Car insurance claim

spacekiwi

Hi, had a guy sideswipe my car.
To cut a long story short, guy left scene, i called gardai, they tracked him down.
They said i was fully in right and he was wrong.
They gave me insurance details, i called his insurance company. They called me back saying guy is saying he never hit my car.
They are to get garda report and send accesor out to me.

Im working on theroy with this, so bear with me. Ive never had to claim off a insurer before.

If accesor finds as garda did, that he was at fault and did hit my car. Will they press him for attempted insurance fraud?
Also, when/if they find he did damage my car, will insurer tell me to fix it and they re-imburse me. Or do they pay garage i take it to be fixed directly?
Had two verbal quotes of approx 600 to fix dents and scrapes.
How does it all work??
Any insight appreciated. Thanks

Sono

If damage consistent on both cars then the insurance company will pay out no issues, they can pay you directly or garage for you, pretty straight forward once damage is consistent on both vehicles.

mikeybrennan

Have you spoken to your own insurer?

Do that first

spacekiwi

Didnt realise i had to contact my insurance. Would that affect my premium on renewal?

Also guy that hit me is saying he has no damage, which could make sense as the force was on my car and his vehicle wouldnt of had any real resistance to rubbing alongside mine.
However gardai noted in report his car colour paint had transferred onto mine.

punisher5112

Always contact your own insurance.

It won't affect your own unless you claim on your own policy or have a claim against you.

mikeybrennan

Is it normal to contact the other insurer?

I'd be wary of saying anything to them unless i hear different, ?

punisher5112

mikeybrennan wrote: »

Is it normal to contact the other insurer?

I'd be wary of saying anything to them unless i hear different, ?

Of course its normal as the op is claiming he hit his car and he legged it and disputes it. Not going to be easy to get money off someone who legs it.

Sono

mikeybrennan wrote: »

Is it normal to contact the other insurer?

I'd be wary of saying anything to them unless i hear different, ?

As part of your policy conditions your obliged to notify your insurer of any incident which may give rise to a claim, doesn't mean anything comes of it from your insurer but they need to be made aware of it.

mikeybrennan

Sono wrote: »

As part of your policy conditions your obliged to notify your insurer of any incident which may give rise to a claim, doesn't mean anything comes of it from your insurer but they need to be made aware of it.

The "other" persons insurer

I already made the point about contacting your own in any incident

grogi

punisher5112 wrote: »

Always contact your own insurance.

It won't affect your own unless you claim on your own policy or have a claim against you.

Any claim might affect the premium. But you need to notify insurer anyway - the other driver might be claiming against you.

Those scumbags industry say that even if the claim is not driver's fault, she or he has a higher risk of causing a claim in future. While extremely unfair to majority of drivers, statistically that might actually be true...

punisher5112

grogi wrote: »

Any claim might affect the premium. But you need to notify insurer anyway - the other driver might be claiming against you.

Those scumbags industry say that even if the claim is not driver's fault, she or he has a higher risk of causing a claim in future. While extremely unfair to majority of drivers, statistically that might actually be true...

I've had quite a few where I've been hit over the years has no effect on mine.

Sue Pa Key Pa

grogi wrote: »

Any claim might affect the premium. But you need to notify insurer anyway - the other driver might be claiming against you.

Those scumbags industry say that even if the claim is not driver's fault, she or he has a higher risk of causing a claim in future. While extremely unfair to majority of drivers, statistically that might actually be true...

Can you show me a link to that assertion?

kirving

It's not an assertion, grogi said might

It could very well be true. Some drivers are very aware and subsequently compliant to bad drivers mistakes, and drive defensively to avoid a collison.

Others are extremely single minded and out of sheer stubbornness and malicious compliance with the rules of the road will see themselves in more collisions, even if those are someone else fault. "Why should I stop? I have right of way, he shouldn't have pulled out so late"

grogi

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Can you show me a link to that assertion?

If you follow this forum you surely have came across cases like that. I know the ball is in my side, I'll try to find some later this evening.

Lemlin

grogi wrote: »

Any claim might affect the premium. But you need to notify insurer anyway - the other driver might be claiming against you.

Those scumbags industry say that even if the claim is not driver's fault, she or he has a higher risk of causing a claim in future. While extremely unfair to majority of drivers, statistically that might actually be true...

That is incorrect. I've worked in insurance for the last decade. A claim will and can only effect the future premium/NCB if an insurance company has to make a payment.

The OP should report the claim to his own insurer. Even if only for notification purposes.

He should be contacting the insurer of the other vehicle though and pursuing his claim through them to ensure there are no costs on his own policy.

They will have various methods of getting the correct information - instructing an investigator to take a statement from their client, getting assessor reports on both vehicles, speaking to the Gardatc.

If the Gardaave proof of paint transfer, the third party isn't going to have a leg to stand on.

There won't be any prosecution though. Even if a claim runs to court and a claimant is found to have totally fabricated their condition, do you ever hear of them being prosecuted for insurance fraud? It just doesn't happen.

I love Sean nos

spacekiwi wrote: »

the force was on my car and his vehicle wouldnt of had any real resistance to rubbing alongside mine.

Make an offer to buy this magical car that isn't subject to physics.

grogi

Lemlin wrote: »

That is incorrect. I've worked in insurance for the last decade. A claim will and can only effect the future premium/NCB if an insurance company has to make a payment.

If such claims don't matter, why are we explicitly told to disclose them on quotation?! They seem to matter then...

Lemlin

grogi wrote: »

If such claims don't matter, why are we explicitly told to disclose them on quotation?! They seem to matter then...

What company told you to explicity disclose them? I work for an Irish insurer and only ''fault accidents' need to be declared.

Why would you penalize someone for a non fault accident? Its not their fault some idiot ran up the arse end of their car for example.

Every company has their own quirks but no insurer should be loading anyone's premium for a non fault accident.

I love Sean nos

spacekiwi wrote: »

Didnt realise i had to contact my insurance.

It's a standard condition on most insurance policies. Check your policy.

whomitconcerns

Lemlin wrote: »

grogi wrote: »

Any claim might affect the premium. But you need to notify insurer anyway - the other driver might be claiming against you.

Those scumbags industry say that even if the claim is not driver's fault, she or he has a higher risk of causing a claim in future. While extremely unfair to majority of drivers, statistically that might actually be true...

That is incorrect. I've worked in insurance for the last decade. A claim will and can only effect the future premium/NCB if an insurance company has to make a payment.

The OP should report the claim to his own insurer. Even if only for notification purposes.

He should be contacting the insurer of the other vehicle though and pursuing his claim through them to ensure there are no costs on his own policy.

They will have various methods of getting the correct information - instructing an investigator to take a statement from their client, getting assessor reports on both vehicles, speaking to the Gardatc.

If the Gardaave proof of paint transfer, the third party isn't going to have a leg to stand on.

There won't be any prosecution though. Even if a claim runs to court and a claimant is found to have totally fabricated their condition, do you ever hear of them being prosecuted for insurance fraud? It just doesn't happen.

Well I know it's a different market but in the UK, if you are on a no fault accident it does affect your renewal for exactly the reason stated above....I don't agree with it as they doubled my renewal after a full settlement from the other insurer.

grogi

Lemlin wrote: »

What company told you to explicity disclose them? I work for an Irish insurer and only ''fault accidents' need to be declared.

Let's start with the letter A... AA, AXA...

AXA:We need to know the details of all claims (relating to all drivers) including windscreen, not-at-fault claims and claims made under policies with protected no claims discount

Lemlin wrote: »

Why would you penalize someone for a non fault accident? Its not their fault some idiot ran up the arse end of their car for example.

I agree - it is unfair to majority of the drivers. But insurance is not about fairness, it is about statistics. And statistically a driver with a not-at-fault claim is a bigger risk, as previously explained by @Kevin Irving.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Some drivers are very aware and subsequently compliant to bad drivers mistakes, and drive defensively to avoid a collison.

Others are extremely single minded and out of sheer stubbornness and malicious compliance with the rules of the road will see themselves in more collisions, even if those are someone else fault. "Why should I stop? I have right of way, he shouldn't have pulled out so late"

I would just add that such driver is typically less aware of the surroundings - and because of that more likely to be at fault in future.

knipex

spacekiwi wrote: »

If accesor finds as garda did, that he was at fault and did hit my car. Will they press him for attempted insurance fraud?

The assessor will only quantify the damage and generate a cost of repair for the insurance company.

If you have a preferred body-shop I would arrange to meet the assessor there and have them discuss \ debate with the assessor. The insurance company will normally only pay what the assessor estimates. (there can be a little wriggle room but not a lot so better argue with assessor before he submits his report)

In my experience they will give you the choice of either paying the garage or issuing the cheque directly to you.

SteM

grogi wrote: »

....
Those scumbags industry say that even if the claim is not driver's fault, she or he has a higher risk of causing a claim in future....

Is this true? If I drop something I might be clumsy and likely to drop something again but if something is knocked out of my hand it doesn’t increase the risk of me dropping something in the future. Interesting industry.

grogi

SteM wrote: »

Is this true? If I drop something I might be clumsy and likely to drop something again but if something is knocked out of my hand it doesn’t increase the risk of me dropping something in the future. Interesting industry.

If you managed to avoid stuff being knocked out of your hand so far, you are a keeper

grogi

knipex wrote: »

In my experience they will give you the choice of either paying the garage or issuing the cheque directly to you.

What's more, a cheque will not include VAT...

Lemlin

grogi wrote: »

What's more, a cheque will not include VAT...

It will if going directly to the garage after repairs have completed.

You are referring to a cash in lieu settlement. Basically, if someone wants the cash themselves, the insurance company will not pay VAT until the final repair account is received.

This is because a lot of people will go to their local dealer, get an expensive quote, take the cash and then get a local mechanic to fix the car for a fraction of the price the main dealer quoted.

Have you any insurance qualification? CIP, MDI, ACII? You seem to have a lot of opinions on the topic which I would see as incorrect.

grogi

Lemlin wrote: »

It will if going directly to the garage.

You are referring to a cash in lieu settlement. Basically, if someone wants the cash themselves, the insurance company will not pay VAT until the final repair account is received.

Yes, that's what I am referring to. So was I wrong an it will it VAT? No, it won't.

Have you any insurance qualification? CIP, MDI, ACII? You seem to have a lot of opinions on the topic which I would see as incorrect.

You might have been working in the industry for years. I however have been struggling insuring my cars for years and read the small print. I have slightly different perspective on the subject.

I have no issue asking about advice. I have no problem admitting I was wrong and have done that numerous times in the past.

But when it comes to insurance I am not wrong often. Any claim (despite the policy holder having NCB protection, despite being not-at-fault, despite it is only windshield etc) affects the risk profile and might affect premium. An insurer might decide to ignore it for the sake of fairness or not even require information about claims not-at-fault, but there are insurers that require it.

knipex

grogi wrote: »

What's more, a cheque will not include VAT...

Not true.

The cheque will include VAT unless you are a VAT registered company or have a trade or business insurance policy.

grogi

knipex wrote: »

Not true.

The cheque will include VAT unless you are a VAT registered company or have a trade or business insurance policy.

Such practice (not including VAT) was deemed illegal in many places around Europe. I would be more than happy to be corrected on this if it wasn't the case in Ireland anymore.

knipex

grogi wrote: »

Such practice was deemed illegal in many places around Europe. I would be more than happy to be corrected on this if it wasn't the case in Ireland anymore.

What practice ???

Lemlin

knipex wrote: »

Not true.

The cheque will include VAT unless you are a VAT registered company or have a trade or business insurance policy.

It won't if you are accepting cash in lieu of repairs.

There's no onus on the insurance company to pay VAT until they receive a repairer's final account which shows VAT was paid.

grogi

knipex wrote: »

What practice ???

Not paying VAT when cash settlement is chosen.

For instance, if the asesor estimates the cost of the damage to be fixed (hourly rate is taken from thin air):
- parts - €1450 + VAT
- labour - 16h * €20/h = €320 + VAT

---

The damage might only be cosmetic, so you might decide against any repair. And you are perfectly entitled to do so. However if you decide to just take the cheque, you would be paid just €1770. That's by the admission of @Lemlin.

knipex

Lemlin wrote: »

It won't if you are accepting cash in lieu of repairs.

There's no onus on the insurance company to pay VAT until they receive a repairer's final account which shows VAT was paid.

True

But if you are only covering the cost of repairs (which is what the insurance is supposed to do) then that wont be an issue.

Its only an issue if you are trying to make a few bob out of a claim for repairs..

Then I have no sympathy..

grogi

knipex wrote: »

Not true.

knipex wrote: »

True

:eek:

knipex

Selective quotes ??

I can do that too..

grogi wrote: »

insurance is

grogi wrote: »

about fairness.

.

grogi

Lemlin wrote: »

Have you any insurance qualification? CIP, MDI, ACII? You seem to have a lot of opinions on the topic which I would see as incorrect.

Other thing to be aware off when dealing with insurance is when your asset is under-insured, any claim might be proportionally reduced.

Example (ignoring any excess, as it unnecessarily complicates issues here):
* a car declared for insurance as worth €15000
* a damage to the door - repair cost €1000
* insurer estimates the value of the car of €20000
- so the asset was insured only in 75% and will cover only 75% of the repair cost
- €750 is paid by insurance


That is especially important when dealing with house insurance, when only a few items are stolen.


The only thing I haven's seen in Ireland is consuming part of your voluntary casco (part of comprehensive premium) insurance.

For instance:
* you insure your motor for €10000 - which is the market value.
* two months later you scuff it and insurance pays out €4000 to have it fixed.
* six months later it gets stolen.

AFAIK insurance will pay out full market value for it at the moment of theft - €10000. But I have seen (not in Ireland) that the insurer claims that part of the insurance was already consumed and they pay out only €6000.

Lemlin

grogi wrote: »

Other thing to be aware off when dealing with insurance is when your asset is under-insured, any claim might be proportionally reduced.

Example (ignoring any excess, as it unnecessarily complicates issues here):
* a car declared for insurance as worth €15000
* a damage to the door - repair cost €1000
* insurer estimates the value of the car of €20000
- so the asset was insured only in 75% and will cover only 75% of the repair cost
- €750 is paid by insurance


That is especially important when dealing with house insurance.




The only thing I haven's seen in Ireland is consuming part of your insurance.

For instance:
* you insure your motor for €10000 - which is the market value.
* two months later you scuff it and insurance pays out €4000 to have it fixed.
* six months later it gets stolen.

AFAIK insurance will pay out full market value for it at the moment of theft - €10000. But I have seen (not in Ireland) that the insurer claims that part of the insurance was already consumed and they pay out only €6000.

The only time that the sum insured is taken into account with a vehicle is when it is a total loss and you are claiming on your own policy. For example, car's pre accident value is 17,000 and the person has it insured for 15,000. The insurer only need pay the 15,000 less the excess.

I have never seen a car insurer take the sum insured into account when paying for repairs. You are correct that it is taken into account in buildings insurance.

Re your second example, the insurer can only reduce the value of the vehicle in the second example if it was not repaired. If the car was repaired and put back to its original position, it is back to being worth the 10k.

To be honest, this thread is going way off topic on the OP. He is doing exactly what he needs to do and I'd be very surprised if the other insurer don't settle his claim after getting their assessor report and speaking to the Gardaí.

grogi

Lemlin wrote: »

I have never seen a car insurer take the sum insured into account when paying for repairs. You are correct that it is taken into account in buildings insurance.

Good. In other words the motor is insured in full upto certain amount. Thanks for that clarification.

Lemlin wrote: »

Re your second example, the insurer can only reduce the value of the vehicle in the second example if it was not repaired. If the car was repaired and put back to its original position, it is back to being worth the 10k.

Again - I am glad it does not happen here.

Lemlin wrote: »

To be honest, this thread is going way off topic on the OP. He is doing exactly what he needs to do and I'd be very surprised if the other insurer don't settle his claim after getting their assessor report and speaking to the Gardaí.

You're right.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Kevin Irving wrote: »

It's not an assertion, grogi said might

No, Grogi stated that "The industry say....."

It doesn't matter, he says he will post the appropriate links tonight, where insurers consider you to be a higher risk for a non-fault accident

As for VAT, it doesn't matter if the insurer pays the garage or the insured directly providing the vehicle has been repaired. It will be included. Insurers will not pay VAT in a cash in lieu situation, as VAT has not been incurred

grogi

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

No, Grogi stated that "The industry say....."

It doesn't matter, he says he will post the appropriate links tonight, where insurers consider you to be a higher risk for a non-fault accident

As for VAT, it doesn't matter if the insurer pays the garage or the insured directly providing the vehicle has been repaired. It will be included. Insurers will not pay VAT in a cash in lieu situation, as VAT has not been incurred

I said that "It MIGHT affect premium" and "insurers say it changes the risk profile".

But I am not blind - and I see the reason behind it. I also see the reasoning behind increased premiums for drivers driving older cars.

Sue Pa Key Pa

grogi wrote: »

Any claim might affect the premium. But you need to notify insurer anyway - the other driver might be claiming against you.

Those scumbags industry say that even if the claim is not driver's fault, she or he has a higher risk of causing a claim in future.

There was no 'might' in your statement

grogi

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Any claim might affect the premium. But you need to notify insurer anyway - the other driver might be claiming against you.

Those industry say that even if the claim is not driver's fault, she or he has a higher risk of causing a claim in future.

There was no 'might' in your statement

Here you go...

Sue Pa Key Pa

grogi wrote: »

Here you go...

Apologies, I meant the 2nd line.

grogi

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Apologies, I meant the 2nd line.

whomitconcerns wrote: »

I had a no fault claim last year. Full liability by the other party admitted after 6 months and a day. My renewal went up anyway by 50% as statistically they told me I am now more likely to have another accident.... Nonsense....

/.../

Both the insurance company and I got all the money back directly from the 3rd party company the same time well before renewal date. But them statistics they tell me.....

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=104054283#post104054283

You cannot tell me that is news to you - you even thanked that post...

Sue Pa Key Pa

grogi wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=104054283#post104054283

You cannot tell me that is news to you - you even thanked that post...

That was a quote from a poster, not an insurer, on his experience. I very much doubt the increase had anything to do with the accident, just market conditions. The post was thanked because the poster eventually got satisfaction from the TP.

This thread has been derailed, my apologies for my contribution to that. I'll end by saying that in over 30 years, I've never seen a premium increased where a 3rd party was at fault and there was no cost to your own insurer

grogi

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

That was a quote from a poster, not an insurer, on his experience. I very much doubt the increase had anything to do with the accident, just market conditions. The post was thanked because the poster eventually got satisfaction from the TP.

I agree that it is hearsay. But it is hard to argue with statement that 'Insurer told the poster that the premium increased because they are higher risk'.

This thread has been derailed, my apologies for my contribution to that. I'll end by saying that in over 30 years, I've never seen a premium increased where a 3rd party was at fault and there was no cost to your own insurer

And let's finished with that. Till next time

whomitconcerns

To be clear on my original post from the other thread, an edit must not have saved last month where I added that I was in the UK, after someone asked me about it. I am in the UK at the moment and my insurer categorically told me that the increase was due to my no fault accident as statistically I was more likely to have another accident irregardless of fault of the first one (This was after full settlement and liability admitted from the other party). My premium went from 650 to over 1,000.

Lemlin

whomitconcerns wrote: »

To be clear on my original post from the other thread, an edit must not have saved last month where I added that I was in the UK, after someone asked me about it. I am in the UK at the moment and my insurer categorically told me that the increase was due to my no fault accident as statistically I was more likely to have another accident irregardless of fault of the first one (This was after full settlement and liability admitted from the other party). My premium went from 650 to over 1,000.

Not to get into it here but the UK is a very different market. For example, they have a huge fraud problem with staged accidents, phantom passengers and "Solicitors" who are as far away from being advocates of the legal profession as you can imagine.

In non fault accidents in the U.K., people tend to claim on their comp cover. Ireland is exactly the opposite. People generally go through their own insurance when not at fault as a last resort, they would contact the at fault insurer in the first instance.

spacekiwi

Uummmm.......cool, thanks everyone.
Will just wait and see what accessor says this week.

NUTLEY BOY

Lemlin wrote: »

SNIP >>> In non fault accidents in the U.K., people tend to claim on their comp cover. Ireland is exactly the opposite. People generally go through their own insurance when not at fault as a last resort, they would contact the at fault insurer in the first instance.

A few years ago I was educated by an insurer about claims sharing agreements like Knock for Knock and Third party Sharing Agreement. Do they still exist ?

My question is prompted as when Knock for Knock applied as between vehicle insurers the comprehensively insured party would be paid for their own damage by their insurer and the NCB would be allowed.

Lemlin

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

A few years ago I was educated by an insurer about claims sharing agreements like Knock for Knock and Third party Sharing Agreement. Do they still exist ?

My question is prompted as when Knock for Knock applied as between vehicle insurers the comprehensively insured party would be paid for their own damage by their insurer and the NCB would be allowed.

I've never encountered ''knock for knock'' as you describe it above. The version of knock for knock, or bear own losses as most call it now, I know, is that each party just fix their own vehicle, without involving insurance.

I certainly don't think NCBs would be allowed, perhaps in the past but not now.