Car seat insurance replacement after crash

mittimitti

Just looking to get peoples opinions
I was rear ended yesterday and the guy who rear ended me admitted liability

I had a car seat in the back without baby, I contacted the manufacture of the seat and they told me to replace it
I contacted the insurance company of the guy who hit me and sent them a copy of the receipt for the seat
When I bought the seat it was on special for 470 and its now gone back to full price of 520
The insurance company only want to offer me 470 for the seat and that means I will be out of pocket for €50
This doesn't seem right

Any thoughts

colm_mcm

Thought seats would only need replacing if the straps were put under strain.
Seat company will hardly tell you not to buy another I suppose.

What's the make/model of the seat?

Tigger

mittimitti wrote: »

Just looking to get peoples opinions
I was rear ended yesterday and the guy who rear ended me admitted liability

I had a car seat in the back without baby, I contacted the manufacture of the seat and they told me to replace it
I contacted the insurance company of the guy who hit me and sent them a copy of the receipt for the seat
When I bought the seat it was on special for 470 and its now gone back to full price of 520
The insurance company only want to offer me 470 for the seat and that means I will be out of pocket for €50
This doesn't seem right

Any thoughts

tell them they're being a pain in the neck

biko

Speak to your own insurer and get their help, this is what you pay them for.

mittimitti

seat is a cybex sirona

cruizer101

Send them a copy of the current price and say if they can find it cheaper you are more than happy to buy there but otherwise they need to pay full price

mittimitti

tried that and they told me that they will only pay what I paid

colm_mcm

might be worth calling into mothercare with original receipt and explain what's after happening. they may be able to discount one back to €470

or contact their head office
Mothercare Ireland Ltd,
Unit 1, TPN House,
Northwest Business Park,
Ballycoolin,
Dublin 15

Liam McPoyle

Insurance indemnifies you to return you to the same financial position you were in prior to the loss.

In simple terms if you paid €2k for your car and it got written off they would pay you €2k or less, even if the exact same make and model of your own car could only be bought for €2500.

You paid €470 for the seat therefore the entitlement is €470. Insurance puts you back in the same financial position you were in prior to the loss. Giving you €520 for something that you paid €470 for means you would be essentially making a €50 profit.

If you want to push it tell them you want them to replace the seat with a new version rather than accept the money. They may be able to source it cheaper.

Special Circumstances

colm_mcm wrote: »

might be worth calling into mothercare with original receipt and explain what's after happening. they may be able to discount one back to €470

Really the Insurer should be obliged to do all the running and fact finding and calling. No, you do all the running and they'll still try and lowball you.

Mittimitti, this is fairly typical of insurance companies - aggressive and making you out to be a scammer when you call them, giving you the runaround, wasting hours of your time, then finally low-balling you. Despicable c@nts most of them.

The ONLY way you will ever come out of one of these situations without being at a loss is if there are personal injuries*. Their antics are practically training people to push personal injuries claims that they may not have bothered with otherwise. They are constantly amazed that Joe Public isn't grateful for a pittance offer are losing hours out of his life dealing with w@nkers trying to resolve property damage. The mind boggles really!

*even then they seem to expect you to just shrug and walk off anything less being permanently incapacitated.

Special Circumstances

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Giving you €520 for something that you paid €470 for means you would be essentially making a €50 profit.

I buy a second hand car with a manufacturer fitted towbar.
I have no idea how much that tow bar cost.

Dimwit smacks into the back of me, unable to control the awesome torque of their tdi.

Should I turn myself upside down and inside out to find out what the original cost of the towbar was? Add some derating for wear and tear, depreciation?
Or should the insurer supply me with a functional and safe towbar of equivalent spec, (or offer a cash equivalent) without me having to do anything more than making one calm and professional phone call and letting them do the rest of the chasing? Is the onus not on them to make this situation right?

CiniO

mittimitti wrote: »

tried that and they told me that they will only pay what I paid

They told you wrong.
Tell them you'll go to court if they don't pay current market value of your seat.

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Insurance indemnifies you to return you to the same financial position you were in prior to the loss.

Financial?
Why financial if loss is on the vehicle and it's equipement? It's a material loss.

OP had a car seat, and now he doesn't.
To buy one, he needs €520.
It should not matter what OP paid for this a while back.

In simple terms if you paid €2k for your car and it got written off they would pay you €2k or less, even if the exact same make and model of your own car could only be bought for €2500.

Well that's wrong.
If you bought a car for €2000, and car gained in value over time, then they have to pay current market value which might be higher than what car cost.

I think you are not understanding insurance idea rightly.

You paid €470 for the seat therefore the entitlement is €470. Insurance puts you back in the same financial position you were in prior to the loss. Giving you €520 for something that you paid €470 for means you would be essentially making a €50 profit.

No he wouldn't be making any profit, as his seat now costs €520.

alias no.9

Lesson to be learnt here is to get the replacement seat, like for like, and send the receipt for that one which leaves you in the same net position.

Odyssey 2005

Your arguing over €50 for a safe child seat for your child. It was an accident,just be thankful your child wasn't in the seat at the time.

Liam McPoyle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I buy a second hand car with a manufacturer fitted towbar.
I have no idea how much that tow bar cost.

Dimwit smacks into the back of me, unable to control the awesome torque of their tdi.

Should I turn myself upside down and inside out to find out what the original cost of the towbar was? Add some derating for wear and tear, depreciation?
Or should the insurer supply me with a functional and safe towbar of equivalent spec, (or offer a cash equivalent) without me having to do anything more than making one calm and professional phone call and letting them do the rest of the chasing? Is the onus not on them to make this situation right?

If you want to get an exact replica for the tow bar then yes the onus is on you to find out what it is. Its your car.

CiniO wrote: »

They told you wrong.
Tell them you'll go to court if they don't pay current market value of your seat.

He will go to court, over €50 he isnt entitled to? Ok.

CiniO wrote: »

Financial?
Why financial if loss is on the vehicle and it's equipement? It's a material loss.

Because he is out of pocket for €470 that he paid for the now unusuable car seat. Financial loss is how it is phrased by every insurer in the country.

4. Principle of indemnity:

Indemnity means security or compensation against loss or damage. The principle of indemnity is such principle of insurance stating that an insured may not be compensated by the insurance company in an amount exceeding the insured’s economic loss.

In type of insurance the insured would be compensation with the amount equivalent to the actual loss and not the amount exceeding the loss.

This is a regulatory principal. This principle is observed more strictly in property insurance than in life insurance.

The purpose of this principle is to set back the insured to the same financial position that existed before the loss or damage occurred.

Source.

Or just check with any insurance manual or guide book in the world if you dont believe me.

CiniO wrote: »

Well that's wrong.
If you bought a car for €2000, and car gained in value over time, then they have to pay current market value which might be higher than what car cost.

I think you are not understanding insurance idea rightly.

Im understanding insurance wrong, really?

Good one.

An insurer will not pay more than the current market value or the sum insured, which ever is least. To suggest otherwise is just stupid. That would mean I could buy a €50k car, insure it for €1000 to save money and still be indemnified to the full amount going by your logic.

Do you think that would happen?

CiniO wrote: »

No he wouldn't be making any profit, as his seat now costs €520.

As with saying a financial loss, making a profit from it is simply an industry phrase, its not to be taken literally, I didnt think Id have to explain it.

He paid €470 for it. They have offered him the €470 that he paid which means he is not out of pocket for it. If its now costing €520 that is not the insurers fault. He does not have to buy the same seat, that is his choice.

colm_mcm

Of the OP didn't have a receipt, would they not pay out?

Victor

You are entitled to be put back int eh position you were in before the collision. That is a safe child seat that hasn't been in a collision. You should be reimbursed the current cost.

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

An insurer will not pay more than the current market value or the sum insured, which ever is least.

What is the sum insured in the present case? There is no sum insured on third party claims.

Insurance companies will pay out more than the insured, provided they are happy there wasn't under-insurance. If you insured your house for €100,000 and it burned down and cost €103,000 to restore, the insurance company will likely pay out in full. If it cost €200,000 to restore, the insurance company will likely apply the average clause and only pay €50,000.

Liam McPoyle

colm_mcm wrote: »

Of the OP didn't have a receipt, would they not pay out?

If he hadn't sent them a receipt for the seat then yes, they would likely have offered him either a replacement on a like for like basis. They would take the old one and give him a new one or the monetary value to replace it.

However the principle of utmost good faith means when requested, a claimant must provide all relevant documentation, he had the original receipt and provided it.

CiniO

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

He will go to court, over €50 he isnt entitled to? Ok.

How else do you propose to fight for his rights?

Because he is out of pocket for €470 that he paid for the now unusuable car seat. Financial loss is how it is phrased by every insurer in the country.

4. Principle of indemnity:

Indemnity means security or compensation against loss or damage. The principle of indemnity is such principle of insurance stating that an insured may not be compensated by the insurance company in an amount exceeding the insured’s economic loss.

In type of insurance the insured would be compensation with the amount equivalent to the actual loss and not the amount exceeding the loss.

This is a regulatory principal. This principle is observed more strictly in property insurance than in life insurance.

The purpose of this principle is to set back the insured to the same financial position that existed before the loss or damage occurred.

Or just check with any insurance manual or guide book in the world if you dont believe me.

I don't believe you, just because you are wrong.

In your quotation there is mention about person "insured".
OP is not "the insured" person.
He is not claiming off his own policy.
He suffered a loss caused by someone else, and needs to be compensated. Not diferctly by person who caused a loss, but by that persons insurer.

If OP was claiming of his own insurance, then it would be completely different case. In that case, what you're saying would be true.

Im understanding insurance wrong, really?

Good one.

An insurer will not pay more than the current market value or the sum insured, which ever is least.

In case of being compensated as third party, there is no mention of sum insured. OP didn't have to declare how much is his car worth or how much is his seat worth. It was someone else who destroyed it, and now it needs to be paid for.
Current market value of that seat is €520 and that's what OP should be paid.
It's not his fault that when he was buying it, its market value was lower.

To suggest otherwise is just stupid. That would mean I could buy a €50k car, insure it for €1000 to save money and still be indemnified to the full amount going by your logic.

Not at all.
If you insured you car for €1000 and destroyed it, then your insurer would only pay you €1000.
But if someone else destroyed it, then that person's insurer would need to pay €50,000, no matter to what amount you insured your car.

Even more - if your vehicle gained in value, then you'd need to be compensated more.
F.e. you buy a classic car worth €2000.
In 10 years, this car is now worth €10,000.
If someone destroys it, his insurer will have to pay you €10,000, not €2000 just because you paid €2000.

Do you think that would happen?



As with saying a financial loss, making a profit from it is simply an industry phrase, its not to be taken literally, I didnt think Id have to explain it.

He paid €470 for it. They have offered him the €470 that he paid which means he is not out of pocket for it. If its now costing €520 that is not the insurers fault. He does not have to buy the same seat, that is his choice.

It's not insurers fault that it costs €520, but it's even less OP's fault.
OP had a seat. Seat was damaged by someone. OP still wants to have a seat, so he needs to get enough money to buy it. Simple as that. €470 won't currently buy that seat, that's why he is entitled to €520.

Liam McPoyle

CiniO wrote: »

How else do you propose to fight for his rights?




I don't believe you, just because you are wrong.

In your quotation there is mention about person "insured".
OP is not "the insured" person.
He is not claiming off his own policy.
He suffered a loss caused by someone else, and needs to be compensated. Not diferctly by person who caused a loss, but by that persons insurer.

If OP was claiming of his own insurance, then it would be completely different case. In that case, what you're saying would be true.




In case of being compensated as third party, there is no mention of sum insured. OP didn't have to declare how much is his car worth or how much is his seat worth. It was someone else who destroyed it, and now it needs to be paid for.
Current market value of that seat is €520 and that's what OP should be paid.
It's not his fault that when he was buying it, its market value was lower.


Not at all.
If you insured you car for €1000 and destroyed it, then your insurer would only pay you €1000.
But if someone else destroyed it, then that person's insurer would need to pay €50,000, no matter to what amount you insured your car.

Even more - if your vehicle gained in value, then you'd need to be compensated more.
F.e. you buy a classic car worth €2000.
In 10 years, this car is now worth €10,000.
If someone destroys it, his insurer will have to pay you €10,000, not €2000 just because you paid €2000.






It's not insurers fault that it costs €520, but it's even less OP's fault.
OP had a seat. Seat was damaged by someone. OP still wants to have a seat, so he needs to get enough money to buy it. Simple as that. €470 won't currently buy that seat, that's why he is entitled to €520.

What I said above is correct however you are of course correct as it doesn't apply in this case, mea culpa.

Special Circumstances

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

If he hadn't sent them a receipt for the seat then yes, they would likely have offered him either a replacement on a like for like basis. They would take the old one and give him a new one or the monetary value to replace it.

However the principle of utmost good faith means when requested, a claimant must provide all relevant documentation, he had the original receipt and provided it.

What if he found the receipt after the fact, but it had originally cost more than the solution provided by the insurer? Would the insurer be falling over themselves to make up the difference so that they themselves did not make ano imaginary profit from the situation?

mittimitti

Had a bit of a row with the claims section last night
They now have agreed to pay for the replacement seat at 520
I gave them the option of sourcing it and they said no so I buy it and they will refund the full amount within 7 days
That's all I wanted, I wasn't at fault I had a safe working car seat and all I want is the same

Special Circumstances

mittimitti wrote: »

That's all I wanted, I wasn't at fault I had a safe working car seat and all I want is the same

You wouldn't think you'd need to explain that to any normal reasonable person but hey :mad:.

If I had my way you'd be allowed submit an invoice for "time out of my life spent, through no fault of my own, jumping through hoops and suffering unreasonable, unhelpful @sshats for no actual gain" charged by the hour or part thereof.

I still count anyone who has to do this running and chasing and dealing with pr1cks as being at a loss at the end of it even if the property damage is sorted out. Time IS money.

R.O.R

Special Circumstances wrote: »

You wouldn't think you'd need to explain that to any normal reasonable person but hey :mad:.

If I had my way you'd be allowed submit an invoice for "time out of my life spent, through no fault of my own, jumping through hoops and suffering unreasonable, unhelpful @sshats for no actual gain" charged by the hour or part thereof.

I still count anyone who has to do this running and chasing and dealing with pr1cks as being at a loss at the end of it even if the property damage is sorted out. Time IS money.

I had a disagreement with the valuation from an insurance company on the wife's written off car about 3 years ago. They (Travellers Insurance via 123 I think) outsourced valuations to a 3rd party company in the UK.

My valuation and there's differed by €8,000, so I did a lot of the leg work on getting examples of similar cars, Revenue website guide price, dealer valuations on pre-accident value etc. Sent the insurance company an invoice for my consultancy to do their job properly

They never paid it, but it did speed the process up a lot and they took the valuation back in house to Ireland.

Bio Mech

R.O.R wrote: »

I had a disagreement with the valuation from an insurance company on the wife's written off car about 3 years ago. They (Travellers Insurance via 123 I think) outsourced valuations to a 3rd party company in the UK.

My valuation and there's differed by €8,000, so I did a lot of the leg work on getting examples of similar cars, Revenue website guide price, dealer valuations on pre-accident value etc. Sent the insurance company an invoice for my consultancy to do their job properly

They never paid it, but it did speed the process up a lot and they took the valuation back in house to Ireland.

Thats the kind of thing you have to do with insurance. If they think you are a soft touch they lowball you. You have to let them know that you wont back down and that you know what you are doing. At that point they tend to get more realistic.