Car accident and liability

mogwai

my car was hit by a van while it was parked next to a garage for repairs - the incident was recorded on the garages cctv, and there were eyewitnesses etc who got all the details....obviously their insurers have accepted full liability

So i took my car to a local accident repairs garage to get an estimate on repairs, and the garage guy told me that a hole in the body of the car where it was crushed may not be covered by the insurance??

He says this is because the hole is where there was rust and corrosion on the body, so when that area was dented in the collision, the hole appeared because of the rust and would not be accepted the insurers...ie the insurers may not pay for the hole to be repaired, just for the dents to be taken out and repainted...

This doesnt sound right to me - should I get a second opinion? Its like saying the backlight lamp would not have broken if it wasn't made of glass..

If the van hadnt hit my car, the hole wouldnt be there, rust or no rust. The hole was there right after the car was hit, so was caused by the crash...does the garages opinion sound right to anyone because I am quite shocked by this illogical thinking..

Quentin

The bodyshop know what they are talking about!

Insurance doesn't pay out for "betterment".

That is when the repair improves your car (beyond what it was like before the crash).

So expect your insurer not to pay the whole cost of the repair.

*MF*

@ mogwai

Quentin is correct - however everything made of metal is prone to rust, and there is a difference between having rust (before the accident) and a hole (after the accident) - so a bit of negotiation is in order imho.

mogwai

Thanks for the opinions...but as MF said, there wasn't a hole before, and now there is. The car was not in a bad state at all before it was hit, its just there was an area of rust above the wheel, and this is where the hole appeared. That area may have been weaker than the rest, and thus led to a hole, but there would never be a hole if the other car hadn't hit it, surely its just logical deduction to work out that the other party is responsible for the hole appearing, not the rust that was there.

I guess if the repairshop has dealt with this kind of thing before, and this is maybe how insurers view the situation, but its def taking the p*** if you ask me...I think a second opinion is in order..

*MF*

It would help your "negotiations" if you had a photo of the car which showed its prior condition.

Do you know the cost of repairs yet? Including and excluding the cost of repairing the disputed area? Once you do - maybe see if another repairer could do the whole thing for the lower figure (plus a bit - if you can squeeze some via any negotiation) - then move repairers - load of hassle I know - but it's the best i can suggest.