Insurance

[glojo]

I think common sense might prevail and there are any number of references for what a 1998 SL might be worth. (Random Mercedes) A claim that exceeds this value would need a lot of explaining. If however it had parts fitted that increased the value and and this then put it in excess of its going price then would it be right to suggest we should declare these accessories when we have them fitted?

If this were the case then I cannot see why we would not be allowed to claim the full value of our car if it were wrote off.

What about if our car had a custom spray finish, some modern paint finishes are extremely expensive. (I'm thinking of that TVR colour that changes shades)

If our car was only worth £1300 and needed a full respray of this expensive paint (£2000) as well as bodywork repairs (£1000) could we claim?

I have deliberately avoided my nano paint as that has been discussed in previous posts.

Regards
John

 

[MBManInKen]

If our car was only worth £1300 and needed a full respray of this expensive paint (£2000) as well as bodywork repairs (£1000) could we claim?

As I said before, I think we must be very precise about what we mean:

1. If we need this respray to restore the car in its previous condition because a third party has damaged it and they are liable for the damages, than really the fact that the cost exceeds the car's value should be immaterial as this is a matter of civil liability rather than insurance contracts. The fact that it is not the third party, but their insurance company who makes the payment is neither here nor there.
2. But if we claim from our own insurer for damages (for example under a fully comprehensive policy), then our insurer is not paying out under their civil liability, but simply as a result of a contractual relation we have with them. That contract will have a clause in it that limits the maximum payout, and as we both are parties to this agreed contract, we are bound by that limit.

But in case one above, I cannot see how any insurer could overrule the statute book and limit our legal right to full reparation in case of civil liability.

These are two quite different scenarios, but we seem to keep mixing them up.

 

[glojo]

As I said before, I think we must be very precise about what we mean:

1. If we need this respray to restore the car in its previous condition because a third party has damaged it and they are liable for the damages, than really the fact that the cost exceeds the car's value should be immaterial as this is a matter of civil liability rather than insurance contracts. The fact that it is not the third party, but their insurance company who makes the payment is neither here nor there.
2. But if we claim from our own insurer for damages (for example under a fully comprehensive policy), then our insurer is not paying out under their civil liability, but simply as a result of a contractual relation we have with them. That contract will have a clause in it that limits the maximum payout, and as we both are parties to this agreed contract, we are bound by that limit.

But in case one above, I cannot see how any insurer could overrule the statute book and limit our legal right to full reparation in case of civil liability.

These are two quite different scenarios, but we seem to keep mixing them up.

Many apologies for not explaining myself properly, I was in too much of a hurry.

We have a very nice car that is worth £1300, I decide to respray the car with a very expensive paint finish that is a custom paint and quite unique.
The car is reversed into whilst parked and unattended.

The cost to repair the bodywork is approximately £1000, the paintwork has been badly damaged and that cost is estimated at £2000 making a grand total of £3000!

Would we expect a full repair? I would like to think so, but 'liking' and getting might be two different issues although I feel that if the customised paintwork were declared on the insurance policy then I feel there is a right to seek recompense.

Regards
John

 

[Mark300SL]

In the original post all I see is a car that insurers deemed uneconomical to repair at £2500, being repaired for £1300 and the person dealing directly with the insurance co. I don't however see where the repairs he had carried out exceeded the value of the vehicle
This particular Honest John article proves nothing to me other than the insurers were happy to go with £1300 having baulked at £2500. In their case they probably consider that to be an expedient and efficient saving of maybe £700/£800

Up to true market value and just beyond I can see this being distinctly viable, beyond that as has been said we really need a senior legal opinion

As I said before, I think we must be very precise about what we mean:

1. If we need this respray to restore the car in its previous condition because a third party has damaged it and they are liable for the damages, than really the fact that the cost exceeds the car's value should be immaterial as this is a matter of civil liability rather than insurance contracts. The fact that it is not the third party, but their insurance company who makes the payment is neither here nor there.

1. 
   
   
   
   Now- lets make an assumtion that Johns 98 SL actually exists, Its a nice 500SL with all the toys and a reasonable 40k miles on the clock, and full MBSH to the last wheel balance. Now lets assume it was damaged by a careless 3rd party who admitted full liability (when arrested?) and actually the car is very seriously "beyond economical repair"
   In this hypothetical situation a £15k mint car has sustained £40k worth of damage, - To put him back where he was prior to the accident the insurers offer him the choice of multiple SL's with lower mileages, all having the same level of care and dedication in their ownership and in absolutely pristine condition and possibly a year or 2 newer (without hitting the new VED cutoff). Finally - what if any of these vehicles if chosen were to be offered with a totally comprehensive unlimited warranty to the poor hapless 3rd party - or the equivalent financial recompense (Ie top market value sufficient to purchase any R129 on the market)
   
   John being the miserable git he is wants his repaired back to "pristine" condition and demands the £40k repair and says "If not - see you in court"
   What if the damage was in excess of £60k or maybe even £80k requiring a new shell and almost every panel, new engine and box with complete new suspension, wheels, tyres, etc
   
   When the insurers refuse to pay for repairs on the grounds they have been proactive in restoring him to his previous condition and it goes to court - will a judge find the insurers unreasonable - or John ?
   Surely civil liability means they are liable to a point - or is civil liabilty ceilingless and people can make totally unreasonable demands backed by the weight of the law ?
   
   Obviously I have a interest here even if it is too late in my particular case, despite the fact I am more than happy with the outcome with my car
   
   
   Finally - If this is so cut and dried why are people in £500 190's or 201's not claiming £5k,10k,15k, or even £20k from insurers and then "settling" for a mere £5/10k after negotiation ? I can see an insurer negotiating under such circumstances offering a "profit" of thousands to the 3rd party to save paying a totally unrealistic payout on a car worth pennies.
   
   
   Surely if it were that easy then the TV's would be full of lawyers wanting to claim on your behalf ?

 

[Marque]

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.

I applaud your stand against insurance companies trying it on!

I am no expert, but surely if you go to court then you would sue for damages. In this case, the court might award a sum of money that would enable you to put yourself back in the position you previously enjoyed, plus extra to cover your costs, loss of use, etc. The basic amount could be sufficient either to repair or to replace the car, since both would provide full restitution. No court would award £40K damages to repair a £15K car.

Insurance companies know this, so I would think it unlikely that they would pay out much more than the book value of any car.

 

[glojo]

Very wise words being said and common sense would hopefully prevail.

If we have a bog standard car, in bog standard condition but just exceedingly well maintained. Then surely common sense should dictate that is all we are entitled to have.

If however we have fitted very expensive skirts, spoilers , thrush exhaust systems and all these items have been declared on the insurance; then in my world we are entitled to claim above and beyond the value of the bog standard vehicle.

How on earth would we assess this:

 

[IanA2]

Unbelievers should email Honest John, it has been a recurring theme on his column for the past twenty years.


Shut, shut the door, good John! fatigu'd, I said,
Tie up the knocker, say I'm sick, I'm dead.
The Dog-star rages! nay't is past a doubt,
All Bedlam, or Parnassus, is let out:
Fire in each eye, and papers in each hand,
They rave, recite, and madden round the land.

Acknowledgements to another Alexander!

 

[Dieselman]

How on earth would we assess this:

I'd give you £20...beause those grille badges are collectors items now.

Actually another brilliant concept car, badly executed.

 

[glojo]

I'd give you £20...beause those grille badges are collectors items now.

Actually another brilliant concept car, badly executed.

Of all the cars I could have selected!

 

[Rory]

I firmly believe that if the repairs required were significantly in excess of the cars market value (itself a hugely debateable point) then any insurance company would tell you to get lost. You could try suing the responsible party themselves - after all, insurance companies simply stand behind the responsible party.

However suing would be hugely risky, especially if it was beyond small claims court limits. Courts tend to be reasonable, but they also think of cars as lumps of metal, and they won't have the emotional attachement that the owner might have. If you get into a civil action against an insurance then you'd better have deep pockets. No way would any legal insurance policy agree to take this on either.

 

[Dieselman]

Of all the cars I could have selected!

Well, trust you to go for the VandenPlas version. Special edition as well.

You've got too many Hares and Grasses...

 

[Dieselman]

I firmly believe that if the repairs required were significantly in excess of the cars market value (itself a hugely debateable point) then any insurance company would tell you to get lost. You could try suing the responsible party themselves - after all, insurance companies simply stand behind the responsible party.

However suing would be hugely risky, especially if it was beyond small claims court limits. Courts tend to be reasonable, but they also think of cars as lumps of metal, and they won't have the emotional attachement that the owner might have. If you get into a civil action against an insurance then you'd better have deep pockets. No way would any legal insurance policy agree to take this on either.

With a reasonable claim value they might just decide to pay up as a Commercial decision because fighting claims in court also costs them a considerable amount, and they might not be awarded costs.