Motor insurance claims question

stevie.enright

Hi all,

Just a few questions regarding an accident I was involved in this evening. The traffic was moving slowly, stopping and moving coming out of a town. Was coming up to traffic lights that just turned green and the traffic stopped all of a sudden. The guy in the jeep behind me ran into the back of me. Nobody hurt thankfully and luckily he didn't drive me into the back of the car in front of me. We moved the vehicles into the side of the road and guards were called and they took statements and went through the formalaties etc. The other party accepted liability and said he wished to go through the insurance.

My car is a 2000 vectra with high mileage and probably not worth a hell of a lot as such. Maybe 2k at best on the open market. Having said that though I have put a lot of money into it of late in terms of timing belt, fuel pump, shocks, and other bits and pieces for the NCT. It probably stands me at least 2k as such. Even though its driving I think its a write off probably as boot, both tail lamps and both rear qtr panels, rear bumper are all bent together with some possible chassis damage as the car is bent in a lot in the centre at the back.

Bearing in mind with the value of the car and the work I put into it when making the claim should I get this amount? If I provided receipts for such work done and the like should it be likely that I would get the 2k or thereabouts which the car stands to me or more likely the probable lower market selling price. Also, and I will probably be at some inconvenience in the next few weeks with having to get busses to work (and probably getting drenched in the process etc.) and having to take time to get car repaired/ replaced etc. Would I be entitled to claim some compensation in this regard? I am not one to milk the system but think I should be entitled to compensation for inconveniences caused all the same? Nothing against the lad that hit me or anything but want to get as much as possible out of Allianz and as a claim is being made anyway. Plus I have being totally fleeced down through the years by insurance for totally flaultless driving so feel its only right I get a fair and decent return this time maybe without absolutely going to town on the claim.

Any tips to ensure I maximise my compensation please?

Thanks in advance to all replies

Seth Brundle

1. be thankful there were no injuries but bear in mind that some injuries may not become apparent for a day or so.
2. going by carzone, your car is worth 2-2.5k (possibly overvalued but hey thats what they are advertised at) but expect an insurance company to value it lower than this.
3. ask for a replacement car from the other guys insurer - failing this, keep all receipts
4. making a claim should not be an act of revenge - is it any wonder that you were 'fleeced' over the years with attitudes like this?

Lupo_solitario

Insurance Company will send a Accessor to check out the car
He will make a recommendation as to the value of the car ,which is normally in around the book value ,The car is probably worth more to you in value because of what you put into it to pass the nct plus having to replace it ,it happened to my Dad recently ,Think you have to get a independant valuer if you want to fight it ,but you wont get any more for it ,they go by book value and if it is feasible to fix the car or scrap it they dont take into account what you might have spent on it

stevie.enright

kbannon wrote: »

1. be thankful there were no injuries but bear in mind that some injuries may not become apparent for a day or so.
2. going by carzone, your car is worth 2-2.5k (possibly overvalued but hey thats what they are advertised at) but expect an insurance company to value it lower than this.
3. ask for a replacement car from the other guys insurer - failing this, keep all receipts
4. making a claim should not be an act of revenge - is it any wonder that you were 'fleeced' over the years with attitudes like this?

As I say thankfully nobody was hurt. Having said that I did feel a small bit of strain from the whiplash but am willing to ignore it, because as I said I am not one to milk the system. Other family members have in the past being at fault in accidents and I know the injured party has totally taken advantage.

In response to point 4 which you make kbannon I am sorry but I would have to strongly disagree with you at least from my own point of view. I will play fair with anyone that plays fair with me but if I have an attitude it is because it has being forced upon me by the way insurance companies have treated me down through the years. Do you think its right or any way fair that my premium should continuiously go up three years running (being high in the first place) even though no claims are made and there are no change in particulars and indeed the same insurance co.? I for one think thats wrong.

Besides and as such it is a wonder I have being fleeced over the years. I pay my premium as it falls due every year and have being a careful and concenious driver. My attitude, good, bad or indifferent as you may argue should have nothing to do with this as I pay my premium by post and have no other contact with the insurance co besides. The cost of compulsary car insurance and the rip of culture among Irish insurance companies is something I feel quite strongly about. For me a car is a necessity not a luxury and to be treated as such by an insurance company I think is just wrong. Furthermore it is broady recognised that they are attempting to recoup their losses on investments from already hard pressed motorists. Is this right? I hope you can see why I don't hold insurance companies in very high regard, due to the afore mentioned points.

oldyouth

stevie.enright wrote: »

Furthermore it is broady recognised that they are attempting to recoup their losses on investments from already hard pressed motorists. Is this right?

Of course that is right, it is called balancing the books. In previous times investment income made up the difference between premiums taken in and claims paid out. Now the investment income is not there, premiums have to rise. I'm not saying that the profit margin is totally justified, I'm just pointing out that insurers are seeking to have that level maintained at the rate they had before

stevie.enright

oldyouth wrote: »

Of course that is right, it is called balancing the books. In previous times investment income made up the difference between premiums taken in and claims paid out. Now the investment income is not there, premiums have to rise. I'm not saying that the profit margin is totally justified, I'm just pointing out that insurers are seeking to have that level maintained at the rate they had before

Sorry oldyouth but I will have to strongly disagree with your opinion on this one and it is something in fact that I do feel very strongly about. Why should the ordinary joe soap have to make the shortfall? Insurance companies made the investments so THEY should bear the brunt of the value of these investments falling in value. In particular for a compulsary insurance such as motor insurance this practice of attempting to recover costs should not be allowed and especially where premiums charged are extorsion. Perhaps if it was a free market where taking insurance was at your own disgression then you might have an argument but not for the reason of car insurance being compulsary. My own thought is that reglations need to be tightened and up considerably and if it comes to a situation where insurance companies are trying to recoup investment losses from motor insurance premia then these two sections of the companies should be separate entities. Would the insurance companies give anything back to the motorists where the value of investments go up? No I think and even if they did it would be disproptionate as motorists who are no longer driving would have being victimised. Household/ travel/ business/ farm insurance might be a bit more of a grey area as they are not necessairly compulsary but I'm sure it may be argued that the same is the case with them also.

I don't want to dwell too much on the above argument. I just want a decent and fair compensation package that will ensure my costs and money which I put into my car recently is covered.

Seth Brundle

your logic appears to be based on a warped view. In recent years your policy costed less because the companys were able to increase revenue through investments. Now that this extra income is not available, the difference between income and payouts must be borne in full by the customer (as they are a business and not a charity). If you don't like it then tough crap but that's life. However, to appear to hate them for fleecing you but at the same time being prepared to do the same to them yourself is just hypocrisy!

As for the compensation, read your policy. You are compensated for the loss of the car. The fact that you paid money out in routine maintenance is irrelevant. However, if you value the car that much then get it repaired! However, the argument could be made that your car would be more likely to achieve a slightly higher price (on the vectra price scale) than one that was not serviced.

niceirishfella

Lupo_solitario wrote: »

Insurance Company will send a Accessor to check out the car

Rarely they do these days. The used a computerised system called Glassmatics in approved repair centres where the vehicle can be towed to.

Keith C

stevie.enright wrote: »

Sorry oldyouth but I will have to strongly disagree with your opinion on this one and it is something in fact that I do feel very strongly about. Why should the ordinary joe soap have to make the shortfall? Insurance companies made the investments so THEY should bear the brunt of the value of these investments falling in value. In particular for a compulsary insurance such as motor insurance this practice of attempting to recover costs should not be allowed and especially where premiums charged are extorsion. Perhaps if it was a free market where taking insurance was at your own disgression then you might have an argument but not for the reason of car insurance being compulsary. My own thought is that reglations need to be tightened and up considerably and if it comes to a situation where insurance companies are trying to recoup investment losses from motor insurance premia then these two sections of the companies should be separate entities. Would the insurance companies give anything back to the motorists where the value of investments go up? No I think and even if they did it would be disproptionate as motorists who are no longer driving would have being victimised. Household/ travel/ business/ farm insurance might be a bit more of a grey area as they are not necessairly compulsary but I'm sure it may be argued that the same is the case with them also.

I don't want to dwell too much on the above argument. I just want a decent and fair compensation package that will ensure my costs and money which I put into my car recently is covered.

Perhaps you haven't been driving too long or have a short memory, car insurance was a loss maker for insurance companies

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/01/12/story213822528.asp

Taken from link

"It should be called the Red Book, not the Blue Book, because of the operating losses sustained by Irish insurance companies during 2001," Long said.

However, a thorough examination of the Blue Book points to some industry improvements. The overall operating loss referred to by Long was €73.32 million in 2001, or a 42 per cent improvement on the losses sustained in 2000.

Separate out those insurers whose solvency is supervised in Ireland, and a healthier picture emerges: an overall operating loss of €99.96 million in 2000 was transformed into a profit of €18.41 million in 2001."

Prior to 2001 insurance companies were making a loss of €73-€90m
If you were driving back then you can remember how expensive it really was.
As profits grew from 01 & claims reduced, insurance companies were under pressure from govt to reduce premiums & hence did so.
Insurance companies report to shareholders who demand profits same as any other industry. Claims are on the way back up so are premiums, ask anyone who has house insurance & has never claimed :mad:

stevie.enright

kbannon wrote: »

your logic appears to be based on a warped view. In recent years your policy costed less because the companys were able to increase revenue through investments. Now that this extra income is not available, the difference between income and payouts must be borne in full by the customer (as they are a business and not a charity). If you don't like it then tough crap but that's life. However, to appear to hate them for fleecing you but at the same time being prepared to do the same to them yourself is just hypocrisy!

At best I will agree to differ with you kbannon. My policy has always remained relatively high. I started driving over 8 years ago. I got myself (needed to if I was able to afford insurance) a full license before I went on the road. Got on the road with a 2 seater van and insurance was well over 2 grand...If it was a regular 4/ 5 seater car it would have being another grand on top of that and if I was on a provisional license you could add another grand on top of that again. My premium has continued to remain high throughout despite my faultless driving record. A friend a few years younger than me and insured under his fathes name and who started driving at roughly the same time as me had a serious accident not so long after he started driving, which was his fault. Both cars were wrote of and claimed for and an elderly woman in the other vehicle was nearly killed and a substancial claim was made. Now that insurance premium only went up a few hundred. Is that right or just I ask you? I was always of the opinion that insurance premiums reflect the level of risk taken on and for this reason I don't buy into your argument at all regarding the logic on how insurnace premiums are dictated. Also my afore mentioned point is at odds with this logic.

Yes indeed insurance companies are not a charity and are there to make money but its the flawed way in which they make money which I would take issue with. Motor insurance is compulsary so I firmly believe the practice of making up shortfalls in the value of investments going down by charging higher motor insurance premia is wrong. I don't have a pension and a pension is a choice one makes. If the markets go bad for pension funds why should motorists bail them out? I will take anyone at face value and without any pre-conceptions but if somebody does me wrong I will not hold them in very high regard. Now I just want a decent return for my loss of car and inconvenience. I don't think its asking a hell of a lot?... and its the reason I posted in the first place. I did feel some small bit of strain in my neck after the accident but said nothing about it. If I wanted to be an ar$ehole about it I would have kicked up a fuss about it

kbannon wrote: »

As for the compensation, read your policy

The accident was not my fault, I only have TPF&T cover, the other party has accepted liability. I don't really see what purpose will be served by reading my insurance policy as claim will be made on the other parties insurance policy which is with a different company to mine. Am I missing some point here?

stevie.enright

Keith C wrote: »

Perhaps you haven't been driving too long or have a short memory, car insurance was a loss maker for insurance companies

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/01/12/story213822528.asp

Oh I've being driving a fair few years alright Keith and I know whats what. There are other relevant sections in the article which you have referenced too such as: -

But the operating result masks a number of deficiencies which the industry cannot blame on rising payouts from claims. In 2001, there was a dramatic increase in management expenses at some of the top insurance companies that pushed them into debt.


Hibernian, the country's largest insurer with a total market share of just 25 per cent, had an operating loss of €10.58 million in 2001. The loss would not have been incurred but for a 53 per cent increase in management expenses during the year to €75.76 million, which added in excess of €26 million to Hibernian's annual cost base.


Hibernian was not an isolated case. Management expenses at Axa, the second largest insurer with 15.58 per cent market share, rose by 36 per cent. Allianz, Ireland's third largest insurer with 14.22 per cent market share, saw its cost base increase by 52 per cent in 2001. The fourth largest insurer, Royal Sun Alliance, had a 40 per cent increase in management expenses.


Rising management expenses cannot be blamed on the increasingly litigious nature of Irish society. Running an operating loss in the short term can be justified if it leads to annual increases in premiums, which will translate into profits once the investment side of the equation comes back into equilibrium.


Insurance companies make profits by investing the income from premiums. Traditionally, the rate of return they achieved from these investments was greater than the sums paid out in insurance claims.


Irish insurers sustained an underwriting loss of €389.84 million in 2001, slightly more than the €357.03 million lost in 2000. Investments made by insurance companies improved by 37 per cent in 2001 to a total of €316.51 million. But with global stock markets taking an unprecedented battering in 2001, it is most unlikely that the overall investment return will have increased last year, with some experts predicting that it may even fall.


In this context, the outlook for policyholders is bleak.

Seth Brundle

stevie.enright wrote: »

At best I will agree to differ with you kbannon. My policy has always remained relatively high. I started driving over 8 years ago. I got myself (needed to if I was able to afford insurance) a full license before I went on the road. Got on the road with a 2 seater van and insurance was well over 2 grand...If it was a regular 4/ 5 seater car it would have being another grand on top of that and if I was on a provisional license you could add another grand on top of that again. My premium has continued to remain high throughout despite my faultless driving record. A friend a few years younger than me and insured under his fathes name and who started driving at roughly the same time as me had a serious accident not so long after he started driving, which was his fault. Both cars were wrote of and claimed for and an elderly woman in the other vehicle was nearly killed and a substancial claim was made. Now that insurance premium only went up a few hundred. Is that right or just I ask you? I was always of the opinion that insurance premiums reflect the level of risk taken on and for this reason I don't buy into your argument at all regarding the logic on how insurnace premiums are dictated. Also my afore mentioned point is at odds with this logic.

Everyone that I know had insurance motor costs go down unless there was another factor (claim, etc.) - are you telling us everything?
Either way, it still does not justify the attitude conveyed that you are entitled to get some of it back!

stevie.enright wrote: »

Yes indeed insurance companies are not a charity and are there to make money but its the flawed way in which they make money which I would take issue with. Motor insurance is compulsary so I firmly believe the practice of making up shortfalls in the value of investments going down by charging higher motor insurance premia is wrong. I don't have a pension and a pension is a choice one makes. If the markets go bad for pension funds why should motorists bail them out? I will take anyone at face value and without any pre-conceptions but if somebody does me wrong I will not hold them in very high regard. Now I just want a decent return for my loss of car and inconvenience. I don't think its asking a hell of a lot?... and its the reason I posted in the first place. I did feel some small bit of strain in my neck after the accident but said nothing about it. If I wanted to be an ar$ehole about it I would have kicked up a fuss about it




The accident was not my fault, I only have TPF&T cover, the other party has accepted liability. I don't really see what purpose will be served by reading my insurance policy as claim will be made on the other parties insurance policy which is with a different company to mine. Am I missing some point here?

My point was that if you were to have had replaced every single component within your engine for new ones, it is still a 00 vectra and worth market value. The fact that you just wrote a large cheque is irrelevant!

superdog

stevie.enright wrote: »

As I say thankfully nobody was hurt. Having said that I did feel a small bit of strain from the whiplash but am willing to ignore it, because as I said I am not one to milk the system. Other family members have in the past being at fault in accidents and I know the injured party has totally taken advantage.

In response to point 4 which you make kbannon I am sorry but I would have to strongly disagree with you at least from my own point of view. I will play fair with anyone that plays fair with me but if I have an attitude it is because it has being forced upon me by the way insurance companies have treated me down through the years. Do you think its right or any way fair that my premium should continuiously go up three years running (being high in the first place) even though no claims are made and there are no change in particulars and indeed the same insurance co.? I for one think thats wrong.

Besides and as such it is a wonder I have being fleeced over the years. I pay my premium as it falls due every year and have being a careful and concenious driver. My attitude, good, bad or indifferent as you may argue should have nothing to do with this as I pay my premium by post and have no other contact with the insurance co besides. The cost of compulsary car insurance and the rip of culture among Irish insurance companies is something I feel quite strongly about. For me a car is a necessity not a luxury and to be treated as such by an insurance company I think is just wrong. Furthermore it is broady recognised that they are attempting to recoup their losses on investments from already hard pressed motorists. Is this right? I hope you can see why I don't hold insurance companies in very high regard, due to the afore mentioned points.

Hi Stevie, they should sort you out for a replacement car while your car if off the road. You are entitled to this. Also, you should make sure you get yourself checked out with regard to any strains or suspected whiplash, before settling any claim.

Best of luck and sorry to hear about this incident

niceirishfella

superdog wrote: »

Hi Stevie, they should sort you out for a replacement car while your car if off the road. You are entitled to this. Also, you should make sure you get yourself checked out with regard to any strains or suspected whiplash, before settling any claim.

A rental replacement car will be the norm and mostly an entitlement.
Good advice to check yourself out however, if an injury shows up down the road say in a year or 2, you still can lodge a claim (crazy I know):o

stevie.enright

kbannon wrote: »

Everyone that I know had insurance motor costs go down unless there was another factor (claim, etc.) - are you telling us everything?
Either way, it still does not justify the attitude conveyed that you are entitled to get some of it back!

Yes everything relevant is in my posts. Yes the insurance did go down in the first few years but not significantly. Still paying close to 2 grand into the third year of driving would seem unacceptable to me. In fact I firmly believe that young male drivers should get a rebate at the end of the year on the premium they paid if no claims are made. It is inequitable. Now at one stage I changed car part way through the year and had to pay a few 100 extra which is fair enough but my insurance remaining high for so long is not acceptable. Especially when I am a careful driver and my peers were crashing rings round them and getting off lightly cos they were named under mammy or daddys insurance. For reasons outlined I may well have an attitude but I hope you can understand why this attitude has being forced upon me.

stevie.enright

superdog wrote: »

Hi Stevie, they should sort you out for a replacement car while your car if off the road. You are entitled to this. Also, you should make sure you get yourself checked out with regard to any strains or suspected whiplash, before settling any claim.

Best of luck and sorry to hear about this incident

Thanks superdog. Sound advice. Do you know if my own insurer (AXA) should sort out the replacement car for me or the other parties insurer (Allianz). Should I contact AXA and then they will contact Allianz. I rang to both of their claims lines up but they both kind of got the run around really. They only took details and the person I was speaking to at AXA said they will be in contact with me again on Monday. Also am I entitle to any inconvenience money for loss of a car over the weekend. I got a friend and family members to ferry me around over past few days and it will probably be catching busses in the rain to and from work till I get sorted out with a corteousy car whenever that will be

stevie.enright

niceirishfella wrote: »

A rental replacement car will be the norm and mostly an entitlement.
Good advice to check yourself out however, if an injury shows up down the road say in a year or 2, you still can lodge a claim (crazy I know):o

Thanks for advice niceirishfella. I did have a tiny wee bit of strain in my neck immediately after accident. Absolutely nothing worth talking about and have being a bit stressed over the past day or 2 about the whole thing but am willing to let afore mentioned points go as health wise I am A ok.

Three questions on the replacement rental car niceirishfella.

1.) Do I contact my own insurer (AXA) or other parties insurer (Allianz) to arrange this?

2.) Would one normally expect to get the car on the same day its requested. If I request it tomorrow morning should I expect to have it by tomorrow evening? As I may well be working till after 6 tomorrow and wont get a long lunch would the car be delivered to my workplace or is this too tall an order?

3.) How long would I be allowed to hang onto corteousy car?

Thanks in advance for any advice niceirishfella

ball

You should really only get on to your own insurer if you intend on putting the claim through your own policy for now (and they get it back from the other insurer).

You'd probably be best off calling Allianz. It saves a lot of hassle for everyone.

If you're really stuck for a car, you should source one yourself.
Get onto one of the rental company's and send the bill into Allianz.

They should give you a rental car until your own car is repaired.
If the car's gonna be written off, until they send you a cheque.

You could chance asking for "inconvenience money", but the odds are, they'll just laugh at you

niceirishfella

Three questions on the replacement rental car niceirishfella.

1.) Do I contact my own insurer (AXA) or other parties insurer (Allianz) to arrange this?

YES, but if you can get a Claims Manager in AllianZ who handling the case to liase with you, you'll get a more direct flow of info and get things done faster imho.

2.) Would one normally expect to get the car on the same day its requested. If I request it tomorrow morning should I expect to have it by tomorrow evening?
Yes - as long as they have possesion of your car or if its undrivable.Also, ask for a rental the same size/catergory as you own car.......like you don't want to be getting a micra if you drive a 7 series BM!

As I may well be working till after 6 tomorrow and wont get a long lunch would the car be delivered to my workplace or is this too tall an order?
No, simply ask for that to be the case - infact, I'd be making it claer as to the way you want it to be delivered to you but car rental delivery is by no mean a biggie.

3.) How long would I be allowed to hang onto corteousy car?

Until you gain posession of your own back.

Thanks in advance for any advice niceirishfella
No hassles - also, re the last post, you can request for 10% depreciation to be refunded to you on the repairs as your car could be deemed crash/repaired in the future and it may affect future value. I'd be demanding that too - it's normal for such requests and don't be told different.Haggle hard tbh.
Hope this helps and hyou get sorted soon.

oldyouth

stevie.enright wrote: »

In fact I firmly believe that young male drivers should get a rebate at the end of the year on the premium they paid if no claims are made. It is inequitable.

And would you also firmly believe that drivers of the same age, licence, experience, car etc sign an agreement to pay €20k per year for the rest of their lives to cover the one member of that group that causes an accident leaving 5 occupants of that car as paraplagics with a total bill of €10m????

It's called sharing the burden, get used to it

stevie.enright

niceirishfella wrote: »

Hope this helps and hyou get sorted soon.

Many thanks for your kind assistance niceirishfella. It is very much appreciated.

stevie.enright

oldyouth wrote: »

And would you also firmly believe that drivers of the same age, licence, experience, car etc sign an agreement to pay €20k per year for the rest of their lives to cover the one member of that group that causes an accident leaving 5 occupants of that car as paraplagics with a total bill of €10m????

It's called sharing the burden, get used to it

I believe that it should be moreless made absolutely impossible for somebody who caused such an accident due to gross negligence on their part to get back on the road again. A premium of 100k or whatever it takes. I do cerainly understand the concept of sharing the burden very well and the way it should work. A system is operated, or if not anymore had operated at one stage in Canada whereby everyone pays the same premium when they start driving and it only rises if there is a claim made. It is illegal to charge more based on age or gender grounds. Thats sharing the burden as well isin't it.

Now you may well argue that young male drivers are statistically more likely to be the cause of a serious road accident and no doubt you would be right. But can you answer me a question relating to the following scenario please. I have a friend a wee bit younger than me. We both started driving at in or around the same time. My premium was over 2k and remained close to the 2k mark for the first three years (no accidents or change in particulars). The other chap was insured under his fathers name and was initially paying 800 or thereabouts as far as I recall. In his second year of driving he caused a serious accident in which an elderly lady was nearly killed..punctured lung, extensive bruising, trauma etc. The claim made was in or around 80k. Now that chap was back on the road again the following year under his dads name for little more than what he paid the previous year. Can you answer me is that right or even where does sharing the burden come into it or indeed is that insurance working in the way it should work?

I certainly think its wrong and and dont think any arguments such as loyal custom cuts it. To give this case as an example this is the inequities and insurance companies taking advantage which I am talking about