AIG Insurance protects hit and run drivers?

emy

I have been hit by a neighbor while pulling out from parking.
It was in a late evening when i parked my car, behind me was a Nissan Primera, I left room enough to allow him to come out from parking without the need of reversing. In the morning, around 7am I went to the car, Nissan Primera was gone, I noticed that my bumper, rear right side was hit bad enough. I watched the car when came back, i saw it parked nearby my street, I went there and noticed that it had scratches on front left bumper. I called the AIG explaining them what had happened. They sent an "expert", from assess Ireland who concluded based on his experience that there is no connection between the two cars, so the AIG is not going to pay me for the damage. They said that any of proofs, pictures, videos, CCTVs provided by me are worthless, have no value, because I am not qualified in this field.
Take a look at the pictures and conclude yourself.
I am speechless.
So, it seems that I can do nothing but fixing by myself the car.

bazz26

Is AIG your insurance company or the accused party's?

Alanstrainor

You should be able to polish that scrape out without too much bother. I bet it'll look nearly perfect after a bit of elbow grease.

MetzgerMeister

Alanstrainor wrote: »

You should be able to polish that scrape out without too much bother. I bet it'll look nearly perfect after a bit of elbow grease.

Maybe the top part but the bottom is permanent damage. Polishing might make it look better but won't get rid of it unfortunately.

bladespin

The paint looks removed down top the plastic on the 'lip', polishing that won't work.

K.Flyer

Have you not spoken with your neighbour who owns the other car, what did they have to say about it?

GM228

I suppose the big issue here is it's your word against theirs, all the other person has to do is deny it, there's no proof they did the damage, having photos simply shows damage, it does not prove how or when it happened or more importantly who caused the damage.

CCTV would be a better piece of evidence, photos are generally useless unless the other person admits it.

SEPT 23 1989

why did you not ask the neighbour to get it fixed before getting insurance companies involved?

MetzgerMeister

bladespin wrote: »

The paint looks removed down top the plastic on the 'lip', polishing that won't work.

The top couple of "stripes" will buff out mostly. You'll still see a few faint lines from certain angles up close but the last 2 thick stripes are beyond repair.

emy

bazz26 wrote: »

Is AIG your insurance company or the accused party's?

Accused party's

tossy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

why did you not ask the neighbour to get it fixed before getting insurance companies involved?

This ^

Also you contacted the wrong insurance company.

bazz26

If you have CCTV evidence of the car owner doing the damage then I'd approach the car owner and show them that and give them the option of paying to have it repaired properly.

The stance from their insurance company is typical fob off and hope you go away imo. I'd imagine the legal threat from a solicitor might change that stance. However you have to think about how far and at what cost you want to pursue this legally on the principal of the other party or their insurance company should pay.

colm_mcm

If there is no cctv ir witness it's impossible to prove anything.

emy

The place i live, the parking permit area covers five streets, I do not have time to check each street to see where lives. If the car is parked in a place does mean that lives on that street, parking the car is where is a free spot available.
For instance, yesterday was parked near me, the front bumper, on both sides are black, badly scratched. It seems that she/he has a problem with parking the car.
I have taking other pictures with both cars parked each other showing the number plate.
I could not see who is, comes and goes like a ghost. Eventually i will definitely find out who is.
I called my insurance company and they gave the AIG phone number to call them. AIG is written on the insurance disc.
I have no other choice but spending other 300 euros for a zoom cctv cam and dual lens dash cam. A neighbor said do not complain because it is normal for a bumper to be hit.....it's just a plastic...strange.

goz83

emy wrote: »

A neighbor said do not complain because it is normal for a bumper to be hit.....it's just a plastic...strange.

You have jacka$$ neighbours.

Stheno

emy wrote: »

The place i live, the parking permit area covers five streets, I do not have time to check each street to see where lives. If the car is parked in a place does mean that lives on that street, parking the car is where is a free spot available.
For instance, yesterday was parked near me, the front bumper, on both sides are black, badly scratched. It seems that she/he has a problem with parking the car.
I have taking other pictures with both cars parked each other showing the number plate.
I could not see who is, comes and goes like a ghost. Eventually i will definitely find out who is.
I called my insurance company and they gave the AIG phone number to call them. AIG is written on the insurance disc.
I have no other choice but spending other 300 euros for a zoom cctv cam and dual lens dash cam. A neighbor said do not complain because it is normal for a bumper to be hit.....it's just a plastic...strange.

If you watched the car being parked the day you checked it why didnt you go up to the driver then?

emy

Stheno wrote: »

If you watched the car being parked the day you checked it why didnt you go up to the driver then?

I saw the car parked but did not see the driver. I stayed for a while to see if comes, even woke up in the morning at 6.30, but was gone. The real reason i did not want to face the owner, again, a neighbor, (other one), said that if you do it, it will cause more damages on you car. I can not stay all day/night to check out my car and could come and do more damages.

Nonoperational

You have no proof.

ironclaw

Nonoperational wrote: »

You have no proof.

This.

What proof do you have OP that their car contacted with yours? Unless I've missed something, you're accusing someone based on the fact they happened to be near your car and their car has some bad scratches? What happens if they are completely innocent and someone else hit you and drove off in the intervening period?

mickdw

get photos with that damage and reg in same shot as they may fix the car.
contact your own insurer and Gardai.
The damage is clearly related and to be honest, any assessor who would sign a document stating no connection between the markings deserves to be called out on it. I realise he was working for the other parties insurer but regardless, if he has issued a report that denies the connect between the marks, he is not operating professionally.
I'd suggest there may not be such a report.

emy

mickdw wrote: »

get photos with that damage and reg in same shot as they may fix the car.
contact your own insurer and Gardai.
The damage is clearly related and to be honest, any assessor who would sign a document stating no connection between the markings deserves to be called out on it. I realise he was working for the other parties insurer but regardless, if he has issued a report that denies the connect between the marks, he is not operating professionally.
I'd suggest there may not be such a report.

I have these photos already taken. Whenever i park the car especially on my street i have the hobbit to take pictures of both cars, behind and the one in front of me. Personally i know that I am right 100%, yes I might not have enough proofs, its is alright, I lost this time, this is life with ups and downs. There was a connection between these two cars, everyone who saw them confirmed it. I will talk to the owner, nicely showing the pictures, I want to say how reacts.

Henry Ford III

emy wrote: »

I have these photos already taken. Whenever i park the car especially on my street i have the hobbit to take pictures of both cars, behind and the one in front of me. Personally i know that I am right 100%, yes I might not have enough proofs, its is alright, I lost this time, this is life with ups and downs. There was a connection between these two cars, everyone who saw them confirmed it. I will talk to the owner, nicely showing the pictures, I want to say how reacts.

You have no proof though. In the circumstances you can only reasonably have a strong suspicion.

mickdw

have you looked at the photos?
The match is absolute. so much so that any Engineer or assessor who failed to acknowledge a connection is bordering on misconduct imo.

amcalester

Get a quote for the repair and send it into AIG along with a claim form.

Might be worth taking a few more pictures with a ruler for scale, also measure the height off the ground of the bottom of each scrape and the width as well.

Do all this and then let AIG refute the claim.

ironclaw

mickdw wrote: »

have you looked at the photos?
The match is absolute. so much so that any Engineer or assessor who failed to acknowledge a connection is bordering on misconduct imo.

'Show me some CCTV or a sworn witness statement showing contact between the vehicles in question'

Eh...

'What is the likelihood of another car of the same type or color being in the vicinity of the OPs at the time?

Eh...

/Case Dismissed

As an Engineer, I wouldn't be comfortably making a call on such a matter. There's a strong likelihood the car in question hit the OPs but not enough evidence to warrant an outright statement that they did. Reasonable doubt exists and in an era of fraudulent claims, I'd rather see insurance companies dismiss such claims. I lost count of the bumps and scratches I sustained in the UCD car park in my college days but evidence I never had, so I wouldn't go around pointing fingers at the nearest car that fitted the bill, however 'obvious' it was.

amcalester

ironclaw wrote: »

'Show me some CCTV or a sworn witness statement showing contact between the vehicles in question'

Eh...

'What is the likelihood of another car of the same type or color being in the vicinity of the OPs at the time?

Eh...

/Case Dismissed

As an Engineer, I wouldn't be comfortably making a call on such a matter. There's a strong likelihood the car in question hit the OPs but not enough evidence to warrant an outright statement that they did. Reasonable doubt exists and in an era of fraudulent claims, I'd rather see insurance companies dismiss such claims. I lost count of the bumps and scratches I sustained in the UCD car park in my college days but evidence I never had, so I wouldn't go around pointing fingers at the nearest car that fitted the bill, however 'obvious' it was.

If it did go to court though it would be decided on the balance of probabilities, not absolute proof.

mickdw

ironclaw wrote: »

'Show me some CCTV or a sworn witness statement showing contact between the vehicles in question'

Eh...

'What is the likelihood of another car of the same type or color being in the vicinity of the OPs at the time?

Eh...

/Case Dismissed

As an Engineer, I wouldn't be comfortably making a call on such a matter. There's a strong likelihood the car in question hit the OPs but not enough evidence to warrant an outright statement that they did. Reasonable doubt exists and in an era of fraudulent claims, I'd rather see insurance companies dismiss such claims. I lost count of the bumps and scratches I sustained in the UCD car park in my college days but evidence I never had, so I wouldn't go around pointing fingers at the nearest car that fitted the bill, however 'obvious' it was.

Has anyone bothered to look at the photos?
It's a match beyond any reasonable doubt.
look at the number of scratches, the gaps between them, the number with narrow gaps, where the narrow gaps are, where the 2 strong marks are. There is no doubt whatsoever. As an Engineer myself in a different field, should something as clear cut as that be put before me and if inspection in person didn't show up anything further, I would have no difficulty reporting that having inspected the damage, that it is my opinion that the 2 vehicles came in contact causing the damage.

ironclaw

mickdw wrote: »

Has anyone bothered to look at the photos?
It's a match beyond any reasonable doubt.
look at the number of scratches, the gaps between them, the number with narrow gaps, where the narrow gaps are, where the 2 strong marks are. There is no doubt whatsoever. As an Engineer myself in a different field, should something as clear cut as that be put before me and if inspection in person didn't show up anything further, I would have no difficulty reporting that having inspected the damage, that it is my opinion that the 2 vehicles came in contact causing the damage.

We could go in circles but I'd disagree. Two vehicles came in contact to create those marks, but you can't say for certain it was those exact two vehicles. The other vehicle, by the OPs admission, is littered in scratches and scruffs. Those marks could be from another incident, before any involvement of the OP. Its also a very common car in Ireland.

If the OP was being unscrumplus and did the damage themselves, you could wander around any car park and probably find a car to fit the bill, match the marks, just say you parked there over night and snap a few photos. If a bumper respray was going to cost a few hundred, its not beyond the realms of imagination to spend some time setting up such a gig. And even if you don't, its reasonable doubt.

I genuinely feel for the OP but I'm strongly against finger pointing without hard evidence as I wouldn't want to be at the tail end of it myself if I was wrongly accused with no proof to the contrary.

mickdw

Seriously, look at the photos.
You won't match the marks with another car.

9935452

mickdw wrote: »

Has anyone bothered to look at the photos?
It's a match beyond any reasonable doubt.
look at the number of scratches, the gaps between them, the number with narrow gaps, where the narrow gaps are, where the 2 strong marks are. There is no doubt whatsoever. As an Engineer myself in a different field, should something as clear cut as that be put before me and if inspection in person didn't show up anything further, I would have no difficulty reporting that having inspected the damage, that it is my opinion that the 2 vehicles came in contact causing the damage.

As an engineer too Id be inclined to agree with ironclaw on this.
It is more than likely that the other car did hit the ops car but there is no proof, no witnesses , no video of it happening.
If we could claim for things that most likely happened i would have already claimed off the car parked next to me in the supermarket for the dings in my door.

Also what would happen if the owner of the other car said the op must have hit him? , (parked on the other side of the road) and thats how the damage happened.
No proof so i would reckon the insurance company would go 50/50 on this

Nonoperational

Photos are borderline irrelevant. Other car says he hit him? Similar make and model pulled up and did it? No proof and you are depending on the other person being decent.

bladespin

9935452 wrote:

As an engineer too Id be inclined to agree with ironclaw on this.

Me three, all you can do is make assumptions and approximations, all of which could be challenged.

robtri

mickdw wrote: »

Seriously, look at the photos.
You won't match the marks with another car.

even if they where an exact match... who to say OP didnt hit other car (besides the OP)...

too definitively say the damage was caused by the other car without any other evidence/witnesses is virtually impossible..