Car insurance. Question re writeoffs

RedBunting

Last year someone ran into my husband's car.  She admitted liability.  His car was declared a write off.  He had fully comprehensive insurance.

Husbands insurance paid out approx £4k, plus scrap value approx £2k. This was approx £2800 short of full market value which the insurers assured him would be claimed back from the other party.

He went to court today.  The claim was thrown out as his insurers had not obtained an independant valuation on his car.  Apparently the three adverts of similar cars for sale at a similar price, that we were told to obtain by the insurers, were not acceptible as evidence.  The barrister he met at the court (provided by his insurers) said that independant valuations were always required.

My point is, he followed the insurers advice exactly, but still lost out because of their negligence.  Shouldn't they have paid out the full market value up front?  Does he now have a claim against them? 

RedBunting

My apologies.  Its my first time posting and I'm feeling rather confused and unsettled by this whole thing.  Not feeling too good at the moment so I couldn't accompany my husband to court, which upsets me even more.  So, hello to everyone, and if anyone can help or comment it would be very much appreciated.  Thank you.

Nobbie1967

Who is your insurer? (I’ll avoid them). You need to complain to your insurer that their negligence has cost you £2800 due to bad advice. If they fail to give you an acceptable resolution ask for a deadlock letter and then you can lodge a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/how-to-complain

Too late for you now, but in cases where the 3rd party admits fault and your car is a writeoff, I’ve found I get a better result dealing with the 3rd party insurer directly as they are incentivised to give a generous settlement to avoid the fees of the accident management companies.

Aretnap

Something rather bizarre has happened here. If claiming from your insurer, your insurer is responsible for paying the full market value of your car, less your excess of course. What they can or can't recover from the third party is then their problem, not yours.

If you don't think your insurer offered you the full market value of the car, you complain to your insurer, and then to the Financial Ombudsman if you are still not happy. You don't accept an inadequate payout from your own insurer then try to reclaim the shortfall from the third party - that's not how things are done and you will usually fail if you try. 

If you don't think that the insurer valued your vehicle correctly then that's the basis of your complaint. The Financial Ombudsman's guidance on how how it should have been valued is here

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/complaints-can-help/insurance/motor-insurance/vehicle-valuations-write-offs

Note that the Financial Ombudsman's starting point will be the valuation as shown in the trade guides. Adverts for similar cars are usually not the best evidence of market value (just because someone advertises a car for £5000 doesn't mean that anybody is going to buy it for £5000), though the Ombudsman is more willing to consider them now than they once were.

XRS200

Was it definitely his insurers who assured him it would be recovered?  That would be unusual.

Was there another party involved- maybe a law firm or an accident management company?

DullGreyGuy

RedBunting said:

Last year someone ran into my husband's car.  She admitted liability.  His car was declared a write off.  He had fully comprehensive insurance.

Husbands insurance paid out approx £4k, plus scrap value approx £2k. This was approx £2800 short of full market value which the insurers assured him would be claimed back from the other party.

He went to court today.  The claim was thrown out as his insurers had not obtained an independant valuation on his car.  Apparently the three adverts of similar cars for sale at a similar price, that we were told to obtain by the insurers, were not acceptible as evidence.  The barrister he met at the court (provided by his insurers) said that independant valuations were always required.

My point is, he followed the insurers advice exactly, but still lost out because of their negligence.  Shouldn't they have paid out the full market value up front?  Does he now have a claim against them? 

Why did they pay out less than market value in the first place? 

Most personal lines motor insurance you are insured for the market value less any excess you have agreed to but there are fixed value policies out there. Normally those are used on rare/classic cars where a valuation may be difficult to get to after its stolen or such hence you agree it up front rather than at claims stage. 

The insurer also wouldn't be taking the third party to court for your uninsured losses, if you have Legal Expenses cover they would appoint a law firm to do so and whilst they operate under the terms of the policy they make their own decisions and recommendations as professional lawyers. 

The only time your losses would be claimed by the insurer themselves is if they were litigating to recover their outlay and you didnt have LE because there can only be one court case for what originally were your losses. Liability however isnt in dispute and if their outlay is only £4k on a £8,800 vehicle no third party insurer is going to let that get to court