Cancelling a Motor Insurance Claim

Erskine0812

I am absolutely amazed at these responses. I was parked in front of my home in a private estate in a quiet cul de sac. I was not in my car. He reversed out of his drive and hit my car. The claim was made in order to prevent him having to pay but instead it resulted in my car being written off. I am sorry, but morally what is being suggested here is wrong. Others in the neighbourhood have suggested to me that he should pay too. I very much doubt that those here expressing otherwise, would be just as annoyed as me if their car was written off.

And for what it is worth. I pay my own fully comp insurance. I have no convictions, claims or anything else but I am the one who loses heavily here. If you believe this is fair - regardless of whether or not it is legally right - then we have very different principles.

facade

No-one said anything about fair, or that they wouldn't be annoyed by it.

Most likely a lot of the posters, possibly even myself, would have paid you the £250 if the option was on the table in the beginning, to (fraudulently) keep it off the insurance radar.

Your neighbour has offered to pay an amount up to the full value of your car, via his insurance, presumably he pays for third party insurance precisely so that his insurance will pay out, not him, his pay-back will be in increased future premiums. Now he will still get the increased premium to neither of your advantage.

There is also the possibility that he simply doesn't have £250 laying around to give you.

Dr_Crypto

He has offered to pay you, via his insurance. You can’t possibly oblige people to give you a privately arranged cash settlement and breach the terms of their insurance. Both parties may agree to do that, where it is to both of their conveniences, but there’s certainly no moral obligation. 

Erskine0812

Once again, I dispute the argument that there is no moral obligation here. There is a clear distinction between what is legally and morally right. Clearly, the insurance line is legally right - despite how unfair it seems. Morally, I am entitled to have what I had before he caused the damage. My car! However, I do accept that as individuals our moral standards differ.

AdrianC

Erskine0812 said:

Morally, I am entitled to have what I had before he caused the damage. My car!

...or the value thereof.

If a truck had tipped a load of anvils onto the roof, there would be no argument that the car was not repairable, right?
So the concept of the value rather than the car itself is established. From thereon in, it's simply a sliding scale - and one that's long-established. Insurers write cars off if the cost of repairs exceeds the pre-accident value.

And that's where you are. It's one of the risks of running a low-value car. For minor claims where the numbers simply don't work in your favour, there are routes around losing the car - buying it back for salvage value, or accepting a payout in lieu of repair without writing off. Both are at the insurer's discretion.

But you are unilaterally refusing to go that route. Your insistence would multiply his personal immediate outlay many times. He has every right to say "No, I want this to go through insurance". Put the boot on the other foot - if you were at fault in a minor collision, and the other driver insisted on dealing in cash rather than going through insurance, you may well take the same position as your neighbour, right? It's a situation that arises here often, and the advice is always "Go through insurance". It's already been notified, so the future premium position is already established for you both.

Aylesbury_Duck

Erskine0812 said:

Once again, I dispute the argument that there is no moral obligation here. 

I'd agree with you if insurance wasn't a compulsory part of car ownership.  But it is.

AdrianC

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Erskine0812 said:

Once again, I dispute the argument that there is no moral obligation here. 

I'd agree with you if insurance wasn't a compulsory part of car ownership.  But it is.

Not of ownership, no.

I own several cars which are uninsured, perfectly legally.

Aylesbury_Duck

AdrianC said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Erskine0812 said:

Once again, I dispute the argument that there is no moral obligation here. 

I'd agree with you if insurance wasn't a compulsory part of car ownership.  But it is.

Not of ownership, no.

I own several cars which are uninsured, perfectly legally.

You pedant 

Mistral001

The OP will probably be asked by the neighbour's insurers to  confirm in writing that the OP will not make a claim against the neighbour now or in the future or words to that effect.  My own view is that the OP was a bit hasty in withdrawing the claim.  I own a car even older than the OP's and am not sure what I would have done if I was in the same situation.  I would probably feel a little annoyed every time I drove past my neighbour's fully repaired car in my damaged car. 

AdrianC

Aylesbury_Duck said:

AdrianC said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Erskine0812 said:

Once again, I dispute the argument that there is no moral obligation here. 

I'd agree with you if insurance wasn't a compulsory part of car ownership.  But it is.

Not of ownership, no.

I own several cars which are uninsured, perfectly legally.

You pedant 

You say the kindest things. Thank you.