Insurance questions

[lb99]

yesterday someone rear enede my car while it was parked, and caused serious damage to the right rear corner, while the chassis seems ok, it needs all of the panel work from the rear door back replaced, so the bill is most likely to be in excess of the value of the car, which is insured for $4480.
so my insurance is sorting it out with their insurance, but they will most likely write it off.
My question is apart from the hassle, I'm gonna loose aren't I, will the insurance co rip me off for something thats not my fault, and pay me out a sum thats lower than the insured value of my car?

[Grahameeboy]

No, they will obtain values from Independent Valuers. Some get 2 and offer the average.

Depends on your policy wording but if market value is more than your value, you will still get market value.

[KoroJ]

You can dispute the insurance company's valuation and get your own independent valuation if you think it's inaccurate but the assessors are usually pretty good. (I imagine Blenheim wont be overflowing with assessors either, so you'll probably end up with the same guy).

It's usually more a case of what you think the car is worth and insured for being quite different to the 'Market Value'. Most people don't depreciate their vehicles enough at each renewal.

[sAsLEX]

It's usually more a case of what you think the car is worth and insured for being quite different to the 'Market Value'. Most people don't depreciate their vehicles enough at each renewal.

And so the insurance company takes money for a service it isn't providing but hides in its "wording" of the contract which they never seem to want to spell out......

[lb99]

my hassle is replacing the vehicle with something similar for the same money, as well as hassle 3wks without a car ect...
I just talked to my insurance co, it turns out I have an agreed value policy, so they will pay the insured sum, less any excess if they cannot estabilsh liability, my main problem is now that the third party won't fess up (local honda shop), so that delays the process a bit

[KoroJ]

And so the insurance company takes money for a service it isn't providing but hides in its "wording" of the contract which they never seem to want to spell out......

Aaah....words like 'Caveat Emptor' spring to mind.

It's a requirement that a policy wording be issued when insurance is taken out. The fact that few tend to read them is where these problems arise.

That's why I recommend using a broker........Pick Me! Pick Me!

[Nasty]

That's why I recommend using a broker........Pick Me! Pick Me!

I did I did

[KoroJ]

I did I did

Aren't you a pet! (Even if you did drag me away from the forum at the time).

I'm free now that's all done and dusted...next please. Our mature staff are eager to help!

[sAsLEX]

my hassle is replacing the vehicle with something similar for the same money, as well as hassle 3wks without a car ect...
I just talked to my insurance co, it turns out I have an agreed value policy, so they will pay the insured sum, less any excess if they cannot estabilsh liability, my main problem is now that the third party won't fess up (local honda shop), so that delays the process a bit

Surely they pay for a replacement transport solution? The other party since you know who they were?/

[WRT]

my hassle is replacing the vehicle with something similar for the same money, as well as hassle 3wks without a car ect...
I just talked to my insurance co, it turns out I have an agreed value policy, so they will pay the insured sum, less any excess if they cannot estabilsh liability, my main problem is now that the third party won't fess up (local honda shop), so that delays the process a bit

I had some one cross the centerline and hit myself and another vehicle. They refused to admit liability, and it was taking ages for the insurance cos to work it out. Even though I had two independent witnesses and the police all saying he was at fault, the insurance co wanted a copy of the police report to verify it.

At the end of the day, I phoned the police officer who attended, got him to fax me the police report, which I then forwarded to my insurance co. Didnt cost me anything, and I had the excess refunded pretty much straight away. I highly recommend getting the report your self as the ins co will take weeks to do it - they have to request it through the "official channels" which costs them money and takes ages before the request filters through the police system. If you phone the cop directly, he'll probably just send it straight to you.

[Grahameeboy]

my hassle is replacing the vehicle with something similar for the same money, as well as hassle 3wks without a car ect...
I just talked to my insurance co, it turns out I have an agreed value policy, so they will pay the insured sum, less any excess if they cannot estabilsh liability, my main problem is now that the third party won't fess up (local honda shop), so that delays the process a bit

You were parked so liability is not in question.

Check your policy.....if is says ' if you are clearly not at fault your excess will be waived' then your Insurers should waive it regardless of what the other guys says in this case which 'Prima Facea'....Facts Speak for Themselves.

I had the same thing said to me by NZI when my bike was hit whilst parked..was told 'we have to establish that other guy accepts liability'....I told then "No", spoke to a supervisor and she agreed with me.

If your car is worth more than agreed value then you can claim the balance from other guys Insurance.

[lb99]

Surely they pay for a replacement transport solution? The other party since you know who they were?/

thats up to their insurance co, I did not have a rental extention on my policy
I have to hire a car and then write a sob story for consideration by the third party insurance


If you phone the cop directly, he'll probably just send it straight to you.

there was no need for cops, didn't call them, they'll just make it a bit messier in this case IMO, the local feds seem to flip out the ticket book at the slightest fender bender.



You were parked so liability is not in question......


If your car is worth more than agreed value then you can claim the balance from other guys Insurance.

they will come to the party, they are just doing it by the book, going through their broker ect, so they are doing what they are prfectly entitled to do, anyway I don't have a problem with the fact that they crashed into my car, shit happens, their man fucked up, it happens to all of us, I know the manager, I own a Honda or 2 so I am a customer, have been for years. Its between our insurance co's, I don't expect to get a better car than what I had, but it was a 6 seater 92 falcon, perfect for my big family, I want to get another, but it would be unfair if I had to borrow money to replace a car that I didn't wreck.
This is the third car in a row that has been written off while parked. :(

[Grahameeboy]

they will come to the party, they are just doing it by the book, going through their broker ect, so they are doing what they are prfectly entitled to do, anyway I don't have a problem with the fact that they crashed into my car, shit happens, their man fucked up, it happens to all of us, I know the manager, I own a Honda or 2 so I am a customer, have been for years. Its between our insurance co's, I don't expect to get a better car than what I had, but it was a 6 seater 92 falcon, perfect for my big family, I want to get another, but it would be unfair if I had to borrow money to replace a car that I didn't wreck.
This is the third car in a row that has been written off while parked. :(

Your Insurance should waive the excess..........you are being mucked about.

If your car is worth more than the agreed value then you are entitled to market value from your Insurance (Agreed Value) and difference from the TP Insurance...........nothing about getting a better vehicle.

Hire Car..yes you can claim but the other Insurance will deduct normal variable running costs, depreciation etc from bill.

They will try and argue you should use buses etc, however, Courts will not stand for that nonsense.....technically speaking you could also claim Loss of Use' of your vehicle as well as Hire Car costs but Insurance a bit backward here and don't understand that.

[imdying]

You're only going to lose if you've (foolishly) insured it for more than it's worth. I know nobody likes to (honestly) reasses the value of their vehicle every year, as it hurts to see the money bleeding away... but there's no point in insuring it for more than it's real value, as that's all they'll pay anyway.

[lb99]

basically I will be ok, my insurance co will waive the excess, and I will get my car repaired or replaced, I just need to be patient

[cowboyz]

My wife had a little 1984 Laser a few years back. Nice and tidy. Always started. run really well. Always passed a warrent. Great car.

Then a truck run it over and it wasnt so good anymore.

They argued market value for ages which was $1000 but I argued I couldn't replace the car with a car that had the same realibility for $1000. In the end, after several months of arguing we took the $1000 and didn't replace her car. Shit happens sometimes.

[Grahameeboy]

So you have a car for the kids so repairs have been authorised? or if it is a total loss, have they made you an offer? so in both cases you can get back on the road asap.

Patient is a virtue
Virtue is a Grace
And Grace is a Little Girl
Who forgot to wash her face

I hope you are right. I worked in Claims 27 years and even though I am a patient person, when it comes to Insurance you cannot always afford to be patient cause it will cost you.....I just know what they can be like...

My car was hit whilst parked. Now Nzi were great getting car assessed....I knew the drill so found out myself, however, if I had been patient and waited I would not have known that repairs were authorised...I got a call yesterday from Nzi asking whether repairs had been done 10 weeks after accident.....that was the first call I had so if I was ignorant to Insurance that would have been the first I had known that my claim had been accepted.

[Grahameeboy]

You're only going to lose if you've (foolishly) insured it for more than it's worth. I know nobody likes to (honestly) reasses the value of their vehicle every year, as it hurts to see the money bleeding away... but there's no point in insuring it for more than it's real value, as that's all they'll pay anyway.

At the value stated there would probably be a negligible difference in premium, if any, if it was over insured which is why agreed values are worth considering.

[lb99]

waiting for assessor now, parts serch is currently being carried out by my panelbeater

[lb99]

At the value stated there would probably be a negligible difference in premium, if any, if it was over insured which is why agreed values are worth considering.

I cant remember specifying an agreed value policy for this car, apparantly I have one though. but it may have been automatic, as it was under finance when we took out the policy.
I have usedagreed value policys in the past for modified vehicles though, very handy.
in one case the agreed value policy was cheaper than a third party policy anyway... go figure :crazy:

[imdying]

At the value stated there would probably be a negligible difference in premium, if any, if it was over insured which is why agreed values are worth considering.
Yep, but still don't pay any more than you have too, not to mention no surprises when you get into this situation :(

[Grahameeboy]

Yep, but still don't pay any more than you have too, not to mention no surprises when you get into this situation :(

You are talking a few dollars you skin flint.........

[Grahameeboy]

I cant remember specifying an agreed value policy for this car, apparantly I have one though. but it may have been automatic, as it was under finance when we took out the policy.
I have used agreed value policys in the past for modified vehicles though, very handy.
in one case the agreed value policy was cheaper than a third party policy anyway... go figure :crazy:

I would check the policy...who you insured with?....Sounds like State but could be wrong as they put parts out to tender...State have an agreed value policy.

But either way like I said you can still claim 'Market Value'....just be from different pots

[lb99]

I would check the policy...who you insured with?....Sounds like State but could be wrong as they put parts out to tender...State have an agreed value policy.

But either way like I said you can still claim 'Market Value'....just be from different pots

yep, state, believe it or not they have always been good to deal with.

I have been looking around on the net, and it seems theres a few for sale around the place for a realistic price, like this one

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=101258422&key=195282

or this one

http://www.turners.co.nz/TabId/188/vguid/F0946B04-B40C-4B3C-8A44-AD611495E2B0/default.aspx

similar cars, similar ks

so maybe all is not lost.....

[Grahameeboy]

yep, state, believe it or not they have always been good to deal with.

I have been looking around on the net, and it seems theres a few for sale around the place for a realistic price, like this one

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=101258422&key=195282

or this one

http://www.turners.co.nz/TabId/188/vguid/F0946B04-B40C-4B3C-8A44-AD611495E2B0/default.aspx

similar cars, similar ks

so maybe all is not lost.....

Sounds good so if sounds like you could be heads up with the agreed value and I assume car is still not on finance?

[lb99]

Sounds good so if sounds like you could be heads up with the agreed value and I assume car is still not on finance?

nah, no finance, paid it off last year ::Punk: :

[jetboy]

Read this. (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=49577)
If you have any questions after you have read the thread above, PM me.
I am an Insurance Broker.

[jetboy]

Most people don't depreciate their vehicles enough at each renewal.
Correct. The onus is on you, the insured, to tell us what your car is worth. Some insurers automatically depreciate according to some database they have access to - but most prefer that you tell us. Why? Because we are insurance people, not valuers.
If one of my client asks me for the value of their bike, I tell them to call a dealership or the like and ask them. They have a better idea then I would!

[jetboy]

And so the insurance company takes money for a service it isn't providing but hides in its "wording" of the contract which they never seem to want to spell out......


What is the insurance company not providing? How do we know what your car/house/bike is worth? We insure your property - we don't value it.
Why do we not value it? Because if we GUESS the market value of your bike, for example, and we guess a lower value that what it actually is, then in the event of a claim we have actually under-insured your bike and we would be liable for this error. We are not in the business of guessing.

By the way I am speaking from a broking point of view. On all of the insurance documentation we send out (renewal invitations, new policies, coverage summaries etc) we ask you to check the details and advise us if we have something wrong.

[Toaster]

I had some one cross the centerline and hit myself and another vehicle. They refused to admit liability, and it was taking ages for the insurance cos to work it out. Even though I had two independent witnesses and the police all saying he was at fault, the insurance co wanted a copy of the police report to verify it.

At the end of the day, I phoned the police officer who attended, got him to fax me the police report, which I then forwarded to my insurance co. Didnt cost me anything, and I had the excess refunded pretty much straight away. I highly recommend getting the report your self as the ins co will take weeks to do it - they have to request it through the "official channels" which costs them money and takes ages before the request filters through the police system. If you phone the cop directly, he'll probably just send it straight to you.

Police can actually refuse such a request. The requirement is for insurance companies to pay police for the report. They often push it onto the owner to get a copy because they don't want to pay for it. You are fortunate the officer did that for you.... as the supervisor may have said no if they found out.

[Toaster]

As far as depreciation goes.... that is so true. We have to do it ourselves. If we over-insure our assets that is our tough titties.

All I do is ring the insurer/bank each year and drop the value down to what I think market value is. Helps reduce premiums as well.

[cowboyz]

What a cop out.

If insurance companies did not know the value of what they are liable to pay out for if the insured item goes missing then what are they baseing the premiums on?

There are two ways to value an item.

1. What someone will pay for it.
2. What someone will sell it for.

Simple as that.

The item should be insured for a mutally agreed amount between what someone would buy it for (the insurance company) and what someone will sell it for (the owner of said item)

So if insurance companies (as they do) are not willing to put a figure on what they would buy the item for in the first place and put it down to "market value" (what others would buy it for) then it leaves plenty of room for upset people. The "agreed value" policies are a good way of combating this but the problem is most people simply jump into insurance because they think as long as they have insurance they are fine.

Argueably could be said to read the fine print but who does?

Insurance companies have a responisbility (or should have) to front up with a figure of what they think any item is worth. Not after the item is damaged or missing but before hand so everyone is playing on the same ballpark.

If insurance companies want to take a stand that they are not valuers (and they should have valuers on staff to value items at the time insurance policies are drawn up) then when any item is found to be overinsured they should refund the premiums that have been overpaid.

[Grahameeboy]

What is the insurance company not providing? How do we know what your car/house/bike is worth? We insure your property - we don't value it.
Why do we not value it? Because if we GUESS the market value of your bike, for example, and we guess a lower value that what it actually is, then in the event of a claim we have actually under-insured your bike and we would be liable for this error. We are not in the business of guessing.

By the way I am speaking from a broking point of view. On all of the insurance documentation we send out (renewal invitations, new policies, coverage summaries etc) we ask you to check the details and advise us if we have something wrong.

Not quite true because the Proposal is signed by Insured person as per the Declaration (which applies through out Insurance period, including Renewals) plus you will find that the Insurance Company will be liable for your mistake in most cases because you are acting as their agent and it is unlikely they will seek recompense from you.........have seen Ombusdman Cases which seesm crazy but I guess it is Consumer protection.

Plus with say Contents Insurance, if you suffer a $4,000 loss and your total unspecified Sum Insured is $40,000 but should be say $60,000 you will still get $4,000 as under insurance does not apply with Domestic Household Insurance.

Sorry just adding a bit of extra

[jetboy]

Insurance companies have a responisbility (or should have) to front up with a figure of what they think any item is worth. Not after the item is damaged or missing but before hand so everyone is playing on the same ballpark.

Why? We insure, we don't value. We never see the item in question unless you make a claim. How do I know what a ZX9R with 100,000km's is worth vs. a ZX9R with 250,000km's?


So if insurance companies (as they do) are not willing to put a figure on what they would buy the item for in the first place and put it down to "market value" (what others would buy it for) then it leaves plenty of room for upset people. The "agreed value" policies are a good way of combating this but the problem is most people simply jump into insurance because they think as long as they have insurance they are fine.

Its called a 'market value' policy because the whole point of insurance is to put you back in the same position you were in before the loss. You might say your bike is worth $10,000 but if it's market value (and we get 2 independant valuations at claim time) is only $5,000 then you have financially gained from the claim. Thats missing the whole point of insurance.



Argueably could be said to read the fine print but who does?

That's up to you, not us. We give you the terms of business but we can't force you to read it. Most wordings are in plain english.


If insurance companies want to take a stand that they are not valuers (and they should have valuers on staff to value items at the time insurance policies are drawn up) then when any item is found to be overinsured they should refund the premiums that have been overpaid.

Again, and with all due respect, we are insurers. You tell us what to insure and we do it. We could go on to say that its a requirement to have a WOF on the bike otherwise your claim may be declined.. You could argue that its our job to make sure there's a WOF or refund the premium...

[Grahameeboy]

What a cop out.

Not really. They cannot see what they are Insuring and a 1996 Car can vary in condition, mileage etc so have different values.
The Consumer knows what they paid and can easily look up a car / bike value.
With contents it is not so much an issue and with say jewellery you would always get a value plus the Sum Insured for specified items is plus Gst so this allows for undervaluing.

If insurance companies did not know the value of what they are liable to pay out for if the insured item goes missing then what are they baseing the premiums on?

Utmost Good Faith and the fact that one would not expect to insure something without checking values etc.
There are two ways to value an item.

1. What someone will pay for it.
2. What someone will sell it for.

Simple as that.

The item should be insured for a mutally agreed amount between what someone would buy it for (the insurance company) and what someone will sell it for (the owner of said item)

So you expect Insurer to assess someones contents, car which will cost them money which will put up premiums and Internet access means than we can all find out values of things.

So if insurance companies (as they do) are not willing to put a figure on what they would buy the item for in the first place and put it down to "market value" (what others would buy it for) then it leaves plenty of room for upset people. The "agreed value" policies are a good way of combating this but the problem is most people simply jump into insurance because they think as long as they have insurance they are fine.

Argueably could be said to read the fine print but who does?

All Plain Kiwi these days

Insurance companies have a responisbility (or should have) to front up with a figure of what they think any item is worth. Not after the item is damaged or missing but before hand so everyone is playing on the same ballpark.

No they don't. Onus is with Insured person..............in the main the settlement is fair plus with contents the Insurer will normally use a preferred supplier which gives say a 25% discount so Insured person benefits if there Sum Insured is low.

If insurance companies want to take a stand that they are not valuers (and they should have valuers on staff to value items at the time insurance policies are drawn up) then when any item is found to be overinsured they should refund the premiums that have been overpaid.

They are Insurance Company's, not valuers......with agreed values it works both ways.........if car is worth $2,000 but agreed value is $5,000 then the premium difference is not $3,000 and would unlikely be even after 10 years premium but would the Insured person complain...?


..........................

[jetboy]

Not quite true because the Proposal is signed by Insured person as per the Declaration (which applies through out Insurance period, including Renewals) plus you will find that the Insurance Company will be liable for your mistake in most cases because you are acting as their agent and it is unlikely they will seek recompense from you.........have seen Ombusdman Cases which seesm crazy but I guess it is Consumer protection.

Plus with say Contents Insurance, if you suffer a $4,000 loss and your total unspecified Sum Insured is $40,000 but should be say $60,000 you will still get $4,000 as under insurance does not apply with Domestic Household Insurance.

Sorry just adding a bit of extra
We are not agents - we are not tied to any insurer. We are brokers which means we work for you. Therefore the insurance company will not re-imburse us for our mistake (would you?).

Under your contents example= yes you may very well get the $4,000 but if your house burns down, the maximum settlement figure is the $40,000.

No worries ask away :)

[Grahameeboy]

We are not agents - we are not tied to any insurer. We are brokers which means we work for you. Therefore the insurance company will not re-imburse us for our mistake (would you?).

Under your contents example= yes you may very well get the $4,000 but if your house burns down, the maximum settlement figure is the $40,000.

No worries ask away :)

I would have to disagree with your view of 'Agent' (I used that in it's loosest sense because I know there are Agents and Brokers).....it has been proven by the Ombudsman.....the Insurer was made to pay and make a decision whether to claim back from Broker.

Agree the rest, just raising 1 particular point for others benefit.

[jetboy]

I would have to disagree with your view of 'Agent' (I used that in it's loosest sense because I know there are Agents and Brokers).....it has been proven by the Ombudsman.....the Insurer was made to pay and make a decision whether to claim back from Broker.

Agree the rest, just raising 1 particular point for others benefit.

Yeah no worries.
A quck explanation of agents and brokers can be found on this site (http://searchwarp.com/swa33131.htm), or this site (http://insurance.lovetoknow.com/Insurance_Broker), or here. (http://www.expertbusinesssource.com/blog/430000243/post/210008221.html)
I guess there are certain circumstances where this would arise, but (as a broker anyway) if the insurance company did not back us up on our error, we would be held liable. The insurer relies on us to get the correct information for them so the mistake is certainly not theirs....

I guess it all depends on the circumstances

[Grahameeboy]

Yeah no worries.
A quck explanation of agents and brokers can be found on this site (http://searchwarp.com/swa33131.htm), or this site (http://insurance.lovetoknow.com/Insurance_Broker), or here. (http://www.expertbusinesssource.com/blog/430000243/post/210008221.html)
I guess there are certain circumstances where this would arise, but (as a broker anyway) if the insurance company did not back us up on our error, we would be held liable. The insurer relies on us to get the correct information for them so the mistake is certainly not theirs....

I guess it all depends on the circumstances

In this case, the Insurer was made to pay for the Brokers mistake....I guess it is because once the Broker goes for a particular Insurer they start to act on the Insurer's behalf and terms of business......most Insurers have signed agreements with Brokers / Insurance Agents

[lb99]

:dodge: don't you fuckers do any work?:dodge:

basically, all that I expect is for my vehicle to be returned to a pre accident condition, or replaced with a suitible replacement, it looks as though I will either have my car fixed, which I would prefer, or be presented with a cheque for an undisclsed sum as settlement for a writeoff, (which I am worried will be for less than the value of a replacement fit for purpose, and leave me out of pocket), and some added hassle of rental cars, mucking about, which I will take on the chin as sometimes, shit does happen.
However, if it turns to shit, I WILL have my car signwritten and park it outside their shop until I am compensated for my loss.

the car is currently drivable, albeit badly smashed up, I liberated one of the tail lights off my trailer and screwed it to the back corner so I could still use it safely.
So we still have a car until it actually goes to be repaired or written off.

[jetboy]

Yeah all good - although you probably won't get a replacement. You may just get a settlement cheque.
The policy wording your insurer provided will give you an indication on how they settle claims and what they will pay you. Look for headings such as "What we will pay" and "How to claim" etc etc.

[lb99]

:banana:

I just got the quote from the panel shop $3500 to fix, and apparently the current insured sum is $4800, as the repair total is less than 75% of the insured value, they'll probably fix it, cool.

Just need to hear back from the assesor.

I get to keep my car, cool

:banana: