is the car a write off??

xxlauraxxox

hey guys, hope someone can help me on this.. 3weeks ago a guy ran into the back of my car while i was stopped at a roundbout.he damaged my back bumper and he made a small dint that was in my boot previous deeper and bigger.i got a quote of 900.46e to fix the car (which is a 2002 skoda fabia saloon with nct out since end of march insuranced at 1500 )
anyway an assessor from his company got back to me and after looking at my car on wednesday said that my boot was also out of line and that they guy hadnt put that on his quote and hed get onto the guy that done the quote for me to get a new price.
just wondering now what the story is will they write off my car now or what has the estimate have to be before they write it off
cheers x:D

Marlow

The only one, that can tell you it's a write off, is the insurance.

Usually, if the repair is economically unviable (compared to the resale value of the car), the car is considered a write off.

Even if it's written off, you can often buy the car out and get it fixed up yourself, if that's what you fancy.

/M

MugMugs

Marlow wrote: »

The only one, that can tell you it's a write off, is the insurance.

Usually, if the repair is economically unviable (compared to the resale value of the car), the car is considered a write off.

Even if it's written off, you can often buy the car out and get it fixed up yourself, if that's what you fancy.

/M

+1

If the repair value exceeds 60% of the overall value of the car then its a write off...

Indricotherium

You are claiming against someone else's insurance as a third party?

Can they declare your car a write off????

MugMugs

Indricotherium wrote: »

Can they declare your car a write off????

Yes

djimi

MugMugs wrote: »

Indricotherium wrote: »

Can they declare your car a write off????

Yes

You seem like a knowledgable fellow when it comes to insurance so you might be able to answer something that Ive always wondered about that is to do with this. Say I have a car that is valued at €3k by an insurance company, but it would be hard enough to find one in the same condition for the same money, if possible at all. If someone writes off my car (assume its 100% their fault; they smash into it when its parked or something), and their insurance write it off for a value that means I cannot replace it with like for like, do I have any right to persue the person/insurer further to recoup the full cost of truely replacing my car, or do you just have to accept their final offer and get on with it?

MugMugs

djimi wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Indricotherium wrote: »

Can they declare your car a write off????

Yes

You seem like a knowledgable fellow when it comes to insurance so you might be able to answer something that Ive always wondered about that is to do with this. Say I have a car that is valued at €3k by an insurance company, but it would be hard enough to find one in the same condition for the same money, if possible at all. If someone writes off my car (assume its 100% their fault; they smash into it when its parked or something), and their insurance write it off for a value that means I cannot replace it with like for like, do I have any right to persue the person/insurer further to recoup the full cost of truely replacing my car, or do you just have to accept their final offer and get on with it?

A few different arguments there. If its worth 3k then their total outlay is just 3k. If you can't replace your vehicle to the same pre loss manner for the 3k then surely it would be worth more? If that makes sense?
Ultimately, Insurers are obliged to return you to the same financial position you were in before the accident. You should never be allowed to be in a better position..... Ever! In the same breath, you shouldn't be at a loss either. So if your motor was worth 3k you should get 3k. If you can't replace it for 3k then it may well be worth more and you should receive more....

Not sure if that makes sense.... I'm still a bit hungover.

djimi

MugMugs wrote: »

A few different arguments there. If its worth 3k then their total outlay is just 3k. If you can't replace your vehicle to the same pre loss manner for the 3k then surely it would be worth more? If that makes sense?
Ultimately, Insurers are obliged to return you to the same financial position you were in before the accident. You should never be allowed to be in a better position..... Ever! In the same breath, you shouldn't be at a loss either. So if your motor was worth 3k you should get 3k. If you can't replace it for 3k then it may well be worth more and you should receive more....

Not sure if that makes sense.... I'm still a bit hungover.

Yeah no that makes sense alright! I think I worded it wrongly when I said "worth"; I just mean that the book value of a car that the insurers work off is often less than the true amount it would cost to replace with like for like. Ive just heard plenty of stories of people having their car written off and getting back maybe 80% of what it would cost to replace the car with like for like. In the case of the car I drive there arent that many floating around to begin with, and certainly very few that havent been skangered beyond recognition, so it would be hard for me to replace with like for like as it is, and I certainly wouldnt think it fair to have to put money myself to whatever I would get from the insurer just to ensure that I am back where I started.

MugMugs

djimi wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

A few different arguments there. If its worth 3k then their total outlay is just 3k. If you can't replace your vehicle to the same pre loss manner for the 3k then surely it would be worth more? If that makes sense?
Ultimately, Insurers are obliged to return you to the same financial position you were in before the accident. You should never be allowed to be in a better position..... Ever! In the same breath, you shouldn't be at a loss either. So if your motor was worth 3k you should get 3k. If you can't replace it for 3k then it may well be worth more and you should receive more....

Not sure if that makes sense.... I'm still a bit hungover.

Yeah no that makes sense alright! I think I worded it wrongly when I said "worth"; I just mean that the book value of a car that the insurers work off is often less than the true amount it would cost to replace with like for like. Ive just heard plenty of stories of people having their car written off and getting back maybe 80% of what it would cost to replace the car with like for like. In the case of the car I drive there arent that many floating around to begin with, and certainly very few that havent been skangered beyond recognition, so it would be hard for me to replace with like for like as it is, and I certainly wouldnt think it fair to have to put money myself to whatever I would get from the insurer just to ensure that I am back where I started.

I lost a Civic to a rubber necker. Car was immaculate. Apple of my eye etc.... To replace exactly would have cost me about 2k more than what was being offered. I held out and stood my ground. Showed them similar cars from online etc.... Eventually got my way. Remember, the less an insurer pays out on a car, the more they save... Therefore, the more they make. Business is business I suppose.

xxlauraxxox

thanks guys might need to go car shopping so anyone selling a car lol

mickdw

djimi wrote: »

You seem like a knowledgable fellow when it comes to insurance so you might be able to answer something that Ive always wondered about that is to do with this. Say I have a car that is valued at €3k by an insurance company, but it would be hard enough to find one in the same condition for the same money, if possible at all. If someone writes off my car (assume its 100% their fault; they smash into it when its parked or something), and their insurance write it off for a value that means I cannot replace it with like for like, do I have any right to persue the person/insurer further to recoup the full cost of truely replacing my car, or do you just have to accept their final offer and get on with it?

There are 'agreed value' insurance policies that are ideal if your car is not standard or of more value than the average. very useful for classics / modern classics. Unfortunately, i dont think it is avaiable in Ireland. very often used in uk though

Delancey

A guy in a Volvo ran into me last year , repair quote was for around 4,000 which put the car '' beyond economic repair '' but I really like my car and didn't want it written off , just repaired.
Eventually the other guys insurance agreed to repair the car in view of the fact it was well-looked after and I was not at fault , for my part I had to agree to what they called ' compromise repairs ' , this meant that rather than using new factory parts I agreed to the use of salvage parts.

I was happy with that outcome.

xxlauraxxox

insurance just rang they are gunna fix the car
thanks for answering

antodeco

One of my cars is the only few of maybe 20 in the country. The specifics of it though, make it the only one. Hopefully I'll never find out what the insurance would value it at. They are harder to find than hens teeth, so god knows what they'd value it at. I have a figure it's insured for which would get me back to the same end result monetary wise, but not vehicle wise.

Thoie

MugMugs wrote: »

A few different arguments there. If its worth 3k then their total outlay is just 3k. If you can't replace your vehicle to the same pre loss manner for the 3k then surely it would be worth more? If that makes sense?
Ultimately, Insurers are obliged to return you to the same financial position you were in before the accident. You should never be allowed to be in a better position..... Ever! In the same breath, you shouldn't be at a loss either. So if your motor was worth 3k you should get 3k. If you can't replace it for 3k then it may well be worth more and you should receive more....

Not sure if that makes sense.... I'm still a bit hungover.

Let's say I have a 1995 Fiesta (or something fairly common), owned from new, pristine condition, FSH, with only 10,000 miles on the clock. Due to its age, it's got a rough value of €500. However, the closest you can find to buy is a very rough 1997 with 80,000 on the clock, for €800. The cheapest you can find a Fiesta in similarly good condition (with similar mileage and service history) is 2004, costing €5,000.

What would be the situation there?

MugMugs

Thoie wrote: »

Let's say I have a 1995 Fiesta (or something fairly common), owned from new, pristine condition, FSH, with only 10,000 miles on the clock. Due to its age, it's got a rough value of €500. However, the closest you can find to buy is a very rough 1997 with 80,000 on the clock, for €800. The cheapest you can find a Fiesta in similarly good condition (with similar mileage and service history) is 2004, costing €5,000.

What would be the situation there?

A 04 Fiesta would be you profiting from an accident. That can't happen.

You're given what you're owed and you're owed €500 however after stating your case to the Insurer that would be €800....

I'll emphasise the main point here.

"Insurers must return you to the same financial position you were in before the loss occured."

Despite the fact the car had 10,000 miles or 100,000 miles, it's still only worth €500. If you can only replace it for €800 then it's actually worth €800 and that's probably what you should get. Thats your financial loss....

Hope that helps

Thoie

MugMugs wrote: »

A 04 Fiesta would be you profiting from an accident. That can't happen.

You're given what you're owed and you're owed €500 however after stating your case to the Insurer that would be €800....

I'll emphasise the main point here.

"Insurers must return you to the same financial position you were in before the loss occured."

Despite the fact the car had 10,000 miles or 100,000 miles, it's still only worth €500. If you can only replace it for €800 then it's actually worth €800 and that's probably what you should get. Thats your financial loss....

Hope that helps

It does, but I'd still (hypothetically) argue that I'm out of (hypothetical) pocket. Previously I had a pristine car with very low mileage. If I take the 1997 Fiesta, I've got a crappy yoke that may have a lot of expensive problems in 4 months time, that I wouldn't have had on my original car.

This is all just curiosity - I'm thankfully not in the situation, but it's always struck me as a bit unfair.

Connavar

What has always confused me about this is when an insurer only pays to get the car fixed.
Now when the car has to be sold and the question "has it been crashed?" comes up the value of the car drops...
So the person who was hit is still technically at a loss

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

You should never be allowed to be in a better position..... Ever!

This is a bit OT, but I have a gap policy from AXA in addition to my normal comprehensive policy. The purpose of the AXA policy is to bridge the gap between the market value of my car and the new invoice price in the event that my car is written off, up to a maximum of €15k. I'd been under the impression that what you said is correct, but how does the gap policy fit into this?

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

This is a bit OT, but I have a gap policy from AXA in addition to my normal comprehensive policy. The purpose of the AXA policy is to bridge the gap between the market value of my car and the new invoice price in the event that my car is written off, up to a maximum of €15k. I'd been under the impression that what you said is correct, but how does the gap policy fit into this?

Yeah and fair point.

you're not really in a better position though, are you ?

Like, you're not profiting from the loss. Finance owed = 13k Vehicle written off for 10K. GAP policy was specifically written for this kind of event and in an insurance onto the outstanding finance amount.

Whilst you haven't completely lost out like most would, you haven't really profited from it either.

Suprised to see GAP in Ireland really.... I've only once or twice come across it.

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

Like, you're not profiting from the loss.

That's the thing, I would be profiting. Car was bought new for €35k, no finance, let's call its current value €12k. Car gets written off, I get €12k plus a €15k contribution towards the gap between its current value and what I paid new. It strikes me as strange, but there you go.

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

That's the thing, I would be profiting. Car was bought new for €35k, no finance, let's call its current value €12k. Car gets written off, I get €12k plus a €15k contribution towards the gap between its current value and what I paid new. It strikes me as strange, but there you go.

Are you though?

You take out Motor insurance due to a legal requirment. You also want to transfer the risk of loss to somebody else so that you're not left without a car which is a pricey investment nowadays.

GAP Insurance is you merely transferring the risk of the current vehicle value versus the outstanding finance value.

How are you profiting? You're no better off in the long run, all you've done is clear you debts!

If you get me....

Indricotherium

MugMugs wrote: »

Thoie wrote: »

Let's say I have a 1995 Fiesta (or something fairly common), owned from new, pristine condition, FSH, with only 10,000 miles on the clock. Due to its age, it's got a rough value of €500. However, the closest you can find to buy is a very rough 1997 with 80,000 on the clock, for €800. The cheapest you can find a Fiesta in similarly good condition (with similar mileage and service history) is 2004, costing €5,000.

What would be the situation there?

A 04 Fiesta would be you profiting from an accident. That can't happen.

You're given what you're owed and you're owed €500 however after stating your case to the Insurer that would be €800....

I'll emphasise the main point here.

"Insurers must return you to the same financial position you were in before the loss occured."

Despite the fact the car had 10,000 miles or 100,000 miles, it's still only worth €500. If you can only replace it for €800 then it's actually worth €800 and that's probably what you should get. Thats your financial loss....

Hope that helps

But in that case you would be materially worse off. You would not have enough money to buy a far with 10k miles and a fsh.

MugMugs

Indricotherium wrote: »

But in that case you would be materially worse off. You would not have enough money to buy a far with 10k miles and a fsh.

But you're not at a financial loss.

Insurance is a financial risk transfer mechanism. Not a material / sentimental risk transfer mechanism.

Where do you draw the line?

"I popped my cherry in that car and there's a Zippo lighter buried under the carpet somewhere judge, can we add 1k on for that?"

mickdw

This is correct for policies that simply cover any shortfall between insurance payout and finance owed.However, companies do appear to be offering policies (which Anan is referring to) that pay out the remainder of the full invoice price of the car. These are of course special add on policies and are subject to various conditions, typically conditions such as you must be the first owner and the car must be under 4 years old and be a write off.
With a policy such as this is place, the best possible outcome for the owner would be to have the car written off at about 4 years old resulting in a payout of the full new cost of the car. I think it was €120 per year with axa at one stage. They also offered the policy with a return to invoice price or alternatively at slightly different cost, they were offering todays cost of replacing your car with a new one.

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

Are you though?

You take out Motor insurance due to a legal requirment. You also want to transfer the risk of loss to somebody else so that you're not left without a car which is a pricey investment nowadays.

GAP Insurance is you merely transferring the risk of the current vehicle value versus the outstanding finance value.

How are you profiting? You're no better off in the long run, all you've done is clear you debts!

If you get me....

There is no finance on the car, and never was. My car is now worth x, but if it gets written off then I get x + €15k.

Thoie

MugMugs wrote: »

But you're not at a financial loss.

Insurance is a financial risk transfer mechanism. Not a material / sentimental risk transfer mechanism.

Where do you draw the line?

"I popped my cherry in that car and there's a Zippo lighter buried under the carpet somewhere judge, can we add 1k on for that?"

I'd consider that you are at a financial loss, as to get an engine with similar usage, the 2005 is your next best option. The 1997 that's been beaten and battered isn't a like-for-like - while it may be "newer", it's a considerable downgrade.

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Are you though?

You take out Motor insurance due to a legal requirment. You also want to transfer the risk of loss to somebody else so that you're not left without a car which is a pricey investment nowadays.

GAP Insurance is you merely transferring the risk of the current vehicle value versus the outstanding finance value.

How are you profiting? You're no better off in the long run, all you've done is clear you debts!

If you get me....

There is no finance on the car, and never was. My car is now worth x, but if it gets written off then I get x + €15k.

I see what you're getting at now. GAP Insurance will only cover the "gap" between the settlement and the outstanding finance amount. Gap is generally a requirement applied by the financer however if sought by the financee then there needs to be disclosure on the finance agreement and their interest must be noted. Basically, a GAP insurer won't be handing you a cheque for what you claim. They'll interrogate the matter and pay the finance company directly and in some cases attempt to negotiate a better settlement from the RTA insurer.

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

I see what you're getting at now. GAP Insurance will only cover the "gap" between the settlement and the outstanding finance amount. Gap is generally a requirement applied by the financer however if sought by the financee then there needs to be disclosure on the finance agreement and their interest must be noted. Basically, a GAP insurer won't be handing you a cheque for what you claim. They'll interrogate the matter and pay the finance company directly and in some cases attempt to negotiate a better settlement from the RTA insurer.

There's no finance! This policy covers the gap between the new invoice price of the car and the market value of the car at the time when it's written off.

MugMugs

Gap insurance generally covers finance agreements. Got a link for that policy?

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

Gap insurance generally covers finance agreements. Got a link for that policy?

It's not overly heavy on detail, but here's the best I could find: http://www.axaplus.ie/axa_products.htm

djimi

Anan1 wrote: »

It's not overly heavy on detail, but here's the best I could find: http://www.axaplus.ie/axa_products.htm

Didnt even know such a policy existed! Is it expensive to get such an add-on?

MugMugs

djimi wrote: »

Anan1 wrote: »

It's not overly heavy on detail, but here's the best I could find: http://www.axaplus.ie/axa_products.htm

Didnt even know such a policy existed! Is it expensive to get such an add-on?

Pretty fascinated myself.

Anan1

djimi wrote: »

Didnt even know such a policy existed! Is it expensive to get such an add-on?

I took mine out in May 2010, it cost me €260 for 3 years. It's a separate policy, the car is comprehensively insured by Aviva.

mickdw

Anan1 wrote: »

djimi wrote: »

Didnt even know such a policy existed! Is it expensive to get such an add-on?

I took mine out in May 2010, it cost me €260 for 3 years. It's a separate policy, the car is comprehensively insured by Aviva.

I was offered this by axa in 09. I had a free new for old on my
Car policy at the time anyway as my car was new so didn't buy it but its a good add on. Seems like a good money spinner for insurers too. I did wonder at the time whether problems might arise where a car is borderline write off and where the main policy is provided by another insurer - the main insurers decision to write off or not would result in axa having to pay out or not.