Car Damage to Garden Wall

DullGreyGuy

DosgDinner said:

caprikid1 said:

Out of interest who is the insurer ?

Sorry, just realised my answer may have appeared flippant. I am new here and not sure if naming is allowed ?

You would be fine to name Admiral if you wanted to

DosgDinner

Hi Guys,

Thanks for your past help, it has clarified my thinking !

I have received a further email form 'motor claims services' part of 'the claims consortium group' who seem to be some sort of agent for Admiral Group.

Basically they are talking nonsense and seem to be desperately trying to convince me that the wall can be repaired. They claim (falsely) that 50%/7LM of the wall is damaged and they are only liable for the damaged section and that 'no undamaged parts of the wall can be included in the claim'.

I have taken some quick measurements and the wall is 10.40 LM with 8.60 LM damaged. Most of the damage is where the wall has moved off its' footings rather than the car sized hole. So I make this about 83% of the wall is damaged.

Am I right in assuming that as with any insured article if it can be repaired it should be. If a repair is not possible then the insurer is liable for replacement ?

Or is there some kind of case law that walls are a special case ?

BarelySentientAI

DosgDinner said:

Am I right in assuming that as with any insured article if it can be repaired it should be. If a repair is not possible then the insurer is liable for replacement ?

No. 

As mentioned before, repair cost is used as a proxy anyway.  There's nothing that says something must be repaired. 

It's quite common for an offer of cash to be made as settlement.  Nothing stopping you using that cash for repair, but nothing forcing you to either.  You could spend it at the dogs or on a holiday of you wanted to.

DosgDinner

BarelySentientAI said:

DosgDinner said:

Am I right in assuming that as with any insured article if it can be repaired it should be. If a repair is not possible then the insurer is liable for replacement ?

No. 

As mentioned before, repair cost is used as a proxy anyway.  There's nothing that says something must be repaired. 

It's quite common for an offer of cash to be made as settlement.  Nothing stopping you using that cash for repair, but nothing forcing you to either.  You could spend it at the dogs or on a holiday of you wanted to.

Thanks for taking the time to reply I appreciate it.

Sorry if I am labouring this but I just want to be sure in case I have to make a 'small claim'.

So, as I suspected, the unregulated claims handlers are trying it on only offering 50% and their claim that 'no undamaged sections of the wall can be included in the claim' is just the latest in a long list of lies?

I am not trying to gain any sort of advantage or to be unreasonable, I just the wall sorted out !

BarelySentientAI

DosgDinner said:

BarelySentientAI said:

DosgDinner said:

Am I right in assuming that as with any insured article if it can be repaired it should be. If a repair is not possible then the insurer is liable for replacement ?

No. 

As mentioned before, repair cost is used as a proxy anyway.  There's nothing that says something must be repaired. 

It's quite common for an offer of cash to be made as settlement.  Nothing stopping you using that cash for repair, but nothing forcing you to either.  You could spend it at the dogs or on a holiday of you wanted to.

Thanks for taking the time to reply I appreciate it.

Sorry if I am labouring this but I just want to be sure in case I have to make a 'small claim'.

So, as I suspected, the unregulated claims handlers are trying it on only offering 50% and their claim that 'no undamaged sections of the wall can be included in the claim' is just the latest in a long list of lies?

I am not trying to gain any sort of advantage or to be unreasonable, I just the wall sorted out !

Well it's not exactly a lie.

You should be compensated for the loss of value, for which the repair cost is a commonly accepted proxy.

There would be no loss of value and no repair cost for something that is undamaged, so it would attract no compensation.  Saying that it "can't be included in the claim" is shorthand for that.

Your argument isn't that undamaged parts can be included, it's that the parts that they are trying to exclude are actually damaged.