Brexit car value increase and insurance claim value

Andy454

My Aunt gotta good deal on a car in September last year, the purchase price including trade in on the car was € 36k which she declared when insuring the car back in September.

An uninsured driver ploughed in to the car three weeks ago and while she is lucky to have escaped without catastrophic injury or even death, an initial scout for the same vehicle with similar mileage and condition reveals that, because of Brexit, the car has actually increased in value - adding circa € 2-3k to the price and there is a major scarcity of cars in this category due to Brexit import VAT etc.

As she has to make the claim the car on her own insurance, who are subsequently reimbursed by MIBI, is she to forgo the additional € 2-3k to put herself back in the same position she was in prior to the accident?

What are your thoughts?

grogi

Andy454 wrote: »

My Aunt gotta good deal on a car in September last year, the purchase price including trade in on the car was € 36k which she declared when insuring the car back in September.

An uninsured driver ploughed in to the car three weeks ago and while she is lucky to have escaped without catastrophic injury or even death, an initial scout for the same vehicle with similar mileage and condition reveals that, because of Brexit, the car has actually increased in value - adding circa € 2-3k to the price and there is a major scarcity of cars in this category due to Brexit import VAT etc.

As she has to make the claim the car on her own insurance, who are subsequently reimbursed by MIBI, is she to forgo the additional € 2-3k to put herself back in the same position she was in prior to the accident?

What are your thoughts?

Unfortunately yes. She is covered up to declared value or market value, whatever is smaller.

Seth Brundle

Had the car been insured for what she paid for it or what it was now worth?

Hdjsjsjsj

Usually insurance have a disclaimer starting they will pay out market value but not above the value you have declared in the insurance policy.

So if the value she entered is now.lower you are probably out of luck. I would try to fight it though.

Same things happened to me with Brexit so I have updated my car value and added a few K to it.

Andy454

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Had the car been insured for what she paid for it or what it was now worth?

She insured it for what she paid for it. It is probably the first time cars have actually appreciated in value!

Hdjsjsjsj

Andy454 wrote: »

She insured it for what she paid for it. It is probably the first time cars have actually appreciated in value!

As you said this is a relatively uncharted waters. Fight for the extra value. Possibly through the ombudsman if required.

grogi

Hdjsjsjsj wrote: »

As you said this is a relatively uncharted waters. Fight for the extra value. Possibly through the ombudsman if required.

There is nothing here tbh. Atypical scenario, but deal is very clear, even for those circumstances.

Don't waste time and energy.

Hdjsjsjsj

grogi wrote: »

There is nothing here tbh. Atypical, but nothing deal is very clear.

Probably but worth a shot I'd say

Andy454

Thanks a million for all your replies.
Yes, the ombudsman is not something I had considered but would be a good route to try if she meets resistance. It wasn’t her fault, it was the other party that lost all control and smashed into her, she should not be at the loss.

Darc19

Hdjsjsjsj wrote: »

As you said this is a relatively uncharted waters. Fight for the extra value. Possibly through the ombudsman if required.

The ombudsman? Seriously?????


She insured it for a figure. That's the figure which is used. The figure was her figure.


The ombudsman would rightly tell you to piss off.

Andy454

Darc19 wrote: »

The ombudsman? Seriously?????


She insured it for a figure. That's the figure which is used. The figure was her figure.


The ombudsman would rightly tell you to piss off.

She has a right to be put back in the position she was in prior to the accident. If she had been at fault, I would have agreed. But as this was not her fault and the same car is now 2/3k more expensive due to Brexit if the other driver had been insured, she would have been entitled to seek the entire cost of returning her to her pre-accident condition from the other parties insurance.

While the current procedure for non-insured drivers is to claim on her policy and her own insurance will ultimately be reimbursed by MIBI, this will still feature as a claim on her own insurance until the claim is settled.

Seth Brundle

Andy454 wrote: »

She has a right to be put back in the position she was in prior to the accident.

Not if she did not insure the vehicle for its current value.
It is assumed that the value of a car will decrease during the life of a policy. If she had a rare car that could increase in value then she should have informed her insurance company and insured it appropriately.

The insurerz are very clear. Declared value or market, whichever is less

bazz26

If you insure a car for 36k then the most they will payout would be the market value up to that 36k valuation you put on it. It doesn't matter who's fault it was or what external forces are at play. If what you suggested was accepted then nobody would bother paying higher premiums for cars with a high value when they can just value them at a few grand for insurance purposes.

Hdjsjsjsj

Another reason insurance is a complete scam in this country. Blame the consumer for not predicting that the country would put yet another tax on importing cars.

It's an atypical situation cause a large portion of cars values have increased in Ireland because if Brxit and the NoX tax. It doesn't even have to be that good or rare of a car.

Buddy Bubs

If you're talking 2 to 3k on a car worth 36k I don't think it's an exact science to be honest, negotiation etc on a 38k car could bring it down handy enough. I've hopefully negotiated a 31.5k car down to 29k myself over the weekend, salesman talking to his boss this morning.

I can't see insurance changing their rules tbh, a few months passing will bring a car of that value down pretty quickly by 2 to 3k

Darc19

Hdjsjsjsj wrote: »

Another reason insurance is a complete scam in this country. Blame the consumer for not predicting that the country would put yet another tax on importing cars.

It's an atypical situation cause a large portion of cars values have increased in Ireland because if Brxit and the NoX tax. It doesn't even have to be that good or rare of a car.

so the insured person takes absolutely no responsibility for providing a correct figure? - Its ALWAYS someone else's fault isn't it?

The NoX tax was flagged MONTHS in advance and differed for different cars.

The insured had a value on her insurance. That's what he/she paid for.

No court, no ombudsman, is going to differ on what the insured claimed unless the car was over insured.

Eggs For Dinner

Hdjsjsjsj wrote: »

Another reason insurance is a complete scam in this country.

.

Would you stop with this nonsense. It is a Worldwide insurance practice that the maximum you can claim on your policy is your declared sum insured

The Ombudsman will not entertain a referral when the dispute is over the amount paid for a claim. There is provision for you to request arbitration and details will be in your policy.

What you pay for your car is of little relevance. You could have got the bargain of the year, or you could have grossly overpaid. It's the cost to replace it that counts. In addition, it must reflect the proper market value to be fair when it comes to repairs for partial damage

Wildly Boaring

Guys ye are all correct in the fact that you are insured for the market value or the declared value, whichever is lowest.

BUT
This is not a claim against the insurance product purchased by the aunt.
It's against the other person's insurance or in this case MIBI.
That make a difference??

grogi

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Guys ye are all correct in the fact that you are insured for the market value or the declared value, whichever is lowest.

BUT
This is not a claim against the insurance product purchased by the aunt.
It's against the other person's insurance or in this case MIBI.

It is unfortunate that it has to be MIBI case, otherwise she would be fully compensated from 3rd party coverage of the driver. However MIBI resolution involves claiming against your insurance first.

You cannot take more water from the bucket that it holds before refilling it.

Eggs For Dinner

You can always sue the uninsured driver personally for any surplus loss over the payment you get from your insurer

ChippingSodbury

grogi wrote: »

It is unfortunate that it has to be MIBI case, otherwise she would be fully compensated from 3rd party coverage of the driver. However MIBI resolution involves claiming against your insurance first.

You cannot take more water from the bucket that it holds before refilling it.

So, using that logic, if she only had a 3rd party policy, she couldn't claim at all???

Doesn't sound right to me...

grogi

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

So, using that logic, if she only had a 3rd party policy, she couldn't claim at all???

Doesn't sound right to me...

There is different process then.

garv123

So does the uninsured driver get away without paying for anything?

grogi

garv123 wrote: »

So does the uninsured driver get away without paying for anything?

MIBI will chase them.

Henry Ford III

Used car values have actually increased?

Henry Ford III

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Used car values have actually increased?

Unkel's all ways seem to :pac:

Eggs For Dinner

grogi wrote: »

MIBI will chase them.

And t's happening more frequently. Obviously, there is a limit to how much the MIBI will spend to get their money back, but they will at least seek a judgement against them and the difficulties that will cause the uninsured motorist

Andy454

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

You can always sue the uninsured driver personally for any surplus loss over the payment you get from your insurer

The guy that hit her was well known to the guards, a repeat offender, he was disqualified previously and apparently had more than alcohol in his system at the time he hit her. The guards said at the speed he hit herself and the other road users he smashed into at the time, they were lucky to have survived and not suffer catastrophic injury. They also attributed the lack of injury to the size of my Aunts car and said if it had of been a compact car, she and the other users may not have been as lucky.

My understanding is that there is very little chance of recovering anything from the guy and there is very little chance that he will not reoffend.

While she is recuperating from the incident, she is still very traumatised and very anxious. She won't even get into a car as a passenger at the moment, which I seriously fear, may have put her off the road altogether in terms of her confidence, only time will tell.

I went to the scene on the night, the scene was like something out of CSI. She was taken to hospital to get checked out and while the hospital staff on the night were very kind and caring, she said she felt like she was the offender rather than the victim, she was breathalysed which was negative after which they drew four large vials of blood under caution, all of which returned nothing in her system. I know this is just normal standard procedure, but she said the perpetrator was waltzing around the corridor as if nothing had happened and didn't one bit acknowledge or have any guilt for the three other innocent people he had just put into hospital. She said it was very intimidating. Due to covid, no one from our family could even sit with her and comfort her in the hospital.

The following day when she contacted her own insurance to report the incident, the claims handler was extremely confrontational and had a very nasty attitude, which I frankly would have expected to be bit more professional from the insurer in question given their advertising. He then went on to advise her that she wasn't entitled to things that are actually included as standard in her policy, which led me to post her in the first place.

While I appreciate previous posters assertions that she should have accounted for various things when taking out the policy, the policy that she took out has enough bells and whistles as it stands, it is unlikely that a change in the VAT rules due to Brexit would have come to the forefront of her mind, she just like, most people for the past 40+ years, I would assume, insured it for the receipted value and then expected depreciation to kick in from that point on and while the procedure is that her own insurance handles the claim, it is ultimately passed to MIBI in the end.

Eggs For Dinner

It appears to have been an extremely upsetting time for your relative, but I would be very surprised that the claims handler would have been confrontational. They would handle dozens of similar notifications each day and their job is to process them as efficiently as possible

If the call which caused her distress took place the next day, things like valuation, VAT, underinsurance etc wouldnt have been on the table at that early stage. Can you elaborate on the entitlements they told her she couldn't have?

RGS

The MIBI is known as the insurer of last resort. In other words if there is a policy in place to cover property loss, including cars, then that policy deals with the property loss.The MIBI will not be refunding your aunts insurer. Clause 4.4 of the 2009 MIBI agreement is the relevant clause.
https://www.mibi.ie/mibi-agreements.21.h

Your aunts insurer will deal with the material damage loss and seek recovery from the uninsured driver, if he is a mark.

The MIBI on behalf of the uninsured driver will handle the personal injury claim your aunt may wish to take.

The MIBI website povides lots of information to victims of uninsured drivers.

I hope your aunt makes a quick recovery from her injuries in what seems to have been a very traumatic experience.

Andy454

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

It appears to have been an extremely upsetting time for your relative, but I would be very surprised that the claims handler would have been confrontational. They would handle dozens of similar notifications each day and their job is to process them as efficiently as possible

If the call which caused her distress took place the next day, things like valuation, VAT, underinsurance etc wouldnt have been on the table at that early stage. Can you elaborate on the entitlements they told her she couldn't have?

Yea, she was upset after the call and said he was very rude and quite aggressive.

He advised her incorrectly on her entitlements to a replacement vehicle which were out of line with the policy, it didn't matter that much as she wasn't in a fit state to drive in any event, but it certainly left a sour after taste, she has appointed a solicitor to deal with it on her behalf now...

Eggs For Dinner

Andy454 wrote: »

Yea, she was upset after the call and said he was very rude and quite aggressive.

He advised her incorrectly on her entitlements to a replacement vehicle which were out of line with the policy, it didn't matter that much as she wasn't in a fit state to drive in any event, but it certainly left a sour after taste, she has appointed a solicitor to deal with it on her behalf now...

Many people want a like for like courtesy vehicle in the event of an accident and that wouldn't be an entitlement. It could also be that a courtesy vehicle is not always given where the vehicle is a write off, just in need of repair.

Obtain a copy of the call and see if the handler was indeed rude, or it could be that your aunt was just distressed at the time. If the hander was rude or aggressive, make a complaint. It will be taken seriously

tcawley29

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Many people want a like for like courtesy vehicle in the event of an accident and that wouldn't be an entitlement.

Sorry for going slightly off topic here but is that true even if you're claiming off someone else at fault?

Hardly sounds fair

Eggs For Dinner

tcawley29 wrote: »

Sorry for going slightly off topic here but is that true even if you're claiming off someone else at fault?

Hardly sounds fair

No, it's different claiming from a 3rd party. Claiming under your own policy, you are bound by the terms and conditions therein. Claiming from someone else, you are entitled to claim for the financial cost they have caused you and a like for like vehicle would be acceptable. Having said that, you cannot claim for a courtesy vehicle indefinitely while you source a replacement. 2 weeks would be the accepted norm