A (Non-Boaty) Question for JFM that may also relate to boats in principle.

[jfm]

So the question has to be, what is the seller of the M5 now driving? I hope it is a standard Mole Sud port car:

Haha - there's a targa 40 in my berth.
Rudi has excellent taste in cars. I think he just got rid of the white lambo; last time I saw him a few weeks ago he was in a tricked Cayenne
I haven't bought a replacement, so my only car in the world is a dented diesel Clio in France. If I buy another car it will be a LHD to keep and use in France, as I just don't use a car in London with trains, planes, Addison Lee and Hailo. I quite like those F12s, or an LR Disco, so at least I'm focussed

 

[MapisM]

Just ordered 2x rather eye wateringly bankrupting John Deeres this very morning

And you say that as if it would be unimportant?
Sod the boring insurance debate, and make a new thread on whatever those two babies are installed in!
JD engines are not so common this side of the Pond, but all the boats I've seen with them in the e/r were always proper vessels...

PS: with apologies to the OP, far from meaning that your problem is not relevant, but the support you're getting is already as good as it gets, anyway!

PPS: Doh! Just seen the update in your "16m trawler yacht" thread...
Sorry, I forgot the association with your username. So much for the memory check I just mentioned in another thread... :ambivalence:

 

[oGaryo]

Crikey that is complex, potentially. Your claim is against the at-fault driver, but you are plaintiff so burden of proof of your losses is on you. Normally proof is easy - you get quote from a bodyshop to fix your car and that's the answer.

But here, #1 driver ran into you and dented your car. No 2 driver then made the dent bigger. Your claim vs #1 driver is the cost of repairing the damage he caused. Your claim vs #2 driver is the cost of the overall repair minus the claim vs #1 driver. In other words, your claim vs #2 is the incremental loss he caused. Heck, you don't have a quote for a repair of only the dent caused by #1 and you never will have, so it is very hard to split the total repair bill between the separate insurers. So tread carefully because #1 insurer might pay 75% of the repair then tell you to pursue the other insurers for the rest. And that will be tough because the other insurers will say "Sorry Gary we disagree with #1 insurer and we think #1 driver's dent would have cost 95% of the repair bill and so here's a cheque for 5% and you need to go back to #1 insurer to get them to increase heir 75 to 95". #1 insurer might then refuse. erk.

If ever there was a case for claiming from your own insurer, this is it. I strongly suggest you flip to that method now, and claim all the repair from your own insurer, and let them argue it out with the other insurers. The fact you have started out claiming from the at-fault driver's insurance does not mean you cannot now switch horses. I'm suggesting you consider very carefully switching horses, and tell the at-fault driver's insurer you are handing the matter to your own insurer so they will hear from them not you, from now on

Where you write "conducting the claim without prejudice which I understand to mean that they are willing to sort out my car and my none insured losses but do not formally / legally accept full liability so that it allows them to pursue the other drivers for monies" I fear the words I have coloured might be wrong. It's perhaps not "them" who will pursue the other insurers. They might just pay you the 75% or whatever, and say "We've done our bit; you're on your own now mate as regards pursuing the other drivers in the pile up"

thanks John, top drawer advice as always, I'll get in touch with my insurers and get them back involved. Just had a call actually and they're going the repair route rather than the write off route at present. I'll inform my insurers today

thanks again

 

[silverdee]

MapisM,
See other thread Re-power 16M motor yacht. 3.5 months to wait for the new Dear Deers though.

 

[MapisM]

Yep, sorry, see my PPS just edited above...

 

[ontheplane]

Also Ontheplane that X5 you are in will almost certainly be a credit hire car not a courtesy car - you will be the hirer and although you are of course able to claim reasonable losses from the other driver (his insurers) it would be sensible to push for a timely resolution to your pre accident value dispute `cos it sounds like 12k plus vat and ticking for the credit hire. I am a v slow typist but happy to talk through if you would like- james.maxey@expresssolicitors.com.
Good luck sorting it.

Thanks Silverdee,

Yes it's ridiculous - When the accident happened there was serious snow forecast. I had a 4x4 because where we live if it snows, you need one. I simply told the handling company that all I needed was a small 4x4 / crossover until the risk of snow had passed, then any car would do. They said "The only 4x4 we have is an X5 - Will that do?" to which I replied "Yes". As soon as the snow threat passed I rang them and offered to come out of the X5 into a small car - but they said it was fine and they didn't keep swapping cars..... Whilst I am sure they're rubbing their hands in glee at a huge hire bill, I do have records to show I tried to mitigate that cost.

Also It's been the engineers delaying things not me I've been saying that I'll settle tomorrow if they come up with a sensible figure.

 

[ontheplane]

Thank you jfm - Crystal clear and exactly what I wanted to know.

I also thank Silverdee - I wish I'd known about you before agreeing to use my insurers "solicitors" for handling the incident.

However, I now have some more knowledge, and will just keep pushing for settlement at a level I am happy with, pointing out that my losses are as a direct result of their insureds negligence (and he ran a STOP sign so I think I could argue negligence on that one) and that if I am not happy I will have no hesitation in taking the matter to the ombudsman and then further to court if I fail to receive a satisfactory conclusion there.

I will let you know how it goes, and I may need to pop back if I need more help.

Thanks all for the help

 

[rafiki_]

Haha - there's a targa 40 in my berth.
Rudi has excellent taste in cars. I think he just got rid of the white lambo; last time I saw him a few weeks ago he was in a tricked Cayenne
I haven't bought a replacement, so my only car in the world is a dented diesel Clio in France. If I buy another car it will be a LHD to keep and use in France, as I just don't use a car in London with trains, planes, Addison Lee and Hailo. I quite like those F12s, or an LR Disco, so at least I'm focussed

LR Disco 4 on run-out JFM, so get in soon, unless you would prefer the RR/Sport? The next Disco will in effect be the Freelander replacement, so a bit limp wristed. While it weighs more than a Black Hole, the current Disco is a peach.
By the way, how many seriously bright and charitable Maxey's are there?

 

[jfm]

LR Disco 4 on run-out JFM, so get in soon, unless you would prefer the RR/Sport? The next Disco will in effect be the Freelander replacement, so a bit limp wristed. While it weighs more than a Black Hole, the current Disco is a peach.
By the way, how many seriously bright and charitable Maxey's are there?

Ah that's good to know P on the Disco's future. So in the future the only way to get the quality feel of Disco4 will be to buy a RR? I seriously like the Disco4 - my brother SilverDee and I bought one for our father about 18mths ago and I borrowed it for a drive to SofF and was expecting it to be a bit of a shed but actually it was very limo. All round nice machine. Back then btw it was on something like 7 month waitlist though I think it came in about 5 months

 

[rafiki_]

Ah that's good to know P on the Disco's future. So in the future the only way to get the quality feel of Disco4 will be to buy a RR? I seriously like the Disco4 - my brother SilverDee and I bought one for our father about 18mths ago and I borrowed it for a drive to SofF and was expecting it to be a bit of a shed but actually it was very limo. All round nice machine. Back then btw it was on something like 7 month waitlist though I think it came in about 5 months

Yep, the new RR Sport is no longer off the same chassis as Disco, but uses the new RR base platform. Means the cost base of Disco 4 is difficult as the volumes have halved. Will be run out over the next couple of years, and replaced with a hairdresser version from the new Freelander/Evoque platform. Not sure on delivery times now, but of course your customisation will add some time. Internal staircase to the roof rack?

 

[jfm]

However, I now have some more knowledge, and will just keep pushing for settlement at a level I am happy with, pointing out that my losses are as a direct result of their insureds negligence (and he ran a STOP sign so I think I could argue negligence on that one) and that if I am not happy I will have no hesitation in taking the matter to the ombudsman and then further to court if I fail to receive a satisfactory conclusion there.

I just want to clarify a couple of things OTP.

1. If you claim from your own insurer, then yes you have the FOS route if you're unhappy, and ultimately the court route. (The court route is unlikely to happen or be sensible of course on a motor car damage claim). But, in contrast, if you claim from the at-fault driver's insurer, you only have your tortious negligence claim, not a contract. I believe/expect (though tbh I haven't checked) you cannot refer the at-fault driver's insurer to FOS as you have no financial firm-to-customer relationship with them.

2. It seems there is no dispute about negligence. The fact you have a very strong and clear cut negligence event isn't kinda relevant because the other side seem not to be disputing that they are at fault and liable. This case is all about negotiating/proving quantum of losses

 

[jfm]

As soon as the snow threat passed I rang them and offered to come out of the X5 into a small car - but they said it was fine and they didn't keep swapping cars..... Whilst I am sure they're rubbing their hands in glee at a huge hire bill, I do have records to show I tried to mitigate that cost.

But what Silver Dee is saying, really, is that they are "rubbing their hands in glee" because YOU are underwriting the car credit-hire bill. If it's 12k and gets thrown out as excessive and reduced to £7k, and the at-fault driver's insurers refuse to pay more, and they are proven right on that, guess who pays the other £5k? Excuse my bluntness but your claim "I tried to mitigate the cost" wouldn't stack up. The complaining insurers will say you could have handed the X5 back and gone to Avis and got a smaller car; your pool of available cars does not stop at the firm with the X5. Silver Dee knows this better than me but I think he is warning that you might be at a tipping point with the £12k already clocked up...

 

[jfm]

Yep, the new RR Sport is no longer off the same chassis as Disco, but uses the new RR base platform. Means the cost base of Disco 4 is difficult as the volumes have halved. Will be run out over the next couple of years, and replaced with a hairdresser version from the new Freelander/Evoque platform. Not sure on delivery times now,

Ah thanks, good info.

Internal staircase to the roof rack?

Cheeky burger!! I'll get you back!

 

[ontheplane]

But what Silver Dee is saying, really, is that they are "rubbing their hands in glee" because YOU are underwriting the car credit-hire bill. If it's 12k and gets thrown out as excessive and reduced to £7k, and the at-fault driver's insurers refuse to pay more, and they are proven right on that, guess who pays the other £5k? Excuse my bluntness but your claim "I tried to mitigate the cost" wouldn't stack up. The complaining insurers will say you could have handed the X5 back and gone to Avis and got a smaller car; your pool of available cars does not stop at the firm with the X5. Silver Dee knows this better than me but I think he is warning that you might be at a tipping point with the £12k already clocked up...

Ah I see - wow - Well it goes back next Monday anyhow. If they come back to me for the money I will refer back to where I offered to come out of it. I also have IN WRITING that I will not be responsible for any of the cost as it's a no-fault claim (although I realise that this may not help me much). But yes, it's a very good point I'd not considered.

Back to your first post JFM, I haven't gone through my insurer at all. As soon as I filled in their basic "what happened" form I was referred to their "non-fault" department who took over everything. I am SO relieved that liability is not in question - if it was I would have been very nervous of taking any loan car! The other side have admitted liability in full thank goodness, so as you say, it is simply a measure now of what my real "losses" are and how I need to prove them.

In your experience, what evidence should I gather, and what is irrelevant? For example, I am keeping a record of all the cars that appear on eBay / Autotrader which closely match mine, their asking price, and what I would need to spend on them to get them within decent shouting distance of the spec of mine - but is there anything else I could do?

 

[rafiki_]

Ah thanks, good info.


Cheeky burger!! I'll get you back!

 

[oGaryo]

Crikey that is complex, potentially. Your claim is against the at-fault driver, but you are plaintiff so burden of proof of your losses is on you. Normally proof is easy - you get quote from a bodyshop to fix your car and that's the answer.

But here, #1 driver ran into you and dented your car. No 2 driver then made the dent bigger. Your claim vs #1 driver is the cost of repairing the damage he caused. Your claim vs #2 driver is the cost of the overall repair minus the claim vs #1 driver. In other words, your claim vs #2 is the incremental loss he caused. Heck, you don't have a quote for a repair of only the dent caused by #1 and you never will have, so it is very hard to split the total repair bill between the separate insurers. So tread carefully because #1 insurer might pay 75% of the repair then tell you to pursue the other insurers for the rest. And that will be tough because the other insurers will say "Sorry Gary we disagree with #1 insurer and we think #1 driver's dent would have cost 95% of the repair bill and so here's a cheque for 5% and you need to go back to #1 insurer to get them to increase heir 75 to 95". #1 insurer might then refuse. erk.

If ever there was a case for claiming from your own insurer, this is it. I strongly suggest you flip to that method now, and claim all the repair from your own insurer, and let them argue it out with the other insurers. The fact you have started out claiming from the at-fault driver's insurance does not mean you cannot now switch horses. I'm suggesting you consider very carefully switching horses, and tell the at-fault driver's insurer you are handing the matter to your own insurer so they will hear from them not you, from now on

Where you write "conducting the claim without prejudice which I understand to mean that they are willing to sort out my car and my none insured losses but do not formally / legally accept full liability so that it allows them to pursue the other drivers for monies" I fear the words I have coloured might be wrong. It's perhaps not "them" who will pursue the other insurers. They might just pay you the 75% or whatever, and say "We've done our bit; you're on your own now mate as regards pursuing the other drivers in the pile up"

Hi John, the deed is done, I've spoken with them and they have confirmed categorically that they would go after the other parties to recover a percentage of the repair costs should they feel the need to. I wouldn't be expected to do that and they've confirmed they would cover my repair costs directly and in full once the estimates from the garage have been accepted . thanks again for the advice

 

[lanerboy]

paul just read your comment about the disco 4 being done away with I have a disco4 had it new in 2010 and I must say its the best car I have ever had its done 55k miles and no real problems at all I just love it had the rrsport tdv8 before but sold it after 8 months as not enough room with 2 kids etc etc

as you know I run up and down to Weymouth to my boat 500 mile round trip and its a pleasure to drive I get out the other end ready to go not like if we go in swmbo bmw 1 series great on fuel but just not comfy enough for me

your comments explain to me now why I could not get a straight answer from the land rover stand at the London boat show about when the disco 5 might be released he said mmmmmm well mmmmmm uuurrrrrr wellll not really sure mmmmmmmm scratching his chin I though he new more than he was letting on

sorry for the thread drift

 

[sailorman]

Ah I see - wow - Well it goes back next Monday anyhow. If they come back to me for the money I will refer back to where I offered to come out of it. I also have IN WRITING that I will not be responsible for any of the cost as it's a no-fault claim (although I realise that this may not help me much). But yes, it's a very good point I'd not considered.

Back to your first post JFM, I haven't gone through my insurer at all. As soon as I filled in their basic "what happened" form I was referred to their "non-fault" department who took over everything. I am SO relieved that liability is not in question - if it was I would have been very nervous of taking any loan car! The other side have admitted liability in full thank goodness, so as you say, it is simply a measure now of what my real "losses" are and how I need to prove them.

In your experience, what evidence should I gather, and what is irrelevant? For example, I am keeping a record of all the cars that appear on eBay / Autotrader which closely match mine, their asking price, and what I would need to spend on them to get them within decent shouting distance of the spec of mine - but is there anything else I could do?

See#5

 

[jfm]

AhIn your experience, what evidence should I gather, and what is irrelevant? For example, I am keeping a record of all the cars that appear on eBay / Autotrader which closely match mine, their asking price, and what I would need to spend on them to get them within decent shouting distance of the spec of mine - but is there anything else I could do?

Hmmm. I'm not sure about this. I think your contract with your insurer will read as an indemnity for your losses, but that can still be less than clear cut.

Imagine you had a Merc S class @£100k, then took it to a pimp shop and had it done in metallic pink shadowy paint and pink leather with lime green piping, for another £30k. With apologies to lovely Pauline, it is instantly worth £60k on ebay. At one week old, and 100 miles on the clock, another driver writes it off. For sure your tortious claim against the other driver can only be £60k, but what about your contractual claim against your insurer? Is it £130k or £60k?

I'd like silverdee to chip in but I think the answer is £60k, at least in many cases. But I'm not 100% sure on this and anyway the precise wording in the contract matters. Reason being that you incurred the £70k hit the day you took it to the pimp shop - £30k for the pimping and £40k devaluation of the base car. You drove out of the pimp shop with a car worth £60, and when the other driver smashed it his negligence casued you to lose that £60k.

So, while I think you are doing the right thing in the bit I quote above, and I cannot think of anything better to do, just be prepared for fact the insurers may not pay you for the cost of the extras needed to make the replacement car same spec as the damaged one, under the "pink paint" principle above

It does depend on the wording though. When my house burnt down it was full of trick electronics and luxury stuff that I had custom specced and hired consultants to design, including (eg) bespoke software for the touchscreens that controlled the house. I would never see back all the money I spent in the form of an uplift in the market value of the house. My house insurance indemnified me for "reinstatement", ie the cost of getting back to exactly where I was before the fire. It most certainly did not merely indemnify me for my losses ie the market value of the razed house. So I got all my extravagant build costs back, which was more than its value. If it had been a pink S class, I would have got £120k back not £60k. So, the policy wording matters. We need silverdee here...

 

[ontheplane]

Hmmm. I'm not sure about this. I think your contract with your insurer will read as an indemnity for your losses, but that can still be less than clear cut.

Imagine you had a Merc S class @£100k, then took it to a pimp shop and had it done in metallic pink shadowy paint and pink leather with lime green piping, for another £30k. With apologies to lovely Pauline, it is instantly worth £60k on ebay. At one week old, and 100 miles on the clock, another driver writes it off. For sure your tortious claim against the other driver can only be £60k, but what about your contractual claim against your insurer? Is it £130k or £60k?

I'd like silverdee to chip in but I think the answer is £60k, at least in many cases. But I'm not 100% sure on this and anyway the precise wording in the contract matters. Reason being that you incurred the £70k hit the day you took it to the pimp shop - £30k for the pimping and £40k devaluation of the base car. You drove out of the pimp shop with a car worth £60, and when the other driver smashed it his negligence casued you to lose that £60k.

So, while I think you are doing the right thing in the bit I quote above, and I cannot think of anything better to do, just be prepared for fact the insurers may not pay you for the cost of the extras needed to make the replacement car same spec as the damaged one, under the "pink paint" principle above

It does depend on the wording though. When my house burnt down it was full of trick electronics and luxury stuff that I had custom specced and hired consultants to design, including (eg) bespoke software for the touchscreens that controlled the house. I would never see back all the money I spent in the form of an uplift in the market value of the house. My house insurance indemnified me for "reinstatement", ie the cost of getting back to exactly where I was before the fire. It most certainly did not merely indemnify me for my losses ie the market value of the razed house. So I got all my extravagant build costs back, which was more than its value. If it had been a pink S class, I would have got £120k back not £60k. So, the policy wording matters. We need silverdee here...

Ok, understand that fully.

However, I don't have any form of written contract with the other parties insurer, only the situation where I am claiming from them.

As you rightly say, a difficult one.

Needless to say, Silverdee has panicked me somewhat. I was told explicitly that I would not be responsible for any of the hire car costs, but re-reading the loan document it is indeed a "Credit Hire agreement" and I fear everything else he's said will turn out to be accurate as well. Sadly, although I was TOLD I would not be responsible for the costs, a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on!

Fortunately I do have an e-mail from the Management company stating in capitals that

"Regardless of whom we instruct to provide a hire vehicle and/or arrange the repairs, ALL of your losses shall be recovered by ourselves."

Therefore I am assuming that if I were to be hit by a bill I could just produce this and tell them to recover away.....! (Here's hoping)

Thanks guys, absolutely spot on advice as always.