Insurance claim query

bennyc

OK long story short , rear ended a car which was my fault, other car had 2K of damage so went through the insurance, I am driving an 08 Vectra which I just bought privately and imported.
My car had front bumper, bonnet and rad damage, after several weeks I finally get told it wont be repaired so onto valuation.

So I just got a call from someone dealing with valuing the car and was told my car was a cat c at one point so that will be 20% less the valuation. (ok fair enough I knew it had damage before) , the next thing is i got asked how much I paid for the car, so does that really matter ? should the valuation not be based on the OMSP rather than what I paid for it. I gave 4700 ish as my figure although I cannot prove this. there is not one cheaper than 5K from a dealer , what are my options if I get a low figure ?

Atlantic Dawn

Best thing to do is get prices of similar cars at the ready and VRT OMSP of yours so you have something to compare it to with whatever figure they come back with. The fact yours was a category C won't help in getting a proper comparison and their 20% discount is probably fair enough.

Thinking outside the box, as your car already has category c rating they may give an option where they pay you out and you can keep your car and organise the repairs yourself.

bennyc

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Best thing to do is get prices of similar cars at the ready and VRT OMSP of yours so you have something to compare it to with whatever figure they come back with. The fact yours was a category C won't help in getting a proper comparison and their 20% discount is probably fair enough.

Thinking outside the box, as your car already has category c rating they may give an option where they pay you out and you can keep your car and organise the repairs yourself.

I am thinking the same, hopefully there will be enough room to buy back the car and have it fixed. The current OSMP is 5600, will they use the fact that I verbally said I paid 4700 for it, although now that I think about it I was caught on the hop and hadnt the correct figured to hand.

Atlantic Dawn

They may use the 4700 figure to come to a price they think it's worth, you should try to base your case on the same spec car that can be purchased.

Beta Ray Bill

bennyc wrote: »

OK long story short , rear ended a car which was my fault, other car had 2K of damage so went through the insurance, I am driving an 08 Vectra which I just bought privately and imported.
My car had front bumper, bonnet and rad damage, after several weeks I finally get told it wont be repaired so onto valuation.

So I just got a call from someone dealing with valuing the car and was told my car was a cat c at one point so that will be 20% less the valuation. (ok fair enough I knew it had damage before) , the next thing is i got asked how much I paid for the car, so does that really matter ? should the valuation not be based on the OMSP rather than what I paid for it. I gave 4700 ish as my figure although I cannot prove this. there is not one cheaper than 5K from a dealer , what are my options if I get a low figure ?

Ok

I hit this issue when some A*****e knocked me off my brand newish motorcycle

I got the bike for €12,500 but it was worth around €14,000. (Dealer needed it gone apparently)

I got the same phone call after the accident, and I told them the bike was worth €14,000. And didn't tell them how much I paid for it. The guy then rang Main Dealer and they told him what I paid for it (Which they shouldn't have)

Anyway your man rings me back and says he values it at €11,750 (9 months ownership off €12,500)
I protested and protested and held the claim up stating that there was no way I could replace the bike like for like, with that money and that I'd needed at least €14,000 to get a similar one from the UK as there were none for sale in Ireland (Rare Motorcycle).

So this went back and forth and in the end I got fed up and got a solicitor
Turns out......
You are only entitled to the loss you incurred purchasing the vehicle

IE if I were to sell you a 2014 Ferrari F430 today for €5,000, and you then you crash it and write it off the next day... You are only entitled to €5,000. IE: what you paid for it, despite the car being worth many times that value.
I don't know the reason for this. Probably some Fraud protection thing
But sufficed to say I was well annoyed about it.

If the Main Dealer hadn't opened their mouth about how much it was bought for I'd probably have gotten the €14,000 or maybe a bit less.

Be exteremly careful what you tell these guys. They salary/bonus is based on what they save on claims etc.

Regards
G.

whomitconcerns

But G that's what insurance is for, it's not unfair. It's designed to put you back in the financial position you had when the incident happened. In this case you had an asset that cost you 12k devalued by time, if they gave you 14k you would be in a financially better position than before. To use your Ferrari example, if I could get 100k for an asset that cost me 5k....do you not think my asset would 'magically' disappear?

grahambo wrote: »

Ok

I hit this issue when some A*****e knocked me off my brand newish motorcycle

I got the bike for €12,500 but it was worth around €14,000. (Dealer needed it gone apparently)

I got the same phone call after the accident, and I told them the bike was worth €14,000. And didn't tell them how much I paid for it. The guy then rang Main Dealer and they told him what I paid for it (Which they shouldn't have)

Anyway your man rings me back and says he values it at €11,750 (9 months ownership off €12,500)
I protested and protested and held the claim up stating that there was no way I could replace the bike like for like, with that money and that I'd needed at least €14,000 to get a similar one from the UK as there were none for sale in Ireland (Rare Motorcycle).

So this went back and forth and in the end I got fed up and got a solicitor
Turns out......
You are only entitled to the loss you incurred purchasing the vehicle

IE if I were to sell you a 2014 Ferrari F430 today for €5,000, and you then you crash it and write it off the next day... You are only entitled to €5,000. IE: what you paid for it, despite the car being worth many times that value.
I don't know the reason for this. Probably some Fraud protection thing
But sufficed to say I was well annoyed about it.

If the Main Dealer hadn't opened their mouth about how much it was bought for I'd probably have gotten the €14,000 or maybe a bit less.

Be exteremly careful what you tell these guys. They salary/bonus is based on what they save on claims etc.

Regards
G.

salamanca22

whomitconcerns wrote: »

But G that's what insurance is for, it's not unfair. It's designed to put you back in the financial position you had when the incident happened. In this case you had an asset that cost you 12k devalued by time, if they gave you 14k you would be in a financially better position than before. To use your Ferrari example, if I could get 100k for an asset that cost me 5k....do you not think my asset would 'magically' disappear?

And to replace said asset will put him in a worse financial position.

whomitconcerns

salamanca22 wrote: »

And to replace said asset will put him in a worse financial position.

But for good or bad hes financially back where he was...up to him what he does with that money.

Same for all of us, doesn't mean I wouldn't like more money from an insurance claim...but you couldn't logically get more.

Beta Ray Bill

salamanca22 wrote: »

And to replace said asset will put him in a worse financial position.

And I was

whomitconcerns wrote: »

But for good or bad hes financially back where he was...up to him what he does with that money.

Same for all of us, doesn't mean I wouldn't like more money from an insurance claim...but you couldn't logically get more.

Point taken
However it depends on how you define "financially"

I bought the same year and same make bike again a 6 months later with the same mileage. Managed to source a "cheap" one up North.
It cost me €13,750 all in.

So that's a loss of €2000
Very annoying
Plus I discovered issues with new bike (needed new rad) another 500 dollary doos

bennyc

I wonder do they have access to vrt data , I had to submit a receipt for the car and have no idea what I put down, prob put it on the low side as I would be trying to keep the vrt price down.

Beta Ray Bill

bennyc wrote: »

I wonder do they have access to vrt data , I had to submit a receipt for the car and have no idea what I put down, prob put it on the low side as I would be trying to keep the vrt price down.

I would say that is unlikely, I would imagine revenue wouldn't give them that info under that Data Protection act.

You never know though!

dev100

whomitconcerns wrote:

But G that's what insurance is for, it's not unfair. It's designed to put you back in the financial position you had when the incident happened. In this case you had an asset that cost you 12k devalued by time, if they gave you 14k you would be in a financially better position than before. To use your Ferrari example, if I could get 100k for an asset that cost me 5k....do you not think my asset would 'magically' disappear?

So if you went on winning streak and received a free car and you wrote it off ....what happens then ?

Beta Ray Bill

dev100 wrote: »

So if you went on winning streak and received a free car and you wrote it off ....what happens then ?

You'd get you're €10 back for five €2 scratch cards :rolleyes:

I know it's a stupid system.
I don't know why it's designed like that.

grogi

grahambo wrote: »

You'd get you're €10 back for five €2 scratch cards :rolleyes:

I know it's a stupid system.
I don't know why it's designed like that.

The system is designed so that the insurance company will do anything and invent reasons not to pay.

They should pay what the goods are worth at the time of the claim, not how much they did cost at purchase... They are very happy to apply this rule when the asset depreciates though...

Corvo

grahambo wrote: »

Ok

I hit this issue when some A*****e knocked me off my brand newish motorcycle

I got the bike for €12,500 but it was worth around €14,000. (Dealer needed it gone apparently)

I got the same phone call after the accident, and I told them the bike was worth €14,000. And didn't tell them how much I paid for it. The guy then rang Main Dealer and they told him what I paid for it (Which they shouldn't have)

Anyway your man rings me back and says he values it at €11,750 (9 months ownership off €12,500)
I protested and protested and held the claim up stating that there was no way I could replace the bike like for like, with that money and that I'd needed at least €14,000 to get a similar one from the UK as there were none for sale in Ireland (Rare Motorcycle).

So this went back and forth and in the end I got fed up and got a solicitor
Turns out......
You are only entitled to the loss you incurred purchasing the vehicle

IE if I were to sell you a 2014 Ferrari F430 today for €5,000, and you then you crash it and write it off the next day... You are only entitled to €5,000. IE: what you paid for it, despite the car being worth many times that value.
I don't know the reason for this. Probably some Fraud protection thing
But sufficed to say I was well annoyed about it.

If the Main Dealer hadn't opened their mouth about how much it was bought for I'd probably have gotten the €14,000 or maybe a bit less.

Be exteremly careful what you tell these guys. They salary/bonus is based on what they save on claims etc.

Regards
G.

What are you rambling on about?

You pay €12.5k but reckon you should make a profit of €1.5k in the event of a total loss?

Special Circumstances

Corvo wrote: »

What are you rambling on about?

You pay €12.5k but reckon you should make a profit of €1.5k in the event of a total loss?

If something is
worth €X
and is insured as being worth €X,

unless they can magically supply you with a replacement for X-20% or whatever
.... shouldn't you be due €X?

bennyc

Back to my own situation, I was told my car is wort 4K based on private cars for sale online, as I imported the car this is the figure they are going on. They quote 4 or 5 examples of cars on donedeal and use that. I argued that the price is too low and have sent in 4 quick example's of same car spec and mileage from private sales which average to be 4800, the dealer average is 6500.

I know I can get an indie assessor to do another valuation if I am not happy , what do you think ?
08 Vectra SRI CDTI 150 bhp with 141K

Just to add, 4K - 20% for previous, -450 excess as it was my young was who was driving = 2750 at the moment.

Beta Ray Bill

Corvo wrote: »

What are you rambling on about?

You pay €12.5k but reckon you should make a profit of €1.5k in the event of a total loss?

No,
I recon I should get the exact same bike, Like for Like.

I've insured the assest, IE the Bike, so it should be replaced with a similar one (I wasnt looking for a new bike btw!, I was looking for same year, similar mileage)

I did not insure the €12,500 I paid for it.

Cost me money in the end.

Beta Ray Bill

bennyc wrote: »

Back to my own situation, I was told my car is wort 4K based on private cars for sale online, as I imported the car this is the figure they are going on. They quote 4 or 5 examples of cars on donedeal and use that. I argued that the price is too low and have sent in 4 quick example's of same car spec and mileage from private sales which average to be 4800, the dealer average is 6500.

I know I can get an indie assessor to do another valuation if I am not happy , what do you think ?
08 Vectra SRI CDTI 150 bhp with 141K

Just to add, 4K - 20% for previous, -450 excess as it was my young was who was driving = 2750 at the moment.

You're problem here is that you initially said €4,700 when you should have said €6,500.
It's gonna be hard to back track on this now.

I will say though, in general, the longer you sit on it the more worried insurance companies get.
Sometimes it's a case of who will blink first.

All you can do is argue with them.

kerten

bennyc wrote: »

Back to my own situation, I was told my car is wort 4K based on private cars for sale online, as I imported the car this is the figure they are going on. They quote 4 or 5 examples of cars on donedeal and use that. I argued that the price is too low and have sent in 4 quick example's of same car spec and mileage from private sales which average to be 4800, the dealer average is 6500.

I know I can get an indie assessor to do another valuation if I am not happy , what do you think ?
08 Vectra SRI CDTI 150 bhp with 141K

Just to add, 4K - 20% for previous, -450 excess as it was my young was who was driving = 2750 at the moment.

I believe an independent assessment from Opel dealer will benefit. I have seen 6k inital offer had to climb up to 11k after an independent assessment from Merc dealer for a 05 s350 by factoring spec and dealer maintenance in.

It is all about how patient you are to push back their low ball offers and not giving in to their tactics.

kerten

Corvo wrote: »

What are you rambling on about?

You pay €12.5k but reckon you should make a profit of €1.5k in the event of a total loss?

Insurance companies calls this profit.

But if you paid for a car more than the market value becasue it was a good example and write it off next week, they instantly forget what you paid and starts to say we only pay market value.

And you expect us to say their practices are fair

bennyc

kerten wrote: »

I believe an independent assessment from Opel dealer will benefit. I have seen 6k inital offer had to climb up to 11k after an independent assessment from Merc dealer for a 05 s350 by factoring spec and dealer maintenance in.

It is all about how patient you are to push back their low ball offers and not giving in to their tactics.

I sent them some links and they upped it to 4250 from 4K, I argued the fact and said I would be better off with an independent to which they said no bother we will leave it at that, I eventually said to submit that , I suppose I can still not accept it from the insurance company when they call to finalize everything as they still have to agree a scrappage fee. I am hoping to fix the car myself as I am off the road three full weeks now.

Their main argument is that I apparently paid too much to import it in the first instance v buying private here. I told them the 4700 did not include new tyres that were put on before I collected it bringing my purchase price to 5500.

EagererBeaver

kerten wrote: »

Insurance companies calls this profit.

But if you paid for a car more than the market value becasue it was a good example and write it off next week, they instantly forget what you paid and starts to say we only pay market value.

And you expect us to say their practices are fair

If the insurance company is shelling out 12k, they're not making a profit on this one...

Beta Ray Bill

EagererBeaver wrote: »

If the insurance company is shelling out 12k, they're not making a profit on this one...

Don't be silly.
Have you ever stopped and thought about how much incurance you'll pay over the course of you're life!?

Motor: 2 Cars, 1 Bike = €2300 per annum
House: €300 per annum
Health: €2500 per annum (for Me, Partner and Nipper)

Over €5000 per annum paid to insurance companies per year
x30 (I hope I've live until I'm at least 65 LOL!)

Total: €150,000 from now til 65
Note: havent included insurance I've already paid since 18yrs and possibly living til I'm 80

Insurance Companies ALWAYS make a profit.
The porblem they have is they want to make more, So they invest their profit (and lose it all in 2008 onwards) Then all our premiums go up!

I work in IT, and was recently on the hunt for a new Job
I activly went looking for work in Insurance companies, as I had it on good authority that the Staff are basically having a party in these places.

MODS: sorry for off topic rant

kerten

EagererBeaver wrote: »

If the insurance company is shelling out 12k, they're not making a profit on this one...

I didn't mean profit that company is making .

I was referring to OPs situation and other poster's comment regarding "you can't make profit from insurance if you paid less than market value and it is fair"

EagererBeaver

grahambo wrote: »

Don't be silly.
Have you ever stopped and thought about how much incurance you'll pay over the course of you're life!?

Motor: 2 Cars, 1 Bike = €2300 per annum
House: €300 per annum
Health: €2500 per annum (for Me, Partner and Nipper)

Over €5000 per annum paid to insurance companies per year
x30 (I hope I've live until I'm at least 65 LOL!)

Total: €150,000 from now til 65
Note: havent included insurance I've already paid since 18yrs and possibly living til I'm 80

Insurance Companies ALWAYS make a profit.
The porblem they have is they want to make more, So they invest their profit (and lose it all in 2008 onwards) Then all our premiums go up!

I work in IT, and was recently on the hunt for a new Job
I activly went looking for work in Insurance companies, as I had it on good authority that the Staff are basically having a party in these places.

MODS: sorry for off topic rant

There's nothing silly about it. And no, insurance companies don't always make a profit. Populist nonsense back by no fact whatsoever.

Insurance you pay over your lifetime is irrelevant. When you purchase your policy, you understand and accept that it is for (generally) a period of one year. If you pay 300 euro insurance for your policy, and they end up forking out 12 grand for it, they have made a loss on it - you paid 300 euro to have it insured for a year. If you wanted to insure it for a longer period and the company let you, it'd cost you more.

The purpose of insurance is to restore you to the financial position you were in prior to the accident. The financial position will value that asset at cost. If you subsequently can't buy an exact replica of the item for that amount, then tough ****.

As for whoever asked the daft question about a car on winning streak. Brand new car, you'd get the same back. But I suspect you already knew that.

Beta Ray Bill

EagererBeaver wrote: »

The purpose of insurance is to restore you to the financial position you were in prior to the accident. The financial position will value that asset at cost. If you subsequently can't buy an exact replica of the item for that amount, then tough ****.

I understand what you are saying here
The issue is that the insurance companies logic is flawed

I only got €11,750 despite the fact I paid €12,500. The insurance company argued "deprication" of the asset
So I was not returned to my original financial position.
So how can deprication in value exist without apprication (one cannot exist without the other)
Some assets can and do increase in value (Houses for example)

Insurance companies don't want to pay out, simple as.
And if they do, it's as little as possible.

EagererBeaver wrote: »

And no, insurance companies don't always make a profit. Populist nonsense back by no fact whatsoever.

Wikipedia > Search for some insurance company > Check net income/profit with Citations

You'd be hard pushed to find one not making massive amounts of money ( < 200 Million per year).

Special Circumstances

It's like saying casinos don't make money. The house ALWAYS wins.

You'd swear insurers had all your money locked up in a room and it was costing them money to guard it and store it. If they can't make money with all that money... they are in the wrong game.

EagererBeaver

The vast majority of the insurance companies that you looked up on Wikipedia, will be global companies (your Allianz, Zurich, AIG etc.) that are corporations made up of hundreds, if not thousands of companies across the world. Profits come from across the group. Plenty of companies within that Group will lose money. Including a lot of non-life insurance companies in Ireland.

I only got €11,750 despite the fact I paid €12,500. The insurance company argued "deprication" of the asset
So I was not returned to my original financial position.
So how can deprication in value exist without apprication (one cannot exist without the other)
Some assets can and do increase in value (Houses for example)

Fine, be pedantic. You have been restored to your original financial position at the time you suffered the loss.

You'd swear insurers had all your money locked up in a room and it was costing them money to guard it and store it. If they can't make money with all that money... they are in the wrong game.

One of the reasons insurers have tightened up so much in the last few years is because they've had to focus on their underwriting and claims discipline to make up for the fact that they're not getting the same return on the markets any more.

Special Circumstances

EagererBeaver wrote: »

One of the reasons insurers have tightened up so much in the last few years is because they've had to focus on their underwriting and claims discipline to make up for the fact that they're not getting the same return on the markets any more.

If they are making a loss then they should suck it up and hope it turns around or give it up.

If they are making a gain on the investment but just not as much as they are accustomed to... well boo frickety hoo. They want us to subsidise their perks?

Beta Ray Bill

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Fine, be pedantic. You have been restored to your original deprication adjsuted financial position in terms of original cost at the time you suffered the loss.

Sorry, but there is nothing pedantic about it:
Figures:
Asset Worth: €14,000
Bought Asset for: €12,500
After 3 months ownership (Jul, Aug, Sept), I get: €11,750

Asset loss of €2,250.

I don't think there is much point in discussing with you.
You strike me a someone whom has had a large claim made against them (Or had a claim rejected) or you work for or sympathize with insurance comapnies or you're an accountant :rolleyes:

Also, I fixed your statement for you, it makes sense now

I'm gonna stop hijacking bennyc's thread now, we've gone completely off topic.

Corvo

Special Circumstances wrote: »

If they are making a loss then they should suck it up and hope it turns around or give it up.

If they are making a gain on the investment but just not as much as they are accustomed to... well boo frickety hoo. They want us to subsidise their perks?

Do you live in a bubble?

Companies such as FBD and RSA have posted huge losses.

Special Circumstances

EagererBeaver wrote: »

nsurers have tightened up so much in the last few years is because they've had to focus on their underwriting and claims discipline to make up for the fact that they're not getting the same return on the markets any more.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

If they are making a loss then they should suck it up and hope it turns around or give it up.

If they are making a gain on the investment but just not as much as they are accustomed to... well boo frickety hoo. They want us to subsidise their perks?

Corvo wrote: »

Do you live in a bubble?

Companies such as FBD and RSA have posted huge losses.

And....?

If the risks/payouts have increased and there is transparency around that, great - insurance increases legitimately.

If they are making up for poor investment choices by tapping motorists legally obliged to purchase their product - in whose bubble does that sound right bubbila? You win some you lose some, right?