Are Write-Offs (Total Loss Vehicles) Appropriated Lawfully

Thrugelmir

paddyjoe26 wrote: »

Car came off slightly worse with a dent spanning both doors. Drove the car for weeks. Both doors closing perfectly. Went confidently to meet the engineer.

So no visible damage meant car was ok? Seems as if assessors are redundant as a profession.

Why bother making a claim at all?

Daniel54

paddyjoe26 wrote: »

You miss the point by attempting to compare the laws germane to individual property rights in the context of a specific contract, and an amorphous soup of principles of salvage and old case law. Can any of this trump the general laws and those pertaining to contracts?

I was pointing out that insurance contracts are governed by the laws pertaining to insurance contracts .These laws are of course statutory ( the latest being the insurance act of 2015) but the key principles embodied in the statutory law have been removed from mis-interpretation through being given precise meaning through case law.A few key points again:

Under law ( see above) insurance contracts are not loan or credit agreements and the submission of a claim does not alter that fact .

Under law,a policyholder can only benefit from a claim to the extent of the limits of indemnity set out in the policy / contract.For this reason,you cannot receive a total loss payout and retain rights to the residual value of the subject matter of the insurance,in this case your damaged vehicle.Otherwise you are being put in a better position than you would have been had the loss not occurred

As you have done,you can choose to (mis)interpret an insurance contract by ignoring the laws and practices under law that govern insurance contracts. Hard to see however why anyone should choose to do that.

I don't have the benefit of your 4 years of intensive research and can only offer my professional qualifications ( ACII) and near 40 years of experience as an insurance market practitioner,so what do I know ?

Daniel54

paddyjoe26 wrote: »

“They are offering to pay you the market value of the car, in return for the car.” Not so. Please read an insurance contract with a clear head, uncluttered by insurance jargon and spin. You will find that the role of the ‘market value’ is no more than to put a cap on the amount of the cash settlement to be paid against the claim.

As per my previous posts,this demonstrates why you are incorrect.

Avoidng technical insurance language,the market value/limit of indemnity is a cap on the total extent to which you can benefit from the loss or damage to your vehicle.This cannot exceed the cash settlement and/or the deemed market value of your unrepaired vehicle plus a reduced cash settlement .In reality most policyholders would choose to take the full cash settlement

This really is insurance 101

paddyjoe26

Nearlyold
“I guess by extrapolating the OP’s logic if the insurance company paid out on a theft claim and the car eventually found the OP would expect the car back and still keep the insurance pay out.”
This conclusion is reductio ad absurdum.
Check your premises, and follow the dictum of street wisdom; “When all else fails read the label.” An extrapolation of a falsehood inevitably conceives another. Is it unfair to suggest that logical thinking is not your forte; but on your wish list?
One; the contract accepts liability for theft.
Two; if the vehicle is found and returned before the cash settlement has been agreed and accepted by the policyholder, the vehicle still belongs to the registered owner. If the vehicle has been damaged the contractual liability for damage is enforced; not liability for theft.
Three; if the cash settlement has been agreed and accepted by the registered owner, and the vehicle is subsequently found, the stolen vehicle belongs to the insurer. The transfer of ownership would have been completed by the acceptance of the price offered. Clearly, the cash settlement on offer in the event of theft is for the vehicle, and the acceptance is on this clear understanding, in accordance with the contract. On the other had the settlement for damage, whether or not it is called an indemnity or a debt, cannot legally be transposed to include the vehicle. The vehicle per se is not contractually insured other than for loss or theft. Therefore, the agreed settlement accepted by the policyholder for damage, does not include the vehicle. A contractual term ending with; “the vehicle then belongs to us” is void, by transgressing the Sale of Goods Act.

paddyjoe26

InsideInsurance
May I draw your attention to my posting for Daniel54 11 July 2015? I questioned the legality of terms such as: “Once we settle your claim your car will become our property.”
You have failed to defend its legitimacy by mere repetition and regurgitation of the insurance jargon.
Surely you can do better than this? More evasion? No thanks
“We will not refund any of your premiums” is a significant potential loss of from one to eleven months premiums which is not covered by the cash settlement or indemnity. How then is the total loss claimant returned to his financial position enjoyed pre-accident? I suggest by mitigating potential losses by retaining ownership of the salvage?
“Total Loss of your car.”
Pure regurgitation. Please explain the legal details making the transfer of ownership possible.
“If the car is a total loss
When you accept our offer for total loss the car will belong to us.” Contractually the offer is to pay for the damage not repaired, in this case. By what legal mechanism is the payment for damage transposed to a payment for the vehicle?
I assure you I do not need any more mindless repetition of contract terms. Why don’t you provide the legitimacy to those terms you vacuously regurgitate, by activating all the resources available to you; especially logical and law? Is it too onerous to engage your brain?

paddyjoe26

Nearlyold
"I can't see how any amount of convoluted pseudo legal gymnastics aka claptrap (remarkably similar to freeman on the land woo) will change things, the definitive answer is it's lawful."

I look forward to your next thoughtful and constructive contribution. Perhaps it could be slightly more evidence based, if that’s not too stressful? A suggestion is for you to provide a credible and legitimate rebuttal of my working hypothesis that total loss vehicles are unlawfully appropriated. That would be more intelligent than shouting IT’S LAWFUL.

paddyjoe26

Dacouch
“Could you confirm or deny that your post took four years of research?”
My post did not take four years of research.
I did my research first and then “fished, prodded and probed” for answers in line with that research over a four year period. In order to conserve your apparently limited resources, the protracted period of my correspondence was due either to my stupidity or to the other parties’ evasion. Or both? Your call. Be happy.

paddyjoe26

Astronaughtwannabe
“You’d have about the same odds in getting a conviction against an insurer for theft as you would for putting a case before a jury for picking up a free newspaper.”
You’re right, but just because it is an unthinkable thing to do, does not mean that we should not think the unthinkable when there is evidence to suggest it. However I am much more interested in the realistic and objective evidence that contracts transgress individual property rights, and that the transfer of the total loss vehicles is in violation of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, making the appropriation, in terms of the Theft Act 1978, unlawful. Bear in mind it is only when the unlawful appropriation is accompanied by dishonesty that theft comes into play. Forget about theft. Please concentrate on the possibility of an unlawful appropriation? I’m confident you’ve got something sensible to contribute.

paddyjoe26

Thrugelmir
A dent “spanning both doors” is unlikely to be “invisible”. I was making a point that “total loss” or “write-off” does not necessarily mean mangled mess of metal and pain. I also made the point, at least I believe I did, that insurers generally do not offer a buy back option as a matter of course. You have to insist on it if you want to repair the category C. Some insurers point blank refuse, threatening to withhold a cash settlement without the Category C total loss being handed over.

paddyjoe26

Daniel54
“I was pointing out that the insurance contracts are governed by the laws pertaining to insurance contracts.”
That’s all very well, so why don’t you accept my challenge by applying case law and/or any other general or contract laws, to contradict all the evidence I used to support my belief that total loss vehicles are appropriated unlawfully?
Whether or not you find it inconvenient, the terms of the contract are obliged to be lawful. In my posting to you personally I dissected the terms as I understand them. With your qualifications and vast experience you are well equipped to defend your position and that of the insurers. This is your opportunity to explain in detail your assertion that I have chosen to “… (Mis) interpret an insurance contract by ignoring the laws and practices under law that govern insurance contracts.” Please bear in mind that your response must be contract specific. Generalities have no place here.
I am sure you will understand that you are in a good place to show the parties I corresponded with, how they should have delivered the coup de grace.