Involved In An Accident

akura

Hi,
About 3 o'clock i was hit in the side by an elderly woman she was at fault, but i was wondering will the insurance company class my car as a write-off as the value of the car is about €1000?

also because she was at fault will this have any impact on my insurance when renewing?

Thanks

GE90

I would doubt it would be a right off, you could pick up two new door from a scrap yard fairly cheep. Unless their is hidden damage.

akura

yeah it would be cheap to fix as it's just the door, the woman got the insurance company's involved so im unsure what happens next

T-Maxx

Definitely try to settle this without getting the insurance involved.

MugMugs

akura wrote: »

yeah it would be cheap to fix as it's just the door, the woman got the insurance company's involved so im unsure what happens next

They will assess your car. Determine if it's economical to write off or repair. If they write it off then you can buy it back and repair on the cheap if you wish. It won't affect your renewal as it was not your fault however please ensure you've notified your insurer.

bazz26

Her insurance company will most likely contact you and send out their assessor to apraise the damage. They will then determin if they will pay for it to be repaired or write it off and make you a cash settlement based on the car's book value.

The alternative is to get a quote for the repair work yourself and see if the lady wants to pay for it out of her own pocket rather than going through her insurance.

As any claim would be made through her insurance it should not affect your policy but I would still notify your insurance of the details of the accident for the record incase the other person has a change of mind overnight.

I'm no expert in this matter but imo the front door would probably need to be replaced but the rear door might just need to be filled and repainted. You could still be looking at a decent size bill to repaint the two doors even if you source one from a scrap yard imo so it could well be a write off to an insurance company. Best thing to do though is get a few quotes.

visual

Going on my own experience any paint job and a new door will make it uneconomic to repair.

The amount the insurance company offer is either the cost of repair with new parts, book value of the car or the amount you have insured the car for. whichever is lowest.

When this happens the insurance company will offer you a settlement fee and usually the option to by back the car for little money.

you might decide to buy back the car and fix it up yourself but be warned its never as easy to restore the car back original with 2nd hand parts and cheap paint job.

akura

Thanks for the reply's

One thing I shoud of mentioned is that I have a learners permit and was driving unaccompanied the guards were called but they didn't say anything apart from "you know you should have a fully licensed driver with you" so do her insurance company still have to pay up?

Our man in Havana

Yes.

You being on your own is not a silver bullet that absolves her from her wrong doings.

GE90

You do realise you were driving while uninsured do ?

DylanII

GE90 wrote: »

You do realise you were driving while uninsured do ?

No he wasnt, this keep comes up again and again and again . . . but yet no one has ever showed any evidence of that. The insurance companies said they dont care if they are driving unaccompanied.

Where did you hear that he was uninsured?

About the car, yes Id say its considered a write off. Since its only worth a few hundred euro maybe see if the woman wants to buy it from you?

GE90

If you are a learner driving without a experienced driver and you crash your insurance company has no obligation to pay out. some will only pay the other party involved , some wont pay out full stop and others as you said don't care.

The current system of learning to drive is terriable but if we are to keep it then the consequences of driving on your own without a fully licensed driver need to be made more severe and the guards need to stop turning a blind eye

Gary ITR

GE90 wrote: »

If you are a learner driving without a experienced driver and you crash your insurance company has no obligation to pay out. some will only pay the other party involved , some wont pay out full stop and others as you said don't care.

To the best of my knowledge you're wrong. Insurance companies are obliged to pay out a 3rd party claim, they can seek reimbursement from the driver though

GE90

So they can pay the 3rd party and then go after you for the money ?

Gary ITR

GE90 wrote: »

So they can pay the 3rd party and then go after you for the money ?

Yes, that's a fair bit different to being 'uninsured'

GoodisonPark

Bottom line on every certificate of insurance clearly says " provided the driver holds a driving licence and having held a driving licence is not disqualified from holding such a licence "
OP was unaccompanied while driving on a learner permit , that invalidates his insurance.

GE90

I take back my comment about the OP being uninsured then, apologies. It is still a grey area and at the end of the day the OP shouldn't have been driving without a experienced driver.

GoodisonPark

I expect he will receive a fine and penalty points for that in due course.

finnharpsboy

i wonder was this old dear that ran into him a driver on a learner permit or a 'safer' fully licensed driver....

Our man in Havana

GoodisonPark wrote: »

Bottom line on every certificate of insurance clearly says " provided the driver holds a driving licence and having held a driving licence is not disqualified from holding such a licence "
OP was unaccompanied while driving on a learner permit , that invalidates his insurance.

If that was the case the OP would never be insured.

Lawless2k12

A member of my family was sideswiped at a roundabout and pushed up onto the curb by a fellow towing a trailer. 01 Opel Corsa. New wing, wheel, trim, headlight and bumper. The van and trailer drivers insurance attempted to right it off but we started getting pretty pissy about it and eventually they paid up €1400 to fix it. Car is worth €1100. Wanted it repaired as it's a bit of a hassle searching for a new machine.

P.S.: She was on a learners licence. Guards were called, told her she shouldn't be driving unaccompanied, took details and all, determined that the van driver was at fault for not allowing sufficient space for the trailer when he was turning and then left them go again. Van driver tried to push the fact that she was a learner without anyone with her but nothing ever came of it and she got her car fixed and no fines. Happy days!

MugMugs

GE90 wrote: »

I take back my comment about the OP being uninsured then, apologies. It is still a grey area and at the end of the day the OP shouldn't have been driving without a experienced driver.

Nothing grey about it. It's a blatant breach of policy conditions and punishable by a decline of indemnity and potential recovery of third party costs being marked against you in the event of an at fault claim.

Our man in Havana

potential

I wonder how often that actually happens?

wonski

GoodisonPark wrote: »

Bottom line on every certificate of insurance clearly says " provided the driver holds a driving licence and having held a driving licence is not disqualified from holding such a licence "
OP was unaccompanied while driving on a learner permit , that invalidates his insurance.

Apart from the fact that you are wrong, it is the old lady who pays for the damage. His policy has nothing to do with the accident.

Alanstrainor

Our man in Havana wrote: »

I wonder how often that actually happens?

Never heard of it happening either on here or in real life. I bet it's very rare.

bladespin

GoodisonPark wrote: »

Bottom line on every certificate of insurance clearly says " provided the driver holds a driving licence and having held a driving licence is not disqualified from holding such a licence "
OP was unaccompanied while driving on a learner permit , that invalidates his insurance.

What are you basing this on? AFIK once the premium is paid you are covered third party at a minimum regardless of your legality. I've yet to hear different.

GoodisonPark wrote: »

I expect he will receive a fine and penalty points for that in due course.

That would be up to the gardai, as the poster wasn't at fault I'd imagine it would be very unlikely the gardai would be overly interested.

MugMugs

Our man in Havana wrote: »

I wonder how often that actually happens?

Rarely. It's generally not financially viable to do it.

Sobanek

DylanII wrote: »

No he wasnt, this keep comes up again and again and again . . . but yet no one has ever showed any evidence of that. The insurance companies said they dont care if they are driving unaccompanied.

Where did you hear that he was uninsured?

About the car, yes Id say its considered a write off. Since its only worth a few hundred euro maybe see if the woman wants to buy it from you?

AXA now says you're uninsured if you violate the terms of your driving document.

This is taken out of the policy document I got:
"13 Driving Licence Conditions.
No cover will apply under this policy for any driver who is not meeting the conditions of his/her licence/Learner permit. This includes conditions relating to the class of vehicle being driven, the requirement to be accompanied when driving under a learner permit or any other restriction or condition that may apply."

Our man in Havana

I am sure the Minister for Finance would like to hear about that.

GoodisonPark

Sobanek wrote: »

AXA now says you're uninsured if you violate the terms of your driving document.

This is taken out of the policy document I got:
"13 Driving Licence Conditions.
No cover will apply under this policy for any driver who is not meeting the conditions of his/her licence/Learner permit. This includes conditions relating to the class of vehicle being driven, the requirement to be accompanied when driving under a learner permit or any other restriction or condition that may apply."

As I said , the OP is not covered in this instance.

bladespin

GoodisonPark wrote: »

As I said , the OP is not covered in this instance.

Pretty sure the law says different.