Insurance Claim - Opinions?

Gone Drinking

Right so before Christmas, i was driving to work. The snow had thawed but there was black ice that morning in places.

I came to a bend and hit a patch of it and the car went straight and hit a cirb. It ended up sitting just past the bend, up on the grass, with two wheels barely on the road. The front passanger side wheel was buckled and pointing inwards like "\"

Myself and a friend who was with me left the car there and went to get his car. When we got back to where my car was, there was a guy in another car who had hit the same patch of ice and ploughed into my car.

This automatically puts him in the wrong, because he hit a parked, or driverless car (insurances words, not mine)

I got a quotation for the damage of the back of my car which came to over 1000 euro, the cars insured for 800 and i think insurance companys consider damages over 50% of the cars worth a write off.

His insurance came out to take pictures, then went off and showed them to the engineer.

I've rang them since and they're coming out to take more pictures, i asked why and they told me its because they know the car was "crashed" before he hit me (they mean me hitting the cirb) and if they consider the damage i did to have written the car off then they'll only be paying me the back bumpers worth in scrappage.

Now whats to say this guy didn't do more damage to the front wheel, drive shaft etc when he hit the back and bounced my car back onto the road?

Should i be worried? In their mind all they need is a quotation of 400 euro (they'll probably quote for brand new parts) to make my car a write off

Henry Ford III

Interesting case.

You had a lowish value car, which had been damaged in a previous impact. That presumably further reduces it's value?

You'll have to fight your corner I'd imagine.

How much damage was done by your crash? Be honest.

Fey!

Ask for a copy of their assessors report stating what damage was definitely there before they hit your car and what damage was there after.

Was your car a write-off after you first accident, or did it only become a write-off after their client hit it?

Gone Drinking

Thats the thing lads, my car hit the cirb and all i saw was what i could see at the time, the buckled wheel that was bent like "\"

The other guy hit it 15 minutes later, so i had no idea what damage was done by me to the front (bar that i could see the wheel was buckled and pointing inwards).

The two accidents happened in the space of 15 minutes

Gone Drinking

RoverJames wrote: »

How much damage was done by your crash? Be honest.

Honestly, im not sure.

My problem is that now (i think), there's a broken drive shaft, broken wish bone and maybe a track rod end.. i'm not 100% sure.

Who's to say he didn't cause some of that damage when he went into the back of me? My car moved significantly

Tea drinker

It will be difficult to prove. I reckon the major damage was already done to your car's suspension in the first impact. Wishbone and rods damaged entirely plausible.
Are ya chancing your arm a bit here?

Gone Drinking

Tea drinker wrote: »

It will be difficult to prove. I reckon the major damage was already done to your car's suspension in the first impact. Wishbone and rods damaged entirely plausible.
Are ya chancing your arm a bit here?

If the insurance company considers the damage done to the front of my car a write off in their eyes (in their eyes probably being new parts, huge labour etc), then i'll have a car that i could have fixed via the scrap yard with over a grands worth of damage done to the body of the back of it.

Tea drinker

Gone Drinking wrote: »

If the insurance company considers the damage done to the front of my car a write off in their eyes (in their eyes probably being new parts, huge labour etc), then i'll have a car that i could have fixed via the scrap yard with over a grands worth of damage done to the body of the back of it.

Surely the rear accident should be paid in full though... why pay for the back bumper only? surely the boot, maybe tailights etc are all damaged.

If the front subframe wasn't damaged you might have got away with 100 - 200 in a scrappy to fix it, absent the rear damage as you say.
Why don't you price up a wishbone, driveshaft, tie rod and see what the new part cost would be? If the frame is not bent maybe 2 hours labour?

Have you got any pics for us vultures to squawk at?

stevenmu

This is pretty cheeky by the insurance company. They're acting on the assumption that your car would have been written off by the initial damage, and therefore paying out the same as if a piece of scrap had been hit.

I think you could justifiably claim that you were willing to pay for the repairs to the initial damage yourself and put the car back on the road, therefore they should pay for the full damage to the rear. And if it was me, since you're not claiming for the initial damage from them, then I'd insist it's not really any of their business.

It's a tricky situation though, you should really talk to a solicitor.

fred252

seems like a lot of hassle for the insurance company to save a few hundred quid. i'd be surprised if they don't pay out.

Vertakill

Well, at the end of the day, the car was nearly entirely up on the path when the second incident occured.
While the first incident caused some possible suspension damage, the second incident caused some definite structural damage.

The kerb incident could've/would've been repaired at the OP's expense or from his own insurance company, however adding the second incident seems to have tipped the claim over into 'not economically viable' territory.


The bottom line is, the car is still of value, despite it having a buckled wheel and some suspension damage. This other guy ran into it while it was parked up on a path and dramatically decreased it's value. The OP should be insured for that.