Car Insurance Question

[DeludedGuy]

My godfather has a 1999 "V" Reg Toyota Avensis with 31,000 miles on the clock.

A few weeks ago he parked it outside his house, when he came out, he found that some poor guy with diabetes crashed into his Avensis, damaging the entire right side of the car, from the back to the front.

My godfathers insurance company (Direct Line) has said that repairing the car will cost too much, so they have written it off, and will only pay them the current value of the car.

I think this is a little unfair, as they bought the car brand new for £12,000, and now through no fault of thier own, they will only end up with about £3,000, if they're lucky.

Im no expert, but shouldnt the guy who crashed into my godfather, be liable for all the damage, and shouldnt his insurance pay for this?

Any ideas would be helpful.

Thanks!

[Howard]

His insurance company will pay up. It's been deemed uneconomical to repair the car, so they'll be paying up for how much it was insured for / how much it's worth.

[Fox]

There are two potential issues here.

Firstly we'll deal with the car and its value. Irrespective of how much he paid, he cannot expect any more than the replacement cost of a similar car in similar condition. He will be able to fight for enough money to buy another 30k mile Toyota Avensis on a V plate and not a penny more - they care not that he bought it new, etc etc.

Secondly, the more sticky problem of who exactly pays - your godfathers insurer or the other drivers.

Common sense and logic would of course say that the other drivers insurer will pay the cost of the claim. But this is insurance we are talking about - common sense and logic need not apply. Now, my knowledge on this particular situation is a bit more sketchy than other insurance situations so I could be wrong, but do bear with me.

The other driver is covered for damage he causes to a third party due to a fault accident. However, if he crashed for reasons beyond his control - ie some sort of diabetic thing (I assume this is what happens otherwise whether or not had has diabities is irrelevant) then I understand that sometimes NO party can be held at fault for the accident - there was no negligence on anyones part, and it goes down as 'one of those things'.

Sounds pathetic, right? I fully agree, but I think this is how it works..

[DeludedGuy]

Originally Posted by Fox

There are two potential issues here.

Firstly we'll deal with the car and its value. Irrespective of how much he paid, he cannot expect any more than the replacement cost of a similar car in similar condition. He will be able to fight for enough money to buy another 30k mile Toyota Avensis on a V plate and not a penny more - they care not that he bought it new, etc etc.

Secondly, the more sticky problem of who exactly pays - your godfathers insurer or the other drivers.

Common sense and logic would of course say that the other drivers insurer will pay the cost of the claim. But this is insurance we are talking about - common sense and logic need not apply. Now, my knowledge on this particular situation is a bit more sketchy than other insurance situations so I could be wrong, but do bear with me.

The other driver is covered for damage he causes to a third party due to a fault accident. However, if he crashed for reasons beyond his control - ie some sort of diabetic thing (I assume this is what happens otherwise whether or not had has diabities is irrelevant) then I understand that sometimes NO party can be held at fault for the accident - there was no negligence on anyones part, and it goes down as 'one of those things'.

Sounds pathetic, right? I fully agree, but I think this is how it works..

Yup, thats pretty much how the insurance company describe it.

The other guy who crashed had a fit of some sort.

Thanks guys.

[Fox]

I STRONGLY disagree with the way the law works on this - IMHO whatever the reason if your car hits somebody elses, your insurance company should compensate the third party.

Sure its not that guys fault he had a fit but it isnt your fault either and it SHOULD be what he has insurance for

[Howard]

Exactly Fox. And I reckon that's the way it'll work in this case. But we'll have to wait and see really

[Stubzz]

I thought that only occured if it was an unknown problem. Such as a perfectly fit person who has no history of fits/blackouts having an accident.

In this case the person has a know illness that caused the accident (diabetes) so it won't be an 'act of god'.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

[Butuz]

At the end of the day - if his medical condition made it dangerous for him to drive then he should not have been allowed to drive... ?

Not having a go at diabetics here, but as with other things, if your medically not fit then you tend to be told not to drive "just incase".

?

Butuz