Car Accident... Advice Needed

garion

Hi there,
I was involved in a car accident on Wednesday morning last on a country road the result of which is that the other driver is being prosecuted with reckless driving.
I was taken away from the accident in an ambulance (other driver was not injured) and thankfully my only injuries were a bad concussion and a few bruises.

Before the accident I was driving a 07 Octavia that was practically new. As well as the initial damage of the crash (side impact, front of car is fine), the drivers door had to be cut off to remove me. I've been told by the garage that my car is definitely fixable at a cost of approx €3500.

However I feel that I should be entitled to a new car as:
a) I wasn't at fault in the accident
b) I went into the accident with a car in perfect nick
c) I don't want to drive that car ever again

Can anyone advise what my course of action should be? Will the insurance company of the other driver push for the car to be fixed rather than replaced? If so, do I have to accept this or can I demand a new car (up the the maximum value of my insurance)?

Any help or advice would be appreciated.

Thanks.

nogoodnamesleft

From being in an accident myself last year through someone elses fault, I would wait to see if you are sufferning from any whip lash injuries as they last for some quiet considerable time. The insurance company of the other driver will try and settle with you as quick as possible as it will cost them more money the longer the case runs (due to employee time working the case, possible legal action etc). They will try and keep you sweet so that you will settle promptly so if I was you id aim for the market value of the car as this is the other alternative as opposed to fixing your crashed vehicle. You can sign just for material damages so that you can get sorted straight away regards car and wait and see before settling the dotted line for injuries. BTW id be looking for the same if I was in your position.

cashmni1

Ask and you shall receive. Don't settle for what the ins. company tells you. Get some legal advice.
If you are not happy, don't settle. I would be looking for a new car also, although the car was over 1 year old so you probally wont get a new car, just the market value for your car.
An accident helps nobody unfortunately. '
Best of luck and at least everyone is ok.

garion

Thanks for the reply.
With regard to my injuries, I am very very sore today and yesterday all over my body and the doctor did say that I may be suffering from whiplash.

To be honest this is all very new to me as I've never been involved in a serious accident.
I bought the car last year for €25000 and that is the value the car is insured for.
Would I be entitled to the full value of my insurance (€25000) or the current market value of the car (i don't know, approx €20000)?

Also, when the guards say they will be prosecuting the other driver, is that dependent on whether I wish to proceed with it further (i.e. will I have to say I wish to press charges) or will the gardai proceed themselves?

seamus

From the point of view of the insurance company and the law, you are entitled to be compensation for all losses incurred - basically, you are entitled to be left in the same position that were in before the accident.

With that in mind, you're clearly not entitled to a new car, however you are technically entitled to an undamaged '07 Octavia with similar mileage. So from that point of view, is there any difference between a completely repaired vehicle and something second-hand? If so, why? When you're going on insurance costs, you're entitled to replace everything that has been damaged - no panel beatings or fillings. So there's essentially no difference between the repaired vehicle and one that's never been in a crash.

The repaired car will still be in "perfect nick".

nogoodnamesleft

AFAIK it wont matter about your civil claim the guards will launch their own inquiry about the matter, they probably had an accident investigator to the scene to coobberate what happened to cause the accident. They might ask you to make a statement about what happened thou.

Regards the car they will offer you the current market value BUT you can always refuse what they offer i did this and they increased the value of the car. Whip lash is a cnut im still suffering over a year down the line and if it takes that route be in for a long wait to get compensation.

Who is the other party insured with?

garion

It might be in perfect condition but it'll still be a crashed car. When selling the car on I presume I'll need to disclose that the car was involved in a crash and therefore the car will not be of the same value as a similar uncrashed car.

Yes I appreciate the fact that I am not entitled to a new car, but as you said I feel I should be entitled to the market value of the car.

nogoodnamesleft

seamus wrote: »

From the point of view of the insurance company and the law, you are entitled to be compensation for all losses incurred - basically, you are entitled to be left in the same position that were in before the accident.

With that in mind, you're clearly not entitled to a new car, however you are technically entitled to an undamaged '07 Octavia with similar mileage. So from that point of view, is there any difference between a completely repaired vehicle and something second-hand? If so, why? When you're going on insurance costs, you're entitled to replace everything that has been damaged - no panel beatings or fillings. So there's essentially no difference between the repaired vehicle and one that's never been in a crash.

The repaired car will still be in "perfect nick".

My vehicle had a damaged chassis, severly bent bumper bar, closed door seams in the back and kinks in the metal work on both rear wheel arches.
I saw some the repair of the car, put on jig can pulled outwards to try to get back into the shape. It will never be the same + will be structurally weaker.A crashed car will always be worth less than a similar car without accident history. Cars with chassis damage commonly suffer from uneven tyre wear and in some instances "pull" to the left or the right under braking.

lami

From my own experience with crashes and insurance companies I doubt you will be entitled to a new car. The insurance company will cover the cost of the repairs in a garage authorised by them. You would only get the market value of the car if the cost of the repairs exceeded the cars current market value. Also, there is no point in insuring your car for anything more than its market value as insurance companies only cover that amount regardless of the cost of a new car. However, after saying all that, there is no harm in asking but don't get your hopes up. My insurance company repaired my 1 year old car after an accident and it was like new when it came back. Hope this helps.

garion

lami wrote: »

From my own experience with crashes and insurance companies I doubt you will be entitled to a new car. The insurance company will cover the cost of the repairs in a garage authorised by them. You would only get the market value of the car if the cost of the repairs exceeded the cars current market value. Also, there is no point in insuring your car for anything more than its market value as insurance companies only cover that amount regardless of the cost of a new car. However, after saying all that, there is no harm in asking but don't get your hopes up. My insurance company repaired my 1 year old car after an accident and it was like new when it came back. Hope this helps.

As someone previously stated, surely I should not be put in a worse off position that I was before the accident (i.e. with a repaired but previously crashed car rather than an uncrashed one)?

Yes the gardai investigated the scene and from this they've determined that the other driver was definitely at fault (checking skid marks, road markings etc).
The other driver is with Hibernian.

alexmcred

lami wrote: »

The insurance company will cover the cost of the repairs in a garage authorised by them.

You do not have to bring it to a garage authorized by them it is up to you who repairs your car.

smash

contact a solicitor and let them deal with it, don't talk to anyone from the insurance company.

seamus

alexmcred wrote: »

You do not have to bring it to a garage authorized by them it is up to you who repairs your car.

However, they will often insist on paying the garage directly and/or getting a receipt for the work done.

A common scam used to be that you'd bring it to a garage who'd say that it'll cost (say) €3k to repair, or that it was written off. Then the insurance company write a cheque to the owner who pays the garage way less for the repair and pockets the excess.

alexmcred

seamus wrote: »

However, they will often insist on paying the garage directly and/or getting a receipt for the work done.

A common scam used to be that you'd bring it to a garage who'd say that it'll cost (say) €3k to repair, or that it was written off. Then the insurance company write a cheque to the owner who pays the garage way less for the repair and pockets the excess.

I know that but people should be aware that you do not have to use the insurance companies repairer.

OP I would ring around repair companies and see what they say.

garion

OK thanks for the advice folks.
I think the best course would be to contact my solicitor and see what their opinion is.

peanuthead

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

My vehicle had a damaged chassis, severly bent bumper bar, closed door seams in the back and kinks in the metal work on both rear wheel arches.
I saw some the repair of the car, put on jig can pulled outwards to try to get back into the shape. It will never be the same + will be structurally weaker.A crashed car will always be worth less than a similar car without accident history. Cars with chassis damage commonly suffer from uneven tyre wear and in some instances "pull" to the left or the right under braking.

you can almost always tell if a car has been crashed by driving it. And also, I would personally never buy a crashed car, I would imagine a lot of people would feel the same. Besides, the OP probably wouldn't feel very comfortable about driving a car he/she had to once be cut out of. I know I wouldn't!!

buer25

I was in an accident 3 yrs ago where i was on the dualcarriage way - there was a cop on a motorbike under the bridge which i was approaching and a woman driver in front of me (im a woman driver also so im not slaggin women drivers). She got startled when she say the gaurd and jammed on her brakes, i was a gud distance behind her but because she stopped so suddenly i went into the back of her. (my other choice was to go in the outside lane and under a truck so i weighed up my options). Neither of us were seriously injured thank god and i ever phoned her that eve to see how she was. She said there was no serious damage done so she would just claim for the repairs on her car and nothin else.
2 days later i get a call sayin she is claiming for whiplash - this really annoys me when people do this. Most cases can not be fully proven and i just felt really cheated. She got her claim settled at 35,000 and has since moved back to latvia.
the gaurd on the day of the accident said it was completely her fault and even stated this to the insurance company but still cause I went into the back of her i had to suffer.
People really shouldn't claim for things unless they are seriously and permently injured. I always say if you are in an accident and not carried away in a coffin then you should count your lucky stars and not go claiming.
Just my view on thing and not sayin nethin bad bout anyone - just think about how bad things could have been b4 demanding and gettin worked up about miniscule things.

seamus

buer25 wrote: »

People really shouldn't claim for things unless they are seriously and permently injured. I always say if you are in an accident and not carried away in a coffin then you should count your lucky stars and not go claiming.

Ideally, but since you shouldn't be worse off after an accident, people will always claim for these things. Even without a serious injury, you could be out of work for a week, and perhaps have to pay doctors fees and xrays and the like. Still doesn't add to a mad amount of money. The problems happen when people claim non-specific things such as emotional trauma and possible future complications. Whiplash, for example, can result in spinal problems later on in life, so a judge may have to take the cost of that into account.

Doctors are often just far too quick to sign off muscle pain as whiplash. Most people will have some degree of muscle pain in various places after a crash, which goes away after a couple of days. Whiplash is a good deal more persistent.

buer25

Oh i understand that but its just something i couldn't do personally - unless i was left seriously injured i wouldn't dream of claiming for anything I would just be thankful to see the light of day again.:D

brightkane

most insurance companies have a 60% rule, if the cost of repairs are more then 60% of the current market value of the car they will write it off.

If its a repairable propisition you are entitled to depreciation, which again i think on a 1 yr old car is 25% of the net repair value.

Have you spoken to the insurance company as of yet and what are they saying?

peanuthead

buer25 wrote: »

Oh i understand that but its just something i couldn't do personally - unless i was left seriously injured i wouldn't dream of claiming for anything I would just be thankful to see the light of day again.:D

+1

Y2J_MUFC

garion wrote: »

Hi there,
I feel that I should be entitled to a new car as:
a) I wasn't at fault in the accident
b) I went into the accident with a car in perfect nick
c) I don't want to drive that car ever again

I'd be very, very surprised if you got a new car. You are entitled to an '07 Octavia with similar mileage to your own. (i.e: You shouldn't be in the same conditions before the accident as you are after it). You weren't driving a brand new car, so I don't think you are entitled to it, at least on the reasons you listed above, you've a fairly weak argument.

a) Everyone who wasn't at fault in an accident isn't entitled to get a new car
b) Everyone who had a car in perfect condition before an accident isn't entitled to get a new car
c) That's a personal choice

As far as I know, you are entitled to either the value of the car before the accident or the cost of the repairs (the lower of the two).

I know you may feel hard done by, but you are only entitled to be in the same conditions you were before the accident, and no more.

And for the love of God, be very thankful you're still alive.

garion

Y2J_MUFC wrote: »

And for the love of God, be very thankful you're still alive.

Yes of course I'm very very thankful to be alive and I have stated already that I accept that a new car isn't possible. But I really feel I shouldn't be left with a car that has been involved in a serious crash. At the very least I feel I should receive the market value of my car so I can replace it with something similar.
Just because the cost of fixing the car is less than 60% of the market value (i.e. the insurance company won't write it off), I don't see why I should be forced accept the repaired car back. I'd have serious reservations of driving ANY car involved in an accident where the impact was on the drivers side resulting in both doors being replaced.
I appreciate yours and other responses but I don't think I'm being unreasonable with this.

Y2J_MUFC wrote: »

You are entitled to an '07 Octavia with similar mileage to your own. (i.e: You shouldn't be in the same conditions before the accident as you are after it).

I assume you mean I SHOULD be entitled to be in the same condition after the accident as before it?

brightkane

What have the other insurance company stated?

nogoodnamesleft

buer25 wrote: »

Oh i understand that but its just something i couldn't do personally - unless i was left seriously injured i wouldn't dream of claiming for anything I would just be thankful to see the light of day again.:D

I wonder if you were actually put in a postion in which you were injured and left with possible problems with the rest of your life. e.g. perodic back and/or neck pain, less physical ability etc all of which are common whiplash injuries which genuinely suffering individuals can suffer from for a number of years. All due to some one else actions and/or negligence. Would you still have the same opinion? :rolleyes:

What if the roles in your situation were reversed and you were injured when the other party had crashed into you. Would you argue that the individual should have expected the unexpected and kept her distance from your rear? You wouldnt claim for medical expenses, loss of earning etc?

The OP has every right to claim for medical and for material damages resulting from in this case some one elses negligence. The attitude of being thankful for being alive is all well and good however there are individuals out there who dont have much of a life left after severe car accidents.

A-Trak

Y2J_MUFC wrote: »

I'd be very, very surprised if you got a new car. You are entitled to an '07 Octavia with similar mileage to your own. (i.e: You shouldn't be in the same conditions before the accident as you are after it). You weren't driving a brand new car, so I don't think you are entitled to it, at least on the reasons you listed above, you've a fairly weak argument.

a) Everyone who wasn't at fault in an accident isn't entitled to get a new car
b) Everyone who had a car in perfect condition before an accident isn't entitled to get a new car
c) That's a personal choice

As far as I know, you are entitled to either the value of the car before the accident or the cost of the repairs (the lower of the two).

I know you may feel hard done by, but you are only entitled to be in the same conditions you were before the accident, and no more.

And for the love of God, be very thankful you're still alive.

Are you an insurance assessor for the person who caused the crash? If not you should relax a bit!
The OP is has been in an accident through no fault of their own, been landed in hospital, and had a near new car severely damaged.

I'd feel aggrieved too, and as stated in the title they were just looking for advice and not demanding more then you ,(And that was pointed out a good few posts before you,) stated, the same condition they were in before the accident.

Next time you're in a smash up through someone elses stupidity I'm sure you'll not feel as hard done by in any way.

buer25

I wonder if you were actually put in a postion in which you were injured and left with possible problems with the rest of your life. e.g. perodic back and/or neck pain, less physical ability etc all of which are common whiplash injuries which genuinely suffering individuals can suffer from for a number of years. All due to some one else actions and/or negligence. Would you still have the same opinion?

I was left with an injury, I have a scar accross my chest from the seatbelt where it cut into on impact. It is very dark scar and will never go. I also have back problems as a result so yes i do still have the same opinion.
The amount of people out there who have lost their lives on the road im sure would rather be still alive with a back problems than where they are now.

Zube

buer25 wrote: »

The amount of people out there who have lost their lives on the road im sure would rather be still alive with a back problems than where they are now.

There is nothing morally wrong with pursuing a claim for damage and injuries: it's your legal right to do so. Consult a solicitor, and pursue your claim. That's what insurance is for.

Just because you are lucky to be alive does not mean you should give up your legal right to pursue proper compensation.

buer25

look everyone is entitled to their opinions - i was just expressing mine.

Im not sayin nobody should claim - if the injuries are life changing then of course claim.

Didn't mean to cause upset just expressin my opinion - thought thats what these boards were for.:mad:

seclachi

People really shouldn't claim for things unless they are seriously and permently injured. I always say if you are in an accident and not carried away in a coffin then you should count your lucky stars and not go claiming.

Im with you some of the way on this, I think some people do rip the piss claiming far too much. On the other hand, when any person gets behind the wheel they have responsibility for their actions. 3rd party insurance is mandatory for drivers and for a good reason. If i was in a small accident where somebody else was responsible and I had to pay for hostiptal bills and lost work time I would defintely claim for it, that is why you pay insurance.