Using garage's insurance instead of our own...

john_s_2

My wife's car had someone knock in the back of it yesterday. They exchanged details, no problems. There is no apparent damage but she took it to the Nissan dealer where we bought it just to check it.

They reckon the bumper needs replacing. They are also talking about going through their insurance company instead of our own (he called it a "no fault management company" or similar).

I've got misgivings about this. My gut instinct is that we should go through our own insurance. I've never heard of this before, can anyone shed more light on this?

Quentin

It will be no problem, and better for you.

If you go through your own insurance, then you will have to pay your excess and recover that along with all your other uninsured losses from the third party.

By using the garage's recommended claim handlers, they will do all this work for you, so that no excess is needed and will ensure that any other expenses associated with this are recovered for you.

Your NCD isn't affected, and all you need to do is inform your insurers about the incident for information only, and stress to them you do not wish to make a claim against your policy.

lisyloo

You are right to have mis givings and I'm glad you came here first.

What the will probably do is give you an hire car at very high rates.
They will tell you no to worry as the other side will pay all costs, but you will have to sign a big document that you won't read which will say that ultimately you are liable.

One scenario is that the other side reject the expensive hire car costs and take YOU to court (yes it will be you not the claims management company).
You probably won't have been warned against this so you'll be quite stressed when you get paperwork taking you to court.
Another scenario is that the other disputes your version of events and disputes liability (you backed into them after all). This is much worse if there are no independent witnesses as it's now your word against there's.
You may then get a n over-inlfated bill for care hire.

Put you off?
So, IMO you should walk away from this or run even if you like.

Now you have 2 choices.
You can go through your insurance or go direct to the other party.
If you go through your insurance then you will get your car fixed asap BUT initially this will be a claim against you until it's settled.
This might mean higher premiums and no NCD until it's settled (and can take years) but you have your car fixed.

If your car is driveable and there are witnesses and/or the other side has accepted liability then you could jsut wait and get the other parties insurance to fix it.
This way it will NOT be a claim on your insurance.
No loss of NCD and no claim on your own insurance.

So questions are
Is the car driveable?
Are there independent witnesses?
Has liability been settled?

Rear shunts are normally straightforward but you'd be amazed how many people change their story and if there are no witnesses then it's difficult as it's one persons word against another.

Hope that helps.

Quentin

lisyloo wrote: »

You are right to have mis givings and I'm glad you came here first.

Why the scaremongering?

This is being offered by a Nissan dealer, not some ambulance chaser.

Most reputable garages have associations with claims handlers.

The benefits to the innocent victim are as I posted.

And you have posted some of the disadvantages of using your own insurance (though neglected to mention having to still pursue the third party for the excess paid and the uninsured losses).

lisyloo

Great, conflicting advice, love it.

If you are going to sign make sure you know what YOU personally are liable for if the other side is not found liable or the money cannot be recovered for whatever reason.

It might sound unlikely at the moment, but there are lots of stories on here where someone has accepted liability at the scene and then claimed a totally different story later.
There are also cases where people have received court paperwork and been liable for thousands of pounds worth of car hire.

I'd rather have a marked bumper until I knew more about how the liability was going to be settled.

Why the scaremongering?

Because these are things that have actually happened to people on these (or other boards).
Theya re not made up for effect.

This is being offered by a Nissan dealer, not some ambulance chaser.

I have no idea whether they are a reputable company or not but I would definitely recommend ascertaining the personal liabilities, especially if the car is driveable.
One person (I think on these boards) has recently found out they signed up to be liable and it was several thousand for car hire.
I'll search for the link if you want.
Of course this may not be the same company, but I'm only suggesting a sensible check.

And you have posted some of the disadvantages of using your own insurance (though neglected to mention having to still pursue the third party for the excess paid and the uninsured losses).

Apologies if I left that out (not intentional).
Claiming direct (which is the way I'd probably go) has no excess.
Yes I may not have covered 100% of pros and cons but I was not trying to be biased, jsut point out my anecdotal experiences.

Quentin

People do often change their minds away from the scene, but liability isn't fully established at the scene either, whatever is said!

Your scaremongering anecdotes refer to the ambulance chaser end of the market. Were Nissan to be doing something dodgy by offering this service to the victims of rear end shunts, don't you think we would have heard about it by now?

Most people would prefer to leave it to the claims handlers to sort out, rather than have worries about claiming uninsured losses etc.

And why should innocent victims have to drive around in a bumped car whilst its all being sorted anyway? You can still get your car put right straight away, even if you make a claim.

dacouch

There are pros and cons with both methods, on balance I would normally recommend the credit repair and / or credit hire providing the claim was caste iron with and you have identified the other driver has insurance in place.

If you go down the path of the Credit Repair / Hire go into it with aware that there is a very outside chance it could back fire and you could be given the bill. You are in effect signing a credit agreement with the claims management agreeing that if they cannot recover their costs that they MIGHT request you pay them. It is quite unusual for this to happen but it does happen.

P.S The credit repair is not normally an issue recovering from the other Insurers as they use an independent engineer to inspect the car and confirm the estimate repairs are correct. So normally the other Insurers do not query these.

So to summarise just read the document they ask you to sign and if your not sure of anything it contains make sure you query it and are happy with the answer.

Quentin

lisyloo wrote: »

Claiming direct (which is the way I'd probably go) has no excess.

True. But you normally have to pay all the costs of the repairs and everything else (car hire, other losses) first yourself.

If you claim directly against the third party yourself, there are big disadvantages:

1) You are relying on the goodwill of the third party to quickly answer queries from their own insurers.

2) You are relying on the third party insurers answering your letters quickly

3) You have to drive round in a damaged car whilst liability is accepted, or alternatively get the car repaired yourself and pay for the whole repair yourself until the third party agrees to reimburse you.

4) Once reimbursement has been agreed, you have to submit your detailed receipts and justify all claims, then await a cheque.

Using the claim handler means no need to pay up front, and no fees to pay as the claims handler's fees are paid for by the third party.

lisyloo

Your scaremongering anecdotes refer to the ambulance chaser end of the market

I'm pretty thick skinned but I think that's a bit harsh.
I'm genuinely trying to bring something genuine to the attention of the OP that might be useful.
By highlighting the worst case scenario I'm hoping this will help them ask the right questions and make the right decision.
I don't call this "scaremongering". I don't have a dictionary to hand but that sounds like doing something deliberately just to cause a reaction which is not my intention.

Do you not agree that it's a good decision to check the documentation for peronal liabilities and not jsut rely on the garage name?
I would certainly do this.

And why should innocent victims have to drive around in a bumped car whilst its all being sorted anyway?

They shouldnt' have to.
but as you know sometimes cases are not settled fairly either because there are no witnesses or because the insurance company do what's and cheapest for them.
You know this is not uncommon.
Personally I would rather not take risks I didn't need to.
So (for exmaple) I'd rather drive around with a mark on my car rather than risk a higher premium and loss of NCD.
That's the OP's choice and there's might be different to mine, but I think they ought to be aware of the options and all the pros and cons (and I have not intentionally left any out but might have missed some things).

But you normally have to pay all the costs of the repairs and everything else (car hire, other losses) first yourself.

My husband didn't have to do this when he claimed off me.
Repairs were paid direct and so was car hire.
Perhaps different companies behave differently but Lloyds TSB paid everything direct to the garage/car hire company and we paid nothing.

You are relying on the goodwill of the third party to quickly answer queries from their own insurers.

Agreed.
Lloyds TSB were very good and we had a very good saab for car hire (they didn't try to give us an inferior car), but I accept that experiences could vary and I totally agree there are risks and it could be more hassle.

You are relying on the third party insurers answering your letters quickly

I did all mine over the phone, but yes agreed.

You have to drive round in a damaged car whilst liability is accepted, or alternatively get the car repaired yourself and pay for the whole repair yourself until the third party agrees to reimburse you.

Agreed. It depends on what the extent of the damage is.

Once reimbursement has been agreed, you have to submit your detailed receipts and justify all claims, then await a cheque.

I can't comment on other cases, but we didn't have this.
Our car hire and repairs were paid direct, quickly, no letters.

Using the claim handler means no need to pay up front, and no fees to pay as the claims handler's fees are paid for by the third party.

What if they are not? i.e liability is not accepted?
Genuine question.
The case I am thinking about was where the third party did not accept liability so the company came after the victim for the hire car (not sure about their fees).

dacouch

I agree with Quentins last post in that your average Joe Public would not know a) How good the other Insurer is b) How the best ways are to hassle them into sorting the claim out promptly.

For my friends and some of my customers I will often recommend going direct to the other Insurer depending on who the other Insurer is and the circumstances of the claim. Its often to sound them out by just ringing them.

However its not unusual for the other driver not to bother reporting the claim for a while and the other Insurers will normally do nothing until they have their own drivers version of the events.

It can be a bit hit and miss for the average Joe Public to do this on their own although it is certainly possible and can be made a lot easier by the way some Insurers handle fault third party claims

john_s_2

Blimey... ;-)

Thanks for all the advice - both sides are very interesting.

The car is driveable - you can't see any damage, although apparently you can feel it's dented if you run your hand along the bumper.

I am so tempted to forget it. What's the problem with having a slightly dented bumper?!?!? (Wrong board for that question I know! ;-)