Are Write-Offs (Total Loss Vehicles) Appropriated Lawfully

paddyjoe26

Daniel54 wrote: »

Thankfully,insurance companies are now obliged to write their policies in plain english so the Privilege policy you quoted says what it means.No further interpretation required in respect of the passages you discussed.

"Once we settle your claim the vehicle belongs to us", satisfies the requirement for plain english and the meaning is clear. This is not, however, the issue. The pivotal issue is whether the term is fair and, therefore, lawful.

I have based my assessment on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR's), Regulation 5(1) which was quoted in my posting addressing InsideInsurance on 27 July 2015. Therefore, i won't repeat it here; Suffice it to add that Regulation 5(1) will become relevant later.

You courteously responded to my question: "What exactly initiates a lawful transfer of property?"; (this being in the context of the Privilege policy), on the 11th July and you provided further details on the 24th of July for which i thank you.

As I understand it, your argument is as follows, to paraphrase your previous posting:
Under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, the policyholder can only benefit from the total loss payout, and for this reason the policyholders cannot retain the total loss, otherwise they will be enriched rather than reimbursed. What happens if the policyholder incurs a financial loss due to the overall insurance process from accident to replacement? You quote Article 61 regarding constructive total loss, but with respect, this is no more than playing semantics in the context of the non-negotiated contract protected by the UTCCR's, Regulation 5(1).

According to advocate John Carruthers in his article on the UTCCR's, he stresses that in such circumstances there should be a counterbalancing term in favour of the consumer as the supplier should not seek to gain a contractual advantage over the consumer. My original posting on 27 July deals with these losses, which are very real where they apply.

Clearly, the legality of the total loss appropriations is under threat unless someone has a defence to offer. The status quo is untenable.

rs65

paddyjoe26 wrote: »

What happens if the policyholder incurs a financial loss due to the overall insurance process from accident to replacement?

These are uninsured losses.

paddyjoe26 wrote: »

Clearly, the legality of the total loss appropriations is under threat unless someone has a defence to offer. The status quo is untenable.

I'm pleased you are accepting that insurers are acting legally. If you want to change the law, maybe start with your MP?

redux

paddyjoe26 wrote: »

I am not sure if you are drawing on your own experience or whether you are merely repeating ...

If you hadn't edited out half of my post you might have an idea of the answer to that question.

I didn't invent anything.

I still don't understand your position. You say you've spent 4 years studying the subject, but why not just make a couple of negotiating calls at the start, including if necessary assertively reminding them that it's your vehicle until you accept settlement.

Now you've started complaining about class A and class B vehicles. Why?

paddyjoe26

rs65 wrote: »

You are seeking some form of consequential loss insurance which isn't available - therefore trying to use some strange logic to squeeze more out of claim to reimburse your uninsured losses.

Whether or not we call the additional losses consequential or constructive losses, it is still a real loss to the total loss claimant, directly attributable to the classification of the damage being a total loss. As far as pro-rata premiums and car hire are concerned I suggest that the insurance companies could possibly claim that these core policies, taking them out of the UTCCR's reach. This does not change the fact however that this cost to the total loss claimant could be construed by a court to be an item of interest to Regulation 5(1), losing the protection enjoyed by a core policy. Just a thought.

As to the realistic potential for a negative impact of the vehicle valuations on the total loss claimant, it is still a realistic probability, even if it qualifies as a consequential or constructive loss. It has come down to a mathematical option for the insurer to appropriate the total loss vehicle, and it must be considered by taking the consequences of the total loss classification into consideration over the four corners of the contract.

Regulation 6(1) of the UTCCR's provides that in the consideration of fairness of a contract term, the court must 'consider all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract' and the 'nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded'. Regulation 5(1) and the comments of advocate John Carruthers, extracted from his article on the UTCCR's (Refer: my posting on 27 July to Daniel54), are also relevant.

We need to be mindful that the total loss claimant will have bought the same comprehensive contract as that bought by the non-total loss claimant. And yet is subjected to what appear to be penalty clauses.

rudekid48

Would it be possible - just once - to actually get to the point rather than these long rambling posts that don't actually say anything?

molerat

Interestingly my SIL has just been offered a cash settlement or a reduced payment and keep the car. We reckon they will be able to repair the car for less than half the payout.

paddyjoe26

rs65 wrote: »

These are uninsured losses.

So what? They are still unequivocally losses as a direct result of a total loss classification, with direct links to the overall process of contract and policy, detrimental to the total loss claimant. The whole cannot be sliced up into unrelated compartments and viewed in isolation.

rs65 wrote: »

I'm pleased you are accepting that insurers are acting legally. If you want to change the law, maybe start with your MP?

Excuse me, did I say that? I don't think that you have understood the ramifications of the UTCCR's particularly Regulations 5(1) and 6(1), and we haven't yet touched on the inviolable rights to property ownership.

paddyjoe26

rudekid48 wrote: »

Would it be possible - just once - to actually get to the point rather than these long rambling posts that don't actually say anything?

Oh! Judgement thou art fled to brutish beasts
And men have lost their reason
But here I am to speak of what i know
I shall endeavor to be short
To capture the wise and honourable who
No doubt with reasons will answer me
Yet I fear I wrong rudekid48 should i wager
He has no attention span
(With some help from the Bard)

paddyjoe26

molerat wrote: »

Interestingly my SIL has just been offered a cash settlement or a reduced payment and keep the car. We reckon they will be able to repair the car for less than half the payout.

I'm pleased for your SIL, but you have been short on the facts. Of course if all falls in his favour it is possible that you are right. After all, the insurers sell the total loss on to the trade who repair the catergory C and sell it on. Lets do the sums:

The insurer estimates the cost of repairs using new parts as a matter of policy which nudges a lot of claims unnecessarily into the economic total loss category. Your SIL will fit used parts at a significant saving, but there will be sourcing costs. Did he achieve a fair market value for the settlement?
Add up:
i) The deduction for salvage from the settlement payout.
ii) Any premiums lost by the cancellation of the policy.
iii) Any car hire costs while the car is being repaired, or realistic charges for family of friend support.
iv) All labour costed out on an opportunity cost basis.

paddyjoe26

redux wrote: »

If you hadn't edited out half of my post you might have an idea of the answer to that question.

I think you are confused. I listed the industry's proclaimed intentions to demonstrate that the evidence given to the CMA does not materialize in practice (the sanitized insurance narrative). You agreed that buybacks are not advertised.

What percentage of first time total loss claimants would think of asking for a buyback? I guess very small.

redux wrote: »

I didn't invent anything.

I didn't say you invented anything other than my "imagined position that some might refuse to sell salvage". Your recent statement that I claim to have spent four years studying the subject is inventive.

Yes. It is my vehicle until I accept the settlement (and possibly beyond), but if resistance to the buyback is obdurate you have no option other than to give up the vehicle if you want the payout settlement.

You say you don't understand my position. It is simply to achieve a fair deal for total loss claimants and the insurers. At present the balance of power in the non-negotiable standard form contracts is unfairly in favour of the insurers.

redux wrote: »

Now you've started complaining about class A and class B vehicles. Why?

This was not a complaint. I was simply making it clear that categories A and B are not under any circumstances made available on a buyback option.