Direct Line - pathetic car insurance claim payout!!

iwmorg

okay, fine, in my experience, they not only have terrible claims handlers, but also lousy claims procedures. (being a claims professional maybe my expectations are to high - but some of the rubbish their claims handlers came out with about insurance principles simply proved to me that DL don't spend much of their profit on training!!)

As far as indemnity goes - I think I made it pretty clear in my post that it's intention is putting the insured back in the same situation as before the accident- (same age, mileage, condition etc) so I don't understand why you disagree with my point!!?? maybe you need to read up on the principle of indemnity!!

Do you find it unreasonable that a person might buy a Renault car from a Renault dealer??

As with all purchases, if you got a great deal originally, you'll wind up ok when the insurance pays out - if you paid over the odds- you'll be stung if you suffer a total loss.

In this case - the OP has stated that they have reasonable evidence from autotrader about the cost of replacing her car - and therefore, it sounds like you (dt7blue) have a good case. I would, however, try to go through the medium of the insurer itself and their complaints procedure before going to straight to the FOS - as they'll more than likely expect you to explore all avenues with the insurer before they intervene.

raskazz

iwmorg wrote: »

As far as indemnity goes - I think I made it pretty clear in my post that it's intention is putting the insured back in the same situation as before the accident- (same age, mileage, condition etc) so I don't understand why you disagree with my point!!?? maybe you need to read up on the principle of indemnity!!

Maybe you ought to check your own understanding of indemnity before presuming that I do not have a full understanding of said principle.

You state that indemnity involves "putting the insured back in the same situation as before the accident" - this is fundamentally not accurate. Indemnity involves placing the insured in the same financial position as they enjoyed immediately prior to the loss. So the insurer is obliged to pay them a sum that enables the insured to buy a car of the same make and model with the same age, mileage, condition, and so on.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that "If it is a total loss - they should pay what it would cost you to buy a similar car from a dealer" as it is is not consistent with the principle of indemnity. The advertised dealership price may be a starting point in negotiation, but holds no greater significance. It is generally accepted that advertised prices are higher then eventual selling prices.

Buying from a dealer rather than private sale is essentially an emotional choice not a financial one. If an equivalent vehicle can be purchased privately with the settlement amount then that amount is fair as the insured is in the same financial position as they enjoyed before the loss.

gazza975526570

mattymoo wrote: »

Out of interest, Raskazz / Gazza.
I've often wondered why insurers do not firm up this definition. I looked at the DL definition and they state it is the "Market Value" of the vehicle. A common enough term in policies but not one that is used in the motor trade or in the price guides.

They define A1 Retail (showroom), Good, Fair and Trade (trade in) normally.

Surely it would be easy for insurers to give a tighter definition of market value to avoid this confusion. I've no idea why they don't. I moved away from motor claims in the early 90's (my current employer doesn't even handle motor business) so I've no one to ask.

I used to work within a motor claims environment many years ago now and the various places i worked all had similar sounding definitions - ie the most we will pay is up to the market value. In my experience seldom complaints arose about the definition, though the actual valuations would continue to be the sticking point!

I think its a fair point that i should be tightened up however having said that many policy booklets across many products have weak and ambiguous policy wordng where the insurers seem loathe to tighten them up - presumably because most consumers will trust the insurers viewpoint and therefore is not ecomonical to change the wording