Drunk driver hit my car

Steve1221

Hi, hope someone can advise me. I was recently in a car accident when an incoming car swerved across the road into my lane and hit my car. The driver was arrested and charged with being over the limit. He is insured. My car has been picked up for repairs but I have been told it may be written off, however the payout may not be enough to clear the outstanding finance. Am I right in thinking that the result could be that i end up with no car and still be out of pocket to the finance company even though I haven't done anything wrong? Thanks for any advice.

FlameCloud

Yes - the value of the claim to the third party would strictly be the loss in financial value of the car (i.e. what it is worth). How it is financed is not their responsibility and is what GAP insurances are available for.

DoaM

Could the OP theoretically sue the other party for the (GAP) loss caused by their negligence?

neilmcl

DoaM wrote: »

Could the OP theoretically sue the other party for the (GAP) loss caused by their negligence?

Yes, the injured party would have the right to sue for all uninsured losses. Still doesn't change the fact that having GAP insurance would've still been the better option in the first place.

foxy-stoat

neilmcl wrote: »

Yes, the injured party would have the right to sue for all uninsured losses. Still doesn't change the fact that having GAP insurance would've still been the better option in the first place.

Can they actually though? I don't think high interest finance is an uninsured loss. {Edited by Forum Team}

Not the other parties fault that the OP took out car finance that didn't allow enough enough deposit or repay quick enough to get the car into positive equity before it was totaled.

Ergates

foxy-stoat wrote: »

Can they actually though? I don't think high interest finance is an uninsured loss. {Edited by Forum Team}

Not the other parties fault that the OP took out car finance that didn't allow enough enough deposit or repay quick enough to get the car into positive equity before it was totaled.

Is the other parties fault the car got totaled though.

foxy-stoat

Ergates wrote: »

Is the other parties fault the car got totaled though.

100% on board with that, I do not think that depreciation is a claimable loss - they just pay out the value for another vehicle like for like at the time of the accident - how they financed the original isn't relevant.

peter_the_piper

Is it a complete write off or just too expensive for the insurance company to get repaired? Would it be roadworthy/cheaper if you got your own garage to repair?

MEM62

The underwriter will pay out the market value of the car. (Often nearer the trade-in figure than the retail one) That is all they are obliged to do.

They do not have liability for the fact that the OP financed the car in such a manner that it had negative equity. That's the OP's problem.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Hmm this is a debate of what is moral and what is just bad luck.


In theory had the offender not got in his car and then crashed into the OP non of this would have come about, If at fault for the crash then thirdparty should be liable to the costs of such mistake. insurable losses are the car, uninsurable losses like stuff that is owned (outright) by the OP like a purse and such that the OP can list as uninsurable loss on a claim form. gap insurance is there specifically to ensure that your not out of pocket in this exact type of event. Im going to go with sorry but no I don't there is going to any liability to the outstanding finance.


Although Now there is no vested interest in the vehicle now its sat in a salvage yard, they may be open to discussion about paying it off.

MEM62

It is an interesting debate.

It is right that the underwriter is only liable for the market value of the car. Apart from the moral issue, which carries little weight in the insurance world, it would be impossible to draw a line in terms of liability anywhere else other that than actual value of the lost item.

As an example, Joe has a better credit standing than Fred because he is prudent with his money whereas Fred is financially reckless. They both buy a car of equal value but the cost of Fred's finance is much higher because he cannot get as good a deal as Joe. If both cars are written off why should the underwriter's liability for one claim be higher than the other because one owner is financially irresponsible. That is not the underwriters problem and they should pay for it.

Worms and cans :-)