Van write off but loss of earnings claim problems

learnerlawyer

One of my husbands vans was written off and although the other parties insurers are not disputing liability they are refusing to pay our loss of earnings claim.

They have said we should have got a loan to replace it - despite the fact we have adverse credit and didn't no if they would admit liability as the car was stolen.

They've also paid out nearly a £1000 less than we could possibly hope to buy a replacement van for and are refusing to increase their offer.

Please can anyone advise me if

a) can they refuse to pay loss of earnings by saying we should have bough another van ? Even if we have a default notice on our credit history ???

b) can we demand they replace our van with another ?

All help would be gratefully received

InsideInsurance

A) It is your obligation to mitigate your loses in any claim (ie make them as small as reasonably possible) and things like hiring another vehicle etc can be a consideration. How much is your claim for loss of earnings? Over what period? What ended the claim? Was any alternative transport provided at all or offered? If so by whom?

No, they must put you back in the same financial position as you were prior to the incident. If the vehicle is beyond economical repair they are allowed to settle by providing a cash valuation for the vehicle as if you had sold it moments before the accident. You would never get a court injunction forcing them to buy you a vehicle.

vaio

InsideInsurance wrote: »

......No, they must put you back in the same financial position as you were prior to the incident. If the vehicle is beyond economical repair they are allowed to settle by providing a cash valuation for the vehicle as if you had sold it moments before the accident.....

Nah, unless maybe if you are a dealer then the cash you're entitled to is what it would have cost to buy a replacement retail from a dealer. The starting figure is the retail values given in glasses, parkers & caps price guides

InsideInsurance

They are claiming from the third party not their own insurance, the courts would pay the value of the vehicle not the forecourt value

vaio

Really?

I’d say the courts would try and put them back in the position they would have been in had the accident not happened and that would involve the costs of a trip to the dealer to buy a replacement van.

InsideInsurance

The cost of going to the dealer etc could be added as a separate head of claim but would not form part of the valuation of the vehicle. Courts are ultimately stricter in terms of payouts in that sense than than insurers are, most insurance gives above indemnity level protection. Plus "general inconvenience" is generally not accepted as a head of claim unless it is anything more than token. Further loss of earnings could be added as long as they can be substantiated.

There is naturally variations with northern courts being more generous than southern courts etc (as a rule of thumb)

vaio

I’m getting confused now, leaving out inconvenience & time etc you said the valuation would be what they would have got had they sold it immediately prior to the accident (How? private? trade in? auction?) but I suggest that the valuation would be what it would cost them to buy an equivalent replacement through the traditional channels.

If you write off my 09 SWB Transit then the money you need to give me is what it will cost me to go and buy an equivalent 09 SWB Transit from a dealer.

The principle is “to put me back in the position I would have been in had the accident not happened”

You seem to be saying the principle is “to put me back in the position I would have been in had the accident not happened and I’d been forced to sell my van”