Car in freak accident

macman

In the absence of the OP, I'm still going to fight her corner and suggest that, while she knows what she paid for the car 4 years ago, she has little idea of what depreciation has done to it's value 4 years on, and is shocked by the offer that the insurer has made. Her only point of reference is the original purchase price. 
'A fraction of' simply translates here as ' a lot less than'.

Car_54

Mickey666 said:

KimJongUn88 said:

Of course you’re going to get paid a fraction of what you paid for it four years ago, cars depreciate.

I don't agree with insurance companies 'writing off' a car simply because the repairs would cost more than the value of the car.  I know they do it all the time and it has become standard practice, but I don't like it.

Why? Because it means someone can cause, say, £5,000 worth of damage but only have to pay out, say, £1,000.  It simply isn't fair.

If someone damages my car, I'm not really interested in the cost of the repairs or the value of my car.  What I want, and which insurance is supposed to be about, it to be put back into the same position as I was before the inflicted damage - ie MY car, repaired to the state it was.  If it was someone else's fault, why should I suffer any loss?

Why is it so unreasonable to expect the guilty party to pay for the repairs, regardless of the value of the car?  I wasn't planning on going shopping for a new car, I don't want to be forced to go shopping for a new car, I'm quite happy with my existing one, it has another 10 years in it and I was planning to keep it.  If someone damages it they should pay to put it right!

If the guilty party's insurance company will only pay a proportion of the damage caused then why should that be my problem?

The insurance companies don't make the rules. They simply pay what a court would award, in accordance with established legal principles.

Petriix

They (the third party insurers) are, of course, obliged to leave you in the position you were prior to the accident. If you can't find a similar car for sale for the amount they are offering then you should demand more. They usually have a degree of flexibility and will likely make a lower offer initially in the hope that you will accept it.

You should be compensated for all your reasonable resultant losses and can take them to court if necessary.

Grumpy_chap

Supersonos said:

Grumpy_chap said:

The OP has also not given any indication of what fraction they have been offered of what they paid 4 years ago.  1% or 99% makes a big difference to the whole thread.

1% and 99% aren't fractions.

Mathematically, fractions and percentages are two different notations for exactly the same thing.

AdrianC

Mickey666 said:

I know all the arguments, but I still have a problem with this: "Your car was worth a grand, you now have the value of it - a grand."

THAT is a loss to me.  If I'd wanted £1,000 in cash I could have sold the car.  No, what I want is MY car.

But your car no longer exists. It has been damaged beyond the point of economic repair.

So let's say "OK, it can be done." At what point above the value is the line drawn?
It's a £1k-value car.
Should the insurer pay £2k to repair it?
How about £3k?
£5k?
£10k?
£20k?
Commission a brand new bodyshell, if the original manufacturer can no longer supply one?
How about where there's extensive fire damage? Let's say that it was parked in that Liverpool multi-storey a few years back.

I'm sure even you'd agree that was ridiculous. So we're in agreement that a line has to be drawn somewhere... What multiple of the value of the car would you want it to be drawn at?

Of course it's physically POSSIBLE... It's possible to reconstruct a car from the paperwork. It happens regularly with high-value classics. You can buy brand-new bodyshells, together with all mechanical and trim components, for many popular classics - Land Rovers, MGBs, Minis, 2cvs, various yanks including Camaros and Mustangs...
But is it REASONABLE to expect an insurer to take your near-knackered older car and reconstruct it to as-new condition? Isn't that betterment?

Also, it should have nothing to do with MY insurance policy.  In this case, I'm the innocent party.  Someone has smashed up my car and I think it's reasonable that they pay to repair the damage they've caused. 

Claiming from your own insurer when the other party is at fault is just a way of simplifying the claim process. They reclaim from the other party's insurer, and you will be in the same ultimate position as if you had claimed directly from them.

Or do you mean that you want the other party to suffer personally, not be able to hide behind the insurer indemnifying them? Tough. That's getting past simple insurance and into vigilante vengeance...

AdrianC

Petriix said:

They (the third party insurers) are, of course, obliged to leave you in the position you were prior to the accident. If you can't find a similar car for sale for the amount they are offering then you should demand more.

What if you can't find one because there is no "similar" car for sale at all?

How similar is "similar", anyway? Some people would pay a premium for a "rare" colour or trim combo, together with various options. Perhaps there weren't many sold new to that spec 15 years ago... Perhaps the car had been modified (all mods declared to the insurer), costing way in excess of any realistic market value. Should the insurer pay the cost to rebuild it? Even though you'd bought a policy that explicitly said their liability was the market value?

bigadaj

Good thing the value hasn't been decimated....

Scrapit

Wouldnt it be weird if the percentage symbol was literally a fraction (%)?

Mickey666

AdrianC said:

Mickey666 said:

I know all the arguments, but I still have a problem with this: "Your car was worth a grand, you now have the value of it - a grand."

THAT is a loss to me.  If I'd wanted £1,000 in cash I could have sold the car.  No, what I want is MY car.

But your car no longer exists. It has been damaged beyond the point of economic repair.

Of course the car exists, it just happens to be damaged.

I guess my issue is the definition of 'beyond economic repair' - it's just too simplistic.

Sure, your extreme example of a burned out car (one that I already pointed out btw) would make for an impractical repair, and there will be other similar scenarios.  I entirely get that.

But I'm thinking more of the 'middle ground'.  Cars depreciate so quickly these days and I'd suggest this is largely because of the costs of repairs.  I don't know the market value of Mr Average's car these days but I'd guess it is surprisingly low.  Keep a car in good working condition, regularly serviced and it will struggle to have a market value much over £2000 after 10 years.  Probably much less and after less time.  Maybe only £1500 after 7 or 8 years.

Given the very high cost of repairs these days, and given things such as crumple zones, air-bags, parking sensors, fancy swivelling headlamps, etc, even a minor accident that leaves a car basically safe and driveable can cost £1000s of pound to repair.  I had someone break my wing mirror and cause a minor dent in a door panel and the repair cost was around £2500!  For what percentage of cars on the road today would that be classed as a write-off?

Sure, the basic economics are easy to define.  Car worth less than £3000, wing mirror & minor dent repair costs £2500 + misc additional admin costs etc = write off!  But the physical implication is that a perfectly sound vehicle is going to the scrapper for the sake of fixing a wing mirror and a small dent!   In the grand scheme of things it is a ludicrous waste and totally unfair on the proud owner of a beloved vehicle kept in pristine condition, through absolutely no fault of his own.

Perhaps if more people were outraged by such a situation and fewer people supported 'the system' then something might, just might, get changed - but I'm not holding my breath.

Car_54

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC said:

Mickey666 said:

I know all the arguments, but I still have a problem with this: "Your car was worth a grand, you now have the value of it - a grand."

THAT is a loss to me.  If I'd wanted £1,000 in cash I could have sold the car.  No, what I want is MY car.

But your car no longer exists. It has been damaged beyond the point of economic repair.

Sure, the basic economics are easy to define.  Car worth less than £3000, wing mirror & minor dent repair costs £2500 + misc additional admin costs etc = write off!  But the physical implication is that a perfectly sound vehicle is going to the scrapper for the sake of fixing a wing mirror and a small dent!   In the grand scheme of things it is a ludicrous waste and totally unfair on the proud owner of a beloved vehicle kept in pristine condition, through absolutely no fault of his own.

Perhaps if more people were outraged by such a situation and fewer people supported 'the system' then something might, just might, get changed - but I'm not holding my breath.

It's quite possible to "get round" the system, and many people do.
After paying you the market value, most insurers seem happy to sell you the car for its scrap value. You can then either get a cheap repair, or just live with the dents etc. and a gaffer-taped mirror.