Car insurance claim

grogi

knipex wrote: »

What practice ???

Not paying VAT when cash settlement is chosen.

For instance, if the asesor estimates the cost of the damage to be fixed (hourly rate is taken from thin air):
- parts - €1450 + VAT
- labour - 16h * €20/h = €320 + VAT

---

The damage might only be cosmetic, so you might decide against any repair. And you are perfectly entitled to do so. However if you decide to just take the cheque, you would be paid just €1770. That's by the admission of @Lemlin.

knipex

Lemlin wrote: »

It won't if you are accepting cash in lieu of repairs.

There's no onus on the insurance company to pay VAT until they receive a repairer's final account which shows VAT was paid.

True

But if you are only covering the cost of repairs (which is what the insurance is supposed to do) then that wont be an issue.

Its only an issue if you are trying to make a few bob out of a claim for repairs..

Then I have no sympathy..

grogi

knipex wrote: »

Not true.

knipex wrote: »

True

:eek:

knipex

Selective quotes ??

I can do that too..

grogi wrote: »

insurance is

grogi wrote: »

about fairness.

.

grogi

Lemlin wrote: »

Have you any insurance qualification? CIP, MDI, ACII? You seem to have a lot of opinions on the topic which I would see as incorrect.

Other thing to be aware off when dealing with insurance is when your asset is under-insured, any claim might be proportionally reduced.

Example (ignoring any excess, as it unnecessarily complicates issues here):
* a car declared for insurance as worth €15000
* a damage to the door - repair cost €1000
* insurer estimates the value of the car of €20000
- so the asset was insured only in 75% and will cover only 75% of the repair cost
- €750 is paid by insurance


That is especially important when dealing with house insurance, when only a few items are stolen.


The only thing I haven's seen in Ireland is consuming part of your voluntary casco (part of comprehensive premium) insurance.

For instance:
* you insure your motor for €10000 - which is the market value.
* two months later you scuff it and insurance pays out €4000 to have it fixed.
* six months later it gets stolen.

AFAIK insurance will pay out full market value for it at the moment of theft - €10000. But I have seen (not in Ireland) that the insurer claims that part of the insurance was already consumed and they pay out only €6000.

Lemlin

grogi wrote: »

Other thing to be aware off when dealing with insurance is when your asset is under-insured, any claim might be proportionally reduced.

Example (ignoring any excess, as it unnecessarily complicates issues here):
* a car declared for insurance as worth €15000
* a damage to the door - repair cost €1000
* insurer estimates the value of the car of €20000
- so the asset was insured only in 75% and will cover only 75% of the repair cost
- €750 is paid by insurance


That is especially important when dealing with house insurance.




The only thing I haven's seen in Ireland is consuming part of your insurance.

For instance:
* you insure your motor for €10000 - which is the market value.
* two months later you scuff it and insurance pays out €4000 to have it fixed.
* six months later it gets stolen.

AFAIK insurance will pay out full market value for it at the moment of theft - €10000. But I have seen (not in Ireland) that the insurer claims that part of the insurance was already consumed and they pay out only €6000.

The only time that the sum insured is taken into account with a vehicle is when it is a total loss and you are claiming on your own policy. For example, car's pre accident value is 17,000 and the person has it insured for 15,000. The insurer only need pay the 15,000 less the excess.

I have never seen a car insurer take the sum insured into account when paying for repairs. You are correct that it is taken into account in buildings insurance.

Re your second example, the insurer can only reduce the value of the vehicle in the second example if it was not repaired. If the car was repaired and put back to its original position, it is back to being worth the 10k.

To be honest, this thread is going way off topic on the OP. He is doing exactly what he needs to do and I'd be very surprised if the other insurer don't settle his claim after getting their assessor report and speaking to the Gardaí.

grogi

Lemlin wrote: »

I have never seen a car insurer take the sum insured into account when paying for repairs. You are correct that it is taken into account in buildings insurance.

Good. In other words the motor is insured in full upto certain amount. Thanks for that clarification.

Lemlin wrote: »

Re your second example, the insurer can only reduce the value of the vehicle in the second example if it was not repaired. If the car was repaired and put back to its original position, it is back to being worth the 10k.

Again - I am glad it does not happen here.

Lemlin wrote: »

To be honest, this thread is going way off topic on the OP. He is doing exactly what he needs to do and I'd be very surprised if the other insurer don't settle his claim after getting their assessor report and speaking to the Gardaí.

You're right.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Kevin Irving wrote: »

It's not an assertion, grogi said might

No, Grogi stated that "The industry say....."

It doesn't matter, he says he will post the appropriate links tonight, where insurers consider you to be a higher risk for a non-fault accident

As for VAT, it doesn't matter if the insurer pays the garage or the insured directly providing the vehicle has been repaired. It will be included. Insurers will not pay VAT in a cash in lieu situation, as VAT has not been incurred

grogi

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

No, Grogi stated that "The industry say....."

It doesn't matter, he says he will post the appropriate links tonight, where insurers consider you to be a higher risk for a non-fault accident

As for VAT, it doesn't matter if the insurer pays the garage or the insured directly providing the vehicle has been repaired. It will be included. Insurers will not pay VAT in a cash in lieu situation, as VAT has not been incurred

I said that "It MIGHT affect premium" and "insurers say it changes the risk profile".

But I am not blind - and I see the reason behind it. I also see the reasoning behind increased premiums for drivers driving older cars.

Sue Pa Key Pa

grogi wrote: »

Any claim might affect the premium. But you need to notify insurer anyway - the other driver might be claiming against you.

Those scumbags industry say that even if the claim is not driver's fault, she or he has a higher risk of causing a claim in future.

There was no 'might' in your statement

grogi

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Any claim might affect the premium. But you need to notify insurer anyway - the other driver might be claiming against you.

Those industry say that even if the claim is not driver's fault, she or he has a higher risk of causing a claim in future.

There was no 'might' in your statement

Here you go...

Sue Pa Key Pa

grogi wrote: »

Here you go...

Apologies, I meant the 2nd line.

grogi

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Apologies, I meant the 2nd line.

whomitconcerns wrote: »

I had a no fault claim last year. Full liability by the other party admitted after 6 months and a day. My renewal went up anyway by 50% as statistically they told me I am now more likely to have another accident.... Nonsense....

/.../

Both the insurance company and I got all the money back directly from the 3rd party company the same time well before renewal date. But them statistics they tell me.....

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=104054283#post104054283

You cannot tell me that is news to you - you even thanked that post...

Sue Pa Key Pa

grogi wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=104054283#post104054283

You cannot tell me that is news to you - you even thanked that post...

That was a quote from a poster, not an insurer, on his experience. I very much doubt the increase had anything to do with the accident, just market conditions. The post was thanked because the poster eventually got satisfaction from the TP.

This thread has been derailed, my apologies for my contribution to that. I'll end by saying that in over 30 years, I've never seen a premium increased where a 3rd party was at fault and there was no cost to your own insurer

grogi

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

That was a quote from a poster, not an insurer, on his experience. I very much doubt the increase had anything to do with the accident, just market conditions. The post was thanked because the poster eventually got satisfaction from the TP.

I agree that it is hearsay. But it is hard to argue with statement that 'Insurer told the poster that the premium increased because they are higher risk'.

This thread has been derailed, my apologies for my contribution to that. I'll end by saying that in over 30 years, I've never seen a premium increased where a 3rd party was at fault and there was no cost to your own insurer

And let's finished with that. Till next time

whomitconcerns

To be clear on my original post from the other thread, an edit must not have saved last month where I added that I was in the UK, after someone asked me about it. I am in the UK at the moment and my insurer categorically told me that the increase was due to my no fault accident as statistically I was more likely to have another accident irregardless of fault of the first one (This was after full settlement and liability admitted from the other party). My premium went from 650 to over 1,000.

Lemlin

whomitconcerns wrote: »

To be clear on my original post from the other thread, an edit must not have saved last month where I added that I was in the UK, after someone asked me about it. I am in the UK at the moment and my insurer categorically told me that the increase was due to my no fault accident as statistically I was more likely to have another accident irregardless of fault of the first one (This was after full settlement and liability admitted from the other party). My premium went from 650 to over 1,000.

Not to get into it here but the UK is a very different market. For example, they have a huge fraud problem with staged accidents, phantom passengers and "Solicitors" who are as far away from being advocates of the legal profession as you can imagine.

In non fault accidents in the U.K., people tend to claim on their comp cover. Ireland is exactly the opposite. People generally go through their own insurance when not at fault as a last resort, they would contact the at fault insurer in the first instance.

spacekiwi

Uummmm.......cool, thanks everyone.
Will just wait and see what accessor says this week.

NUTLEY BOY

Lemlin wrote: »

SNIP >>> In non fault accidents in the U.K., people tend to claim on their comp cover. Ireland is exactly the opposite. People generally go through their own insurance when not at fault as a last resort, they would contact the at fault insurer in the first instance.

A few years ago I was educated by an insurer about claims sharing agreements like Knock for Knock and Third party Sharing Agreement. Do they still exist ?

My question is prompted as when Knock for Knock applied as between vehicle insurers the comprehensively insured party would be paid for their own damage by their insurer and the NCB would be allowed.

Lemlin

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

A few years ago I was educated by an insurer about claims sharing agreements like Knock for Knock and Third party Sharing Agreement. Do they still exist ?

My question is prompted as when Knock for Knock applied as between vehicle insurers the comprehensively insured party would be paid for their own damage by their insurer and the NCB would be allowed.

I've never encountered ''knock for knock'' as you describe it above. The version of knock for knock, or bear own losses as most call it now, I know, is that each party just fix their own vehicle, without involving insurance.

I certainly don't think NCBs would be allowed, perhaps in the past but not now.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Lemlin wrote: »

I've never encountered ''knock for knock'' as you describe it above. The version of knock for knock, or bear own losses as most call it now, I know, is that each party just fix their own vehicle, without involving insurance.

I certainly don't think NCBs would be allowed, perhaps in the past but not now.

Knock for Knock is different to that and is as Nutley described