I had just about ironed out all the niggly little kinks in my Defender 90 when it was hit by a lorry loaded with sand today.
The copper at the scene said he was going to write it up as a "knock for knock".
I don't want to detail the events here but the salient facts are that my Defender 90 may be a write off. It is comprehensibly insured for £3,500 which is what I bought it for a few months ago. Assuming we are to blame on a 50/50 basis, what happens next? It has been a long time since I had an accident!
On or around 23 Oct 2003 18:39:02 GMT, Derry Argue enlightened us thusly:
50/50 means that you can claim 50% from the third party insurers; if you're insured fully comp then your insurers pay the other 50% - however, unless it was an agreed value policy, you'll get "market value", which means they'll try to pay you as little as possible.
I'm no expert in these matters, but (so far as you are concerned) I think your insurance company will pay out for your vehicle, or at least as little as possible for it (an assesor will view the vehicle and give an estimated valuation on how much the vehicle was worth before hand).
The valuation you give would only be a top figure. i.e If the vehicle was really worth £10,000 and you insured it for £3,500, the most you would get would be £3,500. On the other hand, if you insured it for £10,000 and the insurance company thought it was worth £200 then £200 is all you would get. (although you would probably end up with nothing as they would charge you to move it, store it and have it assesed)
You will also lose any unprotected no claims discount as as far as they are concerned, you caused the accident.
I thought knock for knock was that each individual Ins company stands its clients loss rather than one forks out for both. Hence they review your premium with a jaundiced eye next time, you have a claim against your insurance rather than the other and it will affect your bonus as you have effectively had a claim.
Depends on the damage, I'd be tempted to pay your own loss if it saves your no claim bonus in the long run
My son had his E reg 90 written off recently, other parties fault, valued by us at £3500...recieved £2800 plus the the cat "c" write off Landy to do with as we please (anyone make an offer it's a 200tdi with recon gear & transfer box) Chris
Lets clarify something here - "knock for knock" is a term used by insurance companies - and should NOT be used by police or third parties wishing to try and attribute blame at the scene - it means that insurers don't trouble themselves in recovering their claim settlements from other insurers (who are party to what is termed a "knock for knock agreement), even if it is possible to prove that the other party was totally to blame.
The logic is obvious in that, over time, such claims balance themselves out and a considerable amount of admin time and expense is saved.
In a situation where a KFK is used (most cases!) then it is up to you to recover your un-insured losses (excess, hire-car, etc etc) from the other insurers by demonstrating that they were to blame. Fully or partially. Should you be successful in this then you inform your insurer. If you are able to demonstrate full recovery then your insurer will generally re-instate your bonus.
Where you have a comprehensive policy then you are required to claim on that policy - you will almost certainly find the tp insurer refusing to pay you direct in these circumstances. The obvious reason being the insurers mutual KFK agreement. Your insurer will pay you what the market value of the vehicle is considered to be (which is where there will undoubtedly be some debate as to your definition of market value and your insurers definition! Argue and don't accept the first offer! Start collecting proof of value, like ads for similar vehicles.)
Turning to the little matter of who's to blame, that's up to you to prove. Have you any witnesses? The circumstances will impact as well of course - were you parked? Easy to prove guilt there! Did you collide head-on on a narrow road? Sadly, such cases almost always end up 50/50 at best. Just because a cop "wrote it up as 50/50" doesn't necessarily make it so. Did he see it? The police are not in a position to make judgements as to guilt, that's up to a court and/or the insurers. In many cases its an easy way out for a cop but it could of course be that he had witness statements and the actual circumstances were so obvious that it was a clear conclusion. Can;t comment of course as we don't know the circumstances.
Finally - remember that just because the insurers say something's a "write off" doesn't mean it is! Second hand parts and your own labour could mean a viable repair, remembering that the insurer will calculate against new parts and garage charges. Discuss purchasing the "remains" from them - this should be viable if its only a constructive total-loss.
Have you got a solicitor? Or membership of one of the motoring orgs? Get them involved to help with your un-insured loss claim.
If you placed your insurance thro a decent broker then make them work for their commission and help you in all aspects of this. If on the other hand you bought cheap and nasty from one of the "direct" places then you may well struggle to get support - understandably.
Finally - best of luck - for the record, this is just my personal view based on a few accidents and having once worked in claims - please don't treat it as "advice" though and I accept no responsibility for it ;-)
On or around Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:01:10 +0100, "Hirsty's" enlightened us thusly:
nah, not any more. They apportion blame on a percentage basis and each pay out half, or whatever. with no witnesses and no obvious "at-fault" driver, you end up with 50%. Which cost me over a grand a few years back, due to something being insured TPO - they only paid out half the claim to fix it.
Austin Shackles wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
I've received a rather short letter asking for "any relevant information" (or words to that effect) from my insurers. On a previous occasion, many years ago, I seem to remember I got a claim form and had to supply a plan showing exactly what happened.
Would it be a good idea to do that this time, even though they don't ask for it? I did take a photo of the lorry and could do the same to show my vehicle. The damage to the LR would confirm my description of events. I could also do a plan. Or is this all wasted effort?
Thanks to everyone for your good wishes and excellent advice. It did make me feel a bit better! And now the damage to the LR appears to be less severe than it looked at first. Mostly rear body panels to replace.
On or around 25 Oct 2003 21:59:30 GMT, Derry Argue enlightened us thusly:
any pictures are useful. I took a picture of the skidmark and oil patch left by the rover 400 with which I had a "coming together"; said photo supported my contention that Mr W. had not made all the effort he could to avoid collision, by stopping with his near-side wheel a goof foot from the edge of the tarmac, notwithstanding that there was room for him to drive onto the verge (which is solid) and possibly to have avoided me altogether.
Not that the same didn't apply to me, but his contention was that it was all my fault - I'm reasonably happy with a 50-50 on this one, as it's clear that both of us could in theory have avoided the other and neither, for whatever reason, did.
Andrew Heggie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
A very good point. Thankfully, it seems to be mostly body panels though the chassis may be slightly out of true -- but I suspect they can straighten that as it is only an inch or less. In fact, another LR enthusiast says it could be normal! (Rear wheel on one side seems to me to be >25mm out of line with the front. On the other - undamaged - side they are in a dead straight line). But I will leave the final analysis to the experts.
The advice here is much appreciated. These things are a worry. Hopefully, I can persuade insurers that it is easily repairable.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.