What can an insurance company ask for during a claim?

baldshin

Hi all,

I've recently had to make a claim following the write off of a car. The insurance company made an offer which falls below the amount required to replace the car with one of a similar spec, year and mileage. I have appealed this using info from sales online and they've just come back to me requesting how much I paid for the car originally, and a receipt. Are they entitled to this? I don't see how what I paid for it is relevant to what it's valued at?

Hypothetically it could have been sold cheaply by a relative or something, this doesn't effect how much it's worth, so do I need to provide this info?

Eggs For Dinner

Advertised prices are not true market value. They are aspirational figures asked for by the seller. As you will be a cash buyer, the price you can get it for is the figure you should expect. In addition, cars being bought from main dealers will usually come with a warranty which, presumably, yours did not

Salary Negotiator

They can ask for anything, it's up to you what you want to give them.

I'd agree that what you paid is irrelevant though so I'd say I've forgotten/lost the receipt.

baldshin

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Advertised prices are not true market value. They are aspirational figures asked for by the seller. As you will be a cash buyer, the price you can get it for is the figure you should expect. In addition, cars being bought from main dealers will usually come with a warranty which, presumably, yours did not

Still had 2.5 years warranty left on mine.

NUTLEY BOY

In principle, this is a claim for a conventional indemnity.

The measure of indemnity is the market value of the vehicle at the moment before it was destroyed.
That should be described in the contract/policy wording.

What you paid for the vehicle is totally irrelevant to the issue of indemnity.
What is relevant is the market value at the time of the loss less any salvage value.

In relation to their questions bear in mind that the policyholder carries the onus of proof of loss and proof of the measure of that loss.
They are entitled to ask questions relevant to the issue but not to take you on excursions to the outback of irrelevance.

coylemj

baldshin wrote: »

..... they've just come back to me requesting how much I paid for the car originally, and a receipt. Are they entitled to this? I don't see how what I paid for it is relevant to what it's valued at?

Can't you just say you bought it for cash in a private sale - no receipt?

NUTLEY BOY

coylemj wrote: »

Can't you just say you bought it for cash in a private sale - no receipt?

If that is the truth and you can verify it

galwaytt

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

In principle, this is a claim for a conventional indemnity.

The measure of indemnity is the market value of the vehicle at the moment before it was destroyed.
That should be described in the contract/policy wording.

What you paid for the vehicle is totally irrelevant to the issue of indemnity.
What is relevant is the market value at the time of the loss less any salvage value.

In relation to their questions bear in mind that the policyholder carries the onus of proof of loss and proof of the measure of that loss.
They are entitled to ask questions relevant to the issue but not to take you on excursions to the outback of irrelevance.

Good Spiel, I'm going to save that for the future

But you're right: what OP paid for for the car at the time of it's purchase is irrelevant: what you buy insurance for is to replace it with a similar make/model/value. You buy insurance to protect you from loss, and the payout/settlement is to put you back in the same (financial) position as you were, pre-crash (etc).

The proof of the loss is easy - e.g the car has been deemed irrepairable (by assessor, engineer etc).
The measure of the loss is similarly straightforward: the marketplace has a number of similar cars to yours in terms of spec/mileage/age at €xxxx price and so you are entitled to be able to avail of that with no financial penalty.

Fwiw, btdt, with the State Claims agency, where a state vehicle hit our (stationary) vehicle and wrote ours off. The offer was, iirc, €1700. Not a few emails calls and letters later, they settled for the value of what it took to replace it with like-for-like, based on ads and so forth I submitted: the cheque arrived for the correct €6k.

NUTLEY BOY

One brief point of clarification.

When I say that the measure of indemnity is market value less salvage that assumes that the policyholder is retaining the salvage.

Otherwise, if the insurer was retaining salvage the settlement would be for the market value only.

This principle applies equally if you are dealing with your own insurer or with the other party's insurer i.e you are entitled to an indemnity.

mgbgt1978

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Advertised prices are not true market value. They are aspirational figures asked for by the seller. As you will be a cash buyer, the price you can get it for is the figure you should expect. In addition, cars being bought from main dealers will usually come with a warranty which, presumably, yours did not

You are obviously making the assumption that the OP is well versed in haggling.....how do you know this ?


You also assume that the OP bought a car without a warranty...again, (apart from the info given on this thread) how do you know this ?


All of this does not include the fact (and we both know that it is a fact ) that almost all Insurers will use an inept valuation company to simply search for the 3 lowest priced cars on DoneDeal (regardless of Engine type, model spec, mileage, etc.) and then offer an average of these to the claimant as a true reflection of the value of their Car. :rolleyes:

Henry Ford III

coylemj wrote: »

Can't you just say you bought it for cash in a private sale - no receipt?

Typical Irish reply. Don't ever let the truth get in the way.

coylemj

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Typical Irish reply. Don't ever let the truth get in the way.

Correct because if the OP bought the car for a bargain price, the insurance will use that fact to push down what they claim is the 'market price'. Why provide them with material which works against you?

the_pen_turner

i dont see what diference it should make. if the op paid 20 k for a car worth 10 k they would still only have a car worth 10k . so the insurance only has to put them back to the way they were before the claim.

if they paid 5k for a 10k car it shouldnt matter. your asset is still worth 10k

galwaytt

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i dont see what diference it should make. if the op paid 20 k for a car worth 10 k they would still only have a car worth 10k . so the insurance only has to put them back to the way they were before the claim.

if they paid 5k for a 10k car it shouldnt matter. your asset is still worth 10k

You're right, it doesn't matter.

Which is why the question on proposals about the 'value' is nonsense. Irrespective of the number you give there, that's not what you'd get: either above or under.

coylemj

galwaytt wrote: »

You're right, it doesn't matter.

Which is why the question on proposals about the 'value' is nonsense. Irrespective of the number you give there, that's not what you'd get: either above or under.

Agree 100%. Which would make you wonder why the OP's insurance want to know how much he paid for the car and they want to see a receipt.

Henry Ford III

coylemj wrote: »

Correct because if the OP bought the car for a bargain price, the insurance will use that fact to push down what they claim is the 'market price'. Why provide them with material which works against you?

The price the OP paid is the basis of their loss.
You are obliged to tell them the truth.

It's frankly difficult to credit anyone suggesting otherwise.

the_pen_turner

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The price the OP paid is the basis of their loss.
You are obliged to tell them the truth.

It's frankly difficult to credit anyone suggesting otherwise.

what the person paid is irrelivent.
the value of the asset is all that is important.

so your telling me if i buy a painting for 5000 10 years ago that now is worth 10,000 that my loss is the original money i spent. that is verry hard to believe.

Henry Ford III

the_pen_turner wrote: »

what the person paid is irrelivent.
the value of the asset is all that is important.

so your telling me if i buy a painting for 5000 10 years ago that now is worth 10,000 that my loss is the original money i spent. that is verry hard to believe.

Once again the truth must be told. After that argue all you want about value.

p.s. In your example the sum insured is relevant. If it's insured for €5k you'll not get more if it's stolen.

coylemj

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The price the OP paid is the basis of their loss.

It's not, his loss is the market value of the car. What he paid is irrelevant - he could have won it in a raffle or been left it in a will. Would the insurance then owe him nothing?

Asking him to prove how much he paid is simply a tactic to push down the value they can get away with.

the_pen_turner

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Once again the truth must be told. After that argue all you want about value.

p.s. In your example the sum insured is relevant. If it's insured for €5k you'll not get more if it's stolen.

of course you have to diclare the value of the asset. thats not the same as telling them what you paid for it.

mgbgt1978

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The price the OP paid is the basis of their loss.
You are obliged to tell them the truth.

It's frankly difficult to credit anyone suggesting otherwise.

So if the Op is a complete idiot and paid €20k for a €10k Car then by your logic he would be entitled to seek €20k from this Insurer. Get real. :rolleyes:

Henry Ford III

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

So if the Op is a complete idiot and paid €20k for a €10k Car then by your logic he would be entitled to seek €20k from this Insurer. Get real. :rolleyes:

This has gone way off track.

To recap an Insurer can ask for whatever information they wish in assessing a claim, including what was paid for the car.

To not tell the truth is dishonest and can jeopardise a claim.

Eggs For Dinner

The query from insurers may not relate to the proposed market value of the vehicle. It could be to do with when the vehicle came in to the ownership of the policyholder

MarkR

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

The query from insurers may not relate to the proposed market value of the vehicle. It could be to do with when the vehicle came in to the ownership of the policyholder

Probably working on a percentage off the original price.

Eggs For Dinner

MarkR wrote: »

Probably working on a percentage off the original price.

Something unrelated to the value

MarkR

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Something unrelated to the value

Not entirely, cars depreciate year on year, and if you know that cars drop an average of X% in the first year, second year etc, then if you start with the original purchase price, you have a fairly accurate idea on what it may be worth after a given period of time.

Eggs For Dinner

MarkR wrote: »

Not entirely, cars depreciate year on year, and if you know that cars drop an average of X% in the first year, second year etc, then if you start with the original purchase price, you have a fairly accurate idea on what it may be worth after a given period of time.

I'm saying the request for this information may not relate to establishing the value of the vehicle

mgbgt1978

baldshin wrote: »

Hi all,

I've recently had to make a claim following the write off of a car. The insurance company made an offer which falls below the amount required to replace the car with one of a similar spec, year and mileage. I have appealed this using info from sales online and they've just come back to me requesting how much I paid for the car originally, and a receipt. Are they entitled to this? I don't see how what I paid for it is relevant to what it's valued at?

Hypothetically it could have been sold cheaply by a relative or something, this doesn't effect how much it's worth, so do I need to provide this info?

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

The query from insurers may not relate to the proposed market value of the vehicle. It could be to do with when the vehicle came in to the ownership of the policyholder

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

I'm saying the request for this information may not relate to establishing the value of the vehicle

They have asked him for the purchase price of the car, nothing else (after he rejected their initial offer). Other than valuation what else could this figure possibly be used for ????
A simple free online check will give anybody the last 'change of ownership' date for any Irish registered Vehicle.

Eggs For Dinner

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

They have asked him for the purchase price of the car, nothing else (after he rejected their initial offer). Other than valuation what else could this figure possibly be used for ????
A simple free online check will give anybody the last 'change of ownership' date for any Irish registered Vehicle.

Use your imagination

baldshin

Op here, just an update to say I refused to tell the insurance company what I paid for the car as this didn't determine the value. Coincidentally what I paid for it is about the value....and they paid the full amount out. That being said, I'm now faced with a renewal next month of over €3000 for a claim that was no fault of my own, so in this case I am still going to end up out of pocket.

scamalert

insurance companies are dodgy, if they ask value when giving quote surely they would have to stick by it or check it at least ?


if otherwise value goes down which it basically does on any car then that should be reflected in renewals as well which we know aint happening.


as whats the point asking for value when its not honored ?

Henry Ford III

baldshin wrote: »

Op here, just an update to say I refused to tell the insurance company what I paid for the car as this didn't determine the value. Coincidentally what I paid for it is about the value....and they paid the full amount out. That being said, I'm now faced with a renewal next month of over €3000 for a claim that was no fault of my own, so in this case I am still going to end up out of pocket.

Who's fault was it?

baldshin

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Who's fault was it?

Mother nature's!