A Car Insurance Write-off. VS. A Repaired and Returned Vehicle.

paddyjoe26

Having been the victim of a total loss appropriation I have the following common sense questions:
A “write-off” (total loss) is defined by the cost of repairing the damage exceeding 100% of market value of the vehicle.
In this event, the insurer pays out 100% of the market value and takes possession of 100% of the vehicle. But technically the insurer will repair damage up to 99% of the market value and return the vehicle.
If it is morally and judicially right in principle to take possession of the vehicle in which 100% of market value is invested, as it is argued, why is it not right in principle for the insurer to take up to a 99% interest in a repaired vehicle to be recovered when it is sold?
Why are the insurance companies not shareholders in every repaired vehicle for which a claim for damage has been made?
Why do they take our cars when they are considered “write-offs”?
Would it not be better for a ‘total loss’ victim to elect to accept only 99% of the market value, and to retain the vehicle for repairing (Category C), or for spares and scrap (Categories A & to mitigate inevitable losses experienced by the ‘total loss’ claimant?

DUTR

I think somewhere you have got confused, the write of is beyond economical repair, so the insurance company does not repair it.

paddyjoe26

No, I realize that write offs are not repaired, what i am asking about is why they take our cars when they are written off and why they do not, by the same token, take a share of our vehicles when they are NOT WRITTEN OFF and instead repaired under a normal damage claim?

where is the mechanism that allows them to take possession of our wreck when they are in fact settling a debt created by the risk to the vehicle that they insured?

They never ask for a share or interest of a damaged vehicle when, say, a damage claim runs to about 60% of market value of the vehicle?

Would we not be better off to say to the insurance company rather than pay us the market value of the car (100%) and take possession of the wrecked car, they should pay us 99% of the market value and let us KEEP our salvage.

We would be by far better off that way. and it only seems fair.

rich13348

If you want to keep your car you can and they will pay you out for it. But if your car is a total write off chances are it would cost signicantly more than the car would ever be worth even just to get it in a driving condition.

Norman_Castle

paddyjoe26 wrote: »

Would we not be better off to say to the insurance company rather than pay us the market value of the car (100%) and take possession of the wrecked car, they should pay us 99% of the market value and let us KEEP our salvage.

We would be by far better off that way. and it only seems fair.

You may be able to negotiate to keep the car as salvage but at 1% of its undamaged value is very unrealistic.

paddyjoe26

You make it sound as if we need to negotiate to keep what is already ours...

How is it unrealistic when they don't own the vehicle in the first place? the policyholder owns the vehicle, or must we forget that?simply because the insurer is paying out the full market value for a written off car?

What right do they have to that wrecked vehicle in any case? regardless of whether or not they have paid out its full market value. It is not owned by the insurer it is owned by the policyholder.

The insurers have proven that, by the fact that in non write-off cases (normal damage claims) they gain no share of the repaired vehicles, the policyholder retains 100% ownership of that vehicle. As you would know and expect.

So why then do they suddenly gain a 100% share (in other words thay take your wreck from you) of a written off vehicle simply because they are paying market value out to you.

Why does reaching 100% somehow rob us of ownership of our vehicles and allow them to take them away? When the market value payment is actually settling a debt to the policyholder for the total replacement of their vehicle.

I am wondering about this NOT because i'd like to repair the vehicle to a driving condition. i'm talking about scrapping the wreck to mitigate the losses incurred when writing off the vehicle in the first place. the costs of car hire and other inconveniences when you end up having to replace your wrecked vehicle.

We all can agree that the policyholder retains full ownership of the vehicle in smaller damage claims, so why suddenly when we reach market value cap are we changining the rules and being forced to negotiate to keep what is already owned by us, the policyholders. OUR OWN VEHICLES.

rich13348

I would saay that somewhere in your terms and conditions it will say that you sign over the wreck if the case of a write-off.
The mention of hire cars is void as the third party insurer will cover those costs.
Also insurance indemnifies you eg puts you back in the position you were in before the accident therefore you are not entitled to compensation simply by claiming off your or their insurance. You dont get tons of money or any extra like being fully indemnified then getting the car on top for scrap value.
If you want to be compensated for pain and suffering you need to sue the third party directly.

rudekid48

It's quite simple. You either sacrifice ownership to receive full market value or you accept a reduced amount (usually reduced by the value of the salvage) and keep ownership of the vehicle.

The purpose of insurance is to return you to the same position as you were prior to the claim, NOT to put you in a better position. If you received full market value AND retained the salvage then you would be better off than before the accident.

All the stuff about % ownership is a red herring. A vehicle is either repaired or not. If not then a market value is agreed. The salvage has a scrap value so this is also taken into account if you wish to keep it.

You can't have it both ways.

Aretnap

The right for the insurer to take possession of the salvage comes from the contract which you agreed with them at the time you took the policy out. It has a clause which says that in the event of a total loss claim the remains of the car will become the property of the insurer. If you don't like that, don't agree to a contract which has that term in it.

Incidentally an insurer is unlikely to repair a car at a cost of 99% of its pre accident value. If the estimated repair cost is a substantial fraction of the pre accident value (the exact amount depends on the insurer and the type of car) the insurer will usually decide to write it off, for various reasons, one of which is the risk that the repairs will end up costing more than the original estimate (eg if the garage finds more damage once they start the repairs). Again the contract generally gives the insurer the right to make that decision.

Norman_Castle

paddyjoe26 wrote: »

You make it sound as if we need to negotiate to keep what is already ours...

When an insurer pays the full pre accident value for a vehicle they are buying the damaged car from you. Its no longer yours. If you sold an undamaged car would you expect the buyer to pay and allow you to keep the car?.

Scrap cars have a value which insurers will recoup.