they have a 'special' paint supplied by Mercedes that allows it to cure at lower temperatures, but to me that is humbug.

 

[MBManInKen]

I can be a little critta when I want to

Trust you to come up with a very tricky test case!

The E-class was one of the first Mercedes-Benz to have tis paint and that took place at the beginning of 2004 (although a number of earlier cars have been seen with this coating)

Yes, so I guess the underlining issue is then one of precedence? Would many owners actually be aware of this issue when involved in a case as we described? If not, I have a feeling that neither insurance companies or those paying out directly are too keen to raise it...

I personally do not think it unreasonable to simply want the car restored to the condition it was in prior to the accident. Why should we settle for a softer paint that is more prone to chip damage??

Could not agree more. But there has to be a way of getting it done, practically. Otherwise, I wonder what the exact legal position is?

 

[glojo]

Yes, so I guess the underlining issue is then one of precedence? Would many owners actually be aware of this issue when involved in a case as we described? If not, I have a feeling that neither insurance companies or those paying out directly are too keen to raise it...

I think that is a very relevant and it would only be a very few people that woulkd have heard of this and I would include numerous bodyshops. For Robert that is car repair locations

It would take a very determined person with a lot of clout to take this issue on.

regards
John

 

[stevesey]

The value of the car is not relevant.

It is becuase if the value was greater than £1300, you have not proved you can insist on it being repaired rather than written off (as they would have been happy with a £1300 repair on a £1800 car anyway).

 

[IanA2]

It is becuase if the value was greater than £1300, you have not proved you can insist on it being repaired rather than written off (as they would have been happy with a £1300 repair on a £1800 car anyway).

It is not. Read Guido's post.

 

[glojo]

It is not. Read Guido's post.

As an end user I'm totally on your's and Guido's side but that does not mean anyone is right regarding this issue. I have always been told although insurance companies ask us the value of our car, they only pay out what they believe to be the correct amount?

John

 

[Mark300SL]

Not in my case

Whilst I appreciate the advice given by Ian in my case and again here - the repairs to my SL using all new MB parts considerably exceeded the current market value of the vehicle.
Legal advice at the time was to push for a contract repair value that I was happy with - as opposed to fighting directly with her insurers for complete restitution as this could lead to huge legal costs.

In the case above - what if the repairs were £10,000 on the £2500 car - If you stick to your guns then when it gets to court a judge has to decide if attempting to force an insurance company to pay £10k for a car sensibly valued at £2.5k is in any way reasonable.
If he decides against you then you could find yourself with your costs , their costs and a fair valuation of £2500 for your car.

This is exactly how it was explained to me by a lawyer - not by a bloke on the net. (absolutely not aimed at Ian, and not a dig at anyone)

Anything below or vaguely equal to current market value I can see being a fair and legitimate fight, However repair figures massively above fair market value looks almost like profiteering on the back of the insurers - esp if you know the repairer like I did!

Even slightly above market value could be considered reasonable as you could know the exact history of your vehicle with regards to expensive repairs etc (M104 loom for example)


Now we need someone else with more balls and money than me to test this theory in a real court of law

 

[MBManInKen]

Clearly justice is not always done, but that is a slightly different matter.

The basic premise of civil liability is an essential part of the law (in my opinion ), but of course in practice none of this is perhaps as black and white as we would like to think.

I guess there are lots of possible subtleties in determining what exactly constitutes "restoration in the same state as before" and John gave a quite challenging example in that respect. For very old cars or classics, the interpretation of this is probably even more difficult.

I would really welcome someone with a legal background to comment on this very interesting thread. So far, we're only blokes on 't Internet offering opinion (but nothing wrong with a an interesting, opinionated conversation ).

 

[glojo]

I would really welcome someone with a legal background to comment on this very interesting thread. So far, we're only blokes on 't Internet offering opinion (but nothing wrong with a an interesting, opinionated conversation ).

I would also love input on my example as I feel it needs to be tested. Hopefully the paint manufacturer will eventually develop this technology and it will not require such high temperatures to cure.

John

 

[IanA2]

Honest John has been making the point that I have been making for some time.

The situation is as I describe it. I may be a bloke on 't internet, but one with some relevant experience. I told Mark300SL that I thought he was wrong at the time, I still think so and I'm afraid I do not agree with the legal advice he was given, I cannot imagine he was given this advice by a specialist lawyer. If he was I'd consider action.
Of course this is predicated on the understanding that liabilty is entirely accepted by the TP.

 

[stevesey]

It is not. Read Guido's post.

I did - my point is that without knowing the value of the car we don't have demonstratable evidence (from this case) that:

their payout to me would in any way be restricted to the market value of the car."

It may just be that £1300 was less than the value of the car so they paid up without even attempting to limit their liability to the value of the car. However if the value was less than £1300 we can clearly see that they accepted the full liability with no questions asked.

 

[glojo]

Of course this is predicated on the understanding that liabilty is entirely accepted by the TP.

Don't forget that in a motoring policy it states that we should never admit liability!

John

 

[IanA2]

I did - my point is that without knowing the value of the car we don't have demonstratable evidence (from this case) that:



It may just be that £1300 was less than the value of the car so they paid up without even attempting to limit their liability to the value of the car. However if the value was less than £1300 we can clearly see that they accepted the full liability with no questions asked.

Read it again...the other quote quotes her Ins Co.....not relevant in a third party liabilty incident, why would it be?

 

[IanA2]

Don't forget that in a motoring policy it states that we should never admit liability!

John

Put your spoon away.......

 

[MBManInKen]

In the case above - what if the repairs were £10,000 on the £2500 car - If you stick to your guns then when it gets to court a judge has to decide if attempting to force an insurance company to pay £10k for a car sensibly valued at £2.5k is in any way reasonable.

Again, I'm not a lawyer and do not pretend to know better, but it seems to me that the question is not what the cost is or the value of the car, but whether or not the other party is liable for the damage, in which case they are legally under the obligation to cover the costs of setting the damage straight. I can't see how the value of the car comes into it.

You have no contract with the other party's insurance company (as I said before, it would be a completely different matter if you were to claim on your insurance, where there is a contract in place that restricts the maximum payment). Their insurance cannot in law limit your legal rights in the context of civil liability.

So, a judge would be ruling first and foremost on the issue of liability. However, I guess it is possible to then get into a whole debate about what constitutes putting the car right, i.e. back into the condition it was before. I have a feeling that could very well be a real minefield.

If he decides against you then you could find yourself with your costs , their costs and a fair valuation of £2500 for your car.

I wonder how many people shy (quite understandably) away from pursuing this kind of thing in court and end up settling for a lot less than they are legally and morally entitled to.

Now we need someone else with more balls and money than me to test this theory in a real court of law

We could always organise a whip around .

 

[stevesey]

Read it again...the other quote quotes her Ins Co.....not relevant in a third party liabilty incident, why would it be?

Have read again - but you still seem to be missing my point (and Johns) that because we don't know the value of the car, the case presented by Honest John does not provide any demonstrable evidence that your point is correct.

I'm not saying you (or Guido's comments) are wrong, just that without knowing the value of the car in that particular case it cannot be used to support your point (or refute it).