Need some advice for an insurance issue

[255-LS1]

Gday all,

a couple of months ago i was hit some some ****head. Now, ive got 2 quotes, both over 3000. I went to get a quote off an accrediated repairer for his insurance company (AAMI) but they wouldn't quote the job so meh. Redbook says my car is worth 1300 - 2800 (1980 WB ute).

The problem im having is that he is claiming that we crashed on a corner, therefore both parties are at fault. This has been tossing around for 2 months going back and forth the best result RACV (me) have been able to get is 70/30 split, meaning they pay 70% of my repairs and i pay 30% of his WTF is this i can believe the shit they come up with :flipoff::flipoff::flipoff:

i was no way at fault. I wont go into detail on the crash but he entered my lane coming from the opposite direction and colided with my front right. RACV have advised that atm i have two options

1. Try and get 70% flat meaning i dont pay anything and they pay for 70% of my repairs. Will they give me cash or just pay directly to the repairer.

2. Cancel my claim with RACV (i am only 3rd party so under their polociy they cant do much) and deal directly with AAMI and prob end up taking them to court over it to try and get 100% cover. I am tempted to do this cos i want 100% cos this **** hit me and i was in no way doing the wrong thing. But what are the chances that i will win.

<<< Removed offensive comments >>>

feel free to ask any questions.

Cheers

Camo

[team illucid]

3rd party - both parties are presumed at fault.

My wife was Tboned by a guy that turned blind into her - she was also deemed at fault for being "on the road".

The system is bollocks but you can't do much about it, except go comprehensive.

[Wonky]

Unless you are hit in the rear you are almost always at least partly at fault in any collision between two cars, the argument being that if you were observant and paying attention to everything going on around you then you could have avoided being hit.

Having said that, if you take it to court and get a magistrate who for whatever reason is prejudiced against you anything can happen!! I had an accident in a university car park 35 yrs ago that was certainly more my fault than the person I hit but the magistrate looked at me (long haired uni student - hard to believe for those who know me now :lol:) and her a 30s something woman who had been delivering something to the uni. 100% against me!! :shock: :vpo: She lied and claimed I was doing 30mph in the car park - as a result of the impact my EH had damage as below. I didn't even get time to brake!

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o274/gcovo/Previous%20Vehicles/003eh3circa1973.jpg

As a result I now try to always have a camera in the car to take pics of an accident if I am in one - stop the lies. Apparently in these days of digital wizardry it has to be a film camera so any pics can't have been doctored.

[Ned_Flanders666]

Unless you are hit in the rear you are almost always at least partly at fault in any collision between two cars, the argument being that if you were observant and paying attention to everything going on around you then you could have avoided being hit.

That line has reduced the amount of money insurance companies big time. Just wondering how arguable is that"("should have been paying attention"") in court?
It almost gives people the green light to cut you off at roundabouts, intersections, etc knowing that the other (innocent) party has to fork out a bit of money as well.

[Wonky]

That line has reduced the amount of money insurance companies big time. Just wondering how arguable is that"("should have been paying attention"") in court?
It almost gives people the green light to cut you off at roundabouts, intersections, etc knowing that the other (innocent) party has to fork out a bit of money as well.

It only matters when you don't have comprehensive insurance. If you have that you just hand over your excess and forget about percentages of blame. Back when I had the accident referred to above I only had 3rd party extended insurance, so the 100% against me verdict really hurt!! If it had have been say 70/30 as it should have been I would have at least had some money to fix my car and not had to pay for it all out of my own pocket. :mad:

[Jag530G]

Gday all,

The problem im having is that he is claiming that we crashed on a corner, therefore both parties are at fault. This has been tossing around for 2 months going back and forth the best result RACV (me) have been able to get is 70/30 split, meaning they pay 70% of my repairs and i pay 30% of his WTF is this i can believe the shit they come up with :flipoff::flipoff::flipoff:



Hi Camo, did you have any witnesses to the accident? If so then get the police involved on a careless driving charge. If this happens then the other driver will be soley at fault and their insurance company will have to pay.

I had an accident in 1995 in Footscray where I was waiting (already in the intersection) to turn right at an intersection and when the lights went Red I went around and got cleaned up by a Laser that entered the intersection when the lights were Red. I had 3 witness details but they had gone by the time the Maidstone Police attended.

As I only had 3rd Party/Fire/Theft on my HZ, I called the other driver's insurance company and they said they were only partly at fault as I was turning right. Surprise, surprise, the split they offered basically meant I got nothing. Mind you they didn't have the courage to chase me for 100% if they believed I really was at fault.

I left it at that as I didn't have the money to run a civil case, months went by and I got a call from the Maidstone police saying they were taking the other driver to court for running a red light and the witnesses I had gathered would testify. We went to court and he was found guilty, the police officer told me to contact his insurance company and after they received proof of the court's finding they paid up my damages.

The lesson from this is to have witnesses, If I didn't have any his insurance company and the police would have gone me for failing to give way to oncoming traffic.

A other lesson from this and it's a tough one cost wise (I was a poor uni student when the above happened), have fully comp insurance.

Good luck,

Cheers, Matthew

[SSBarney]

I know people have third party only insurance due to costs and still feeling atleast you are covered for what u do and thinking wrongly if some one else is at fault they will pay.

In a time when third party was all i could afford, i had two accidents that were not my fault. I had third party insurance in both cases.

situation 1, My courier van was Tboned by an 18 yr old. He admitted fault and said dont worry i have 3rd party insurance. I had to hire a van to continue working. He was insured with RACV. well at first he took months to pay his excess so RACV would not act until he paid his excess. The only way he ended up paying his excess was by some persuasion :).
Then RACV were jerks, they admitted he was totally at fault and that they would pay. They took 5 months and it required me to engage a solicitor. When they got the solicitors demand they paid within 7 days.

situation 2, I pulled into a oneway service road to see a landcruiser ute facing me and turning right. He was doing works on the gutters and claimed he was allowed to due to him doing roadworks. However all signs were packed up and in the back of his ute. He later found a heap of work mates to lie and say they were all there and the signs were there. It was total BS.
In the end i fixed the car by getting second hand parts for under $2,000.

In both those situations if i had full comp insurance i would of just hand balled it to teh insurance co and never had to deal ith the w*nkers again. leave all the agruing to the insurance co's

I have heard it is very common for courts to award the sort of split you are talking about. Then on top of that you have to pay legals.

[hsv-maloo-R8]

As it was hit on your R/H side,, you better take what you can and settle,,dont go to court,, you will end up with sweet f-all..

[Skooby]

Why is being hit on the right hand side got anything to do with him accepting what he can and thats it?

Just because he has been hit on the right does not mean he is at fault.

Did police investigate the collision? Did you report it to them? If you were in NSW I could give you some advice, but unsure about VIC.

It's like the old roundabout BS that people think always give way to your right in a roundabout, or give way to the person in the roundabout. It's not all correct, you must give way to the person who entered the roundabout first with safety (like someone flying through to beat the other car and crashing etc).

I would fight it, but remember, insurance companies have lots of $$ and your fighting for a little bit of $$. You have to weigh up if it's worth it.

[Grangey]

Blame is always attributed to both parties. You may have been in the right, but the insurance company will attribute at least 10% blame for not taking actions to avoid the crash. ( even if you didn't see it coming ).:bawl:.About the only way to get 100% pay out from another insurance comp, is if you are hit from behind, or if your car is parked and you are not in it at the time..

[heavychevy]

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o274/gcovo/Previous%20Vehicles/003eh3circa1973.jpg


Mate, the bonnet looks like it took a hit with a RPG!
lol.. fins on the wipers :).... memories

[planetdavo]

You could take it to VCAT, which is pretty cheap, but it's a pain in the @rse (with evidence gathering, taking time off work etc),but their decision is a legally binding decision, so you could still lose out of it.
I had to take a b@stard furniture company there, and won, but I was r00ted around by the furniture shop for months, and still had to take some "support" with me to get my refund cheque VCAT awarded anyway!

[255-LS1]

thanks for all the replys

jag530G - the incident occured in the carpark at my uni so no i did not get the cops involved, is it too late to reprot it to them???? i have one witness but they are claiming that he doesn't count because i "know" him cos i go to uni with him, but i only know the bloke on face value.

Basically the accident occured cos this prick was flying around the carpark, came around the corner lost control and skidding into my lane and hit me, how the **** was i ment to avoit that..... mount the kirb and drive throu trees????

skooby - I would fight it, but remember, insurance companies have lots of $$ and your fighting for a little bit of $$. You have to weigh up if it's worth it.

this is what im worried about mate, that i will get ****ed over and end up with nothing.

any more advice welcomed

cheers camo

[TheRealMadMax]

Hey mate - this situation is a pain. But there is hope.

I know a bit about this, as I have been on both sides (Insurer and Claimant). Hopefully, I can provide you with some info that will help.

The reason they 'apportion' liability (e.g. 70/30, 80/20, etc.) is that in the past, courts have made decisions (precedents) that the insurer believes (or claims to believe) fits the description of your incident. As the insurers have 1000's of claims and dickhead claims officers, etc., they don't actually research each incident and find a precedent, therefore, they usually have an internal document that outlines a 'guide' to negotiating an apportioned liability outcome.

"Police find person A to be at fault, therefore insurer will pay 100%" - this is incorrect. The police operate under the traffic regulations, the insurers are operating on a civil level, they are 2 different things and can have 2 different outcomes.

Ok, what to do...

1st Ask AAMI for the case they are basing their precedent for apportioning liability. They will not have a clue. State "if you are unable to substantiate the reduction in my claim against your client, full reimbursement for damages in the amount of $$$ is required. Please provide payment within 14 days to avoid further action against your client".

You see, your beef is with the person that hit you, not AAMI. If AAMI don't satisfy your claim appropriately, you can take action against the driver that hit you. A small claim is usually a cheap exercise - ring your local magistrates court and ask how much. Nothing will put the wind up AAMI more than you issuing a 'claim and statement of claim' on their client, after all, their client pays them to manage these issues. A small claim can only be defended by the person that hit you, e.g. AAMI can't enter the court room.

If you provide more details regarding the accident, I may be able to provide you with some more help. Do a drawing on MSPaint, or scan one in and post it up.

Other than the above, tell AAMI that you wish for the matter to proceed to their IDR (internal dispute resolution), and then to the FOS (Finance Ombudsman Service). The IDR is run by AAMI and if they still think they are being fair, it will go to the FOS, who are independent of AAMI and will make a fair decision. If the FOS makes a decision in your favor, AAMI have to pay (no choice). If the FOS makes a decision in AAMI favor, you can still go to court.

Good luck mate - hope this helps.

[Skooby]

I know from a police/legal side that when they do a report, they give a ticket to the driver at fault and IN NO WAY deem the innocent party to be at fault.

If someone crashes into somewhere on another car, it doesnt matter if you couldn't avoid it because you werent the cause of the collision.

Rets of post deleted.

Post edited as to being posted JUST before me :)

[255-LS1]

TheRealMadMax, thanks million for your input mate, i had an sniff of thats what i had to do but wasn't sure what steps to take. So do i cancel my claim with RACV and deal directly with AAMI myself, to be fair RACV arn't doing a whole lot atm prob due to my 3rd party policy. I have a document that outlines everything mate, including pics maps etc, would it be best for me to email it to you or just scan it and post up the important parts here?? ill post some more info and pics tommorow.

Thanks again for your help mate.

Cheers

Camo

[TheRealMadMax]

TheRealMadMax, thanks million for your input mate, i had an sniff of thats what i had to do but wasn't sure what steps to take. So do i cancel my claim with RACV and deal directly with AAMI myself, to be fair RACV arn't doing a whole lot atm prob due to my 3rd party policy. I have a document that outlines everything mate, including pics maps etc, would it be best for me to email it to you or just scan it and post up the important parts here?? ill post some more info and pics tommorow.

Thanks again for your help mate.

Cheers

Camo

No Problem Camo,

About RACV - The only reason you should need them is if you are being held at fault. Unfortunately, they won't push too much with your claim, as you don't have comprehensive cover.

I can't tell you what to do, only provide you with some info. If you post the pics and details, I and other forum members can comment.

[255-LS1]

Thanks to moderators for cleaning up thread and apologies to anyone who was offended by my flaming, this is a sensitive subject for me atm and am genuinely upset about it cos im being hard done by the insurance company so i just vented. Sorry again

ok so this is my series of events and the type of thing i sent to both RACV and AAMI, have a read a see what you think from face value

The incident occurred on September XX, 2008 at approximately 11.20 am, at RMIT Bundoora car park. The incident involved XXXXXXXX (Holden Barina, Red, reg - XXXXXX) who, whilst travelling at excessive speed around a corner within the car park, lost control of his vehicle and collided with my car (Holden Utility, Red, reg – XXXXX). After the incident, both parties exchanged details. I have received 2 quotations for repairs to my vehicle and sent copies of the quotations to red barina. He passed them onto his insurance company (AAMI) and provided me a claim number.

I contacted AAMI with the claim number at which time they informed me of their interpretation of the incident. AAMI have stated that the incident occurred on a turn (head on) and therefore it is a 50/50 fault and each party is equally at fault. This means that I will have to pay for the repairs on my vehicle which will be in excess of $3000 from quotes

My version of events is as follows: (i had maps showing where i camr form but couldn't upload them cos they were hand drawn)

I, (Holden Utility, Red, reg – XXXXX) was entering the RMIT car park from Plenty Rd. As I entered the main car park, I rounded a left hand turn, travelling along a straight section (refer View 1) heading in northerly direction. As I reached approximately 2/3rd away along the straight section (outside the SAE building) I observed a red Holden Barina (XXXXXX) travelling from the right, heading in a westerly direction (refer view 2). The red Barina (XXXXXXX) appeared to be travelling at excessive speed. As the red Barina (XXXXXX) entered the corner it skidded, crossed the road centre line and collided with my car on the right hand front. I attempted to avoid the collision but was unable due to the curb on the left hand side. Note the positions of the two vehicles after the collision on the photos.

After the collision, I stopped with my car still on the straight section approximately one car length before the corner. XXXXXX barina had rounded the corner, entered my lane and had collided with my car. If, as suggested by AAMI Insurance, I was actually rounding the right hand corner at the time of the collision, I believe that there would have been significantly more damage to the front of my vehicle. The damage which is mainly on the side demonstrates that I was travelling straight and was impacted by a car entering from the front and side (refer photos of damage).

A witness, no name provide me with his details and can confirm the position of both vehicles after the collision. He has completed a witness statement, which will be sent to AAMI Insurance from RACV Insurance.

I believe that I was in no way in the wrong and did nothing to contribute to the accident.

PIC 1 - Collision site
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t96/s3080722/collision.jpg

PIC 2 - Collsion site
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t96/s3080722/collision1.jpg

PIC 3 - Damage to my car
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t96/s3080722/DSC00170.jpg

PIC 4 - Damage to my car
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t96/s3080722/DSC00173.jpg

PIC 5 - Damage to my car
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t96/s3080722/DSC00175.jpg

Cheers all

Camo

[TheRealMadMax]

I see.

Just looking at your damage, it's clear you didn't hit anything, rather something hit you.

Another thing you might want to do now is ask AAMI for a copy of their clients accident description and diagram. If they withhold it, ask RACV if they have received a copy. If not, write a letter to the driver and ask them to send it to you. You are entitled to this, as it forms their version of events and will probably be the basis for the 70/30. Actually, 70/30 is not often used. The normal apportionment are 50/50, 80/20 and 90/10.

I reckon they are simply trying to reduce their payout. Keep up the pressure, keep asking for more information and send them a demand for the $$$. Make sure the demand states the following:

You are holding them 100% liable for costs associated with the repair of your vehicle, resulting from the incident occurring on xx date, with their client xxname, rego xxx. Please forward payment in the sum of $xxxx, within 14 days of receipt of this letter. A detailed quote for repair of damages is attached.

Be as professional as you can. Get one of your Law student uni buddies to proof read it if you can, otherwise, mum/dad, etc. A professional letter shows you mean business.

Good luck Camo, let us know how you go.

[michaels1v8]

Were there any skid marks from the barina rounding the corner?

If so maybe a photo of those too:)

[255-LS1]

MadMax, thanks for that mate, will do what you have said tommorow and will post back my results. Initially they tried to appoint 50/50 but then changed their tune to 70/30 after i told them where to stick that. So in your professional opinion, anyone (who is not involved in anyway i.e judge) who knows whats going on with regards to accidents etc is going to look at my above posted items and say yep they other person hit him he did nothing wrong??

Dad is pretty good with his words so he is helping me out with that side of things to make it sound as if i know what i am on about. And yes you are on the money they are just trying to reduce the payout for them. I also rekon that they are doing this cos im 3rd party insured which means ive got minimal support from RACV so im pretty much on my own.

Question if AAMI dont give me their series of events, and then i ask the bloke who hit me for his series of events, whats to stop him from asking AAMI whats on their claim and then reporting that to me??

If they still deny payment to me for full damages (quote was 3.5k to fix) Would my first step be to contact AAMI claims dispute department or just take the other bloke to small claims tribunal??

mich - nah mate no skid marks that i could see

cheers

camo

[TheRealMadMax]

It's always hard to say without seeing both version's of events, as the other driver may contradict your version. However, it certainly appears that the damage to your car was caused by another vehicle colliding with the FR quarter panel. It would be very difficult for you to cause that damage.

I have a feeling that AAMI will give you their drivers version, as I they are using this to determine the 70/30. Normally, if you had Comp cover your insurer would be asking AAMI for this info, and they would have to supply it, otherwise why would you accept 70/30. Keep asking/demanding. If you ask their driver, the driver will probably call AAMI before sending it to you, AAMI will then know you are not giving up. Hopefully this will trigger them to 'just settle the claim'.

Yes, I would go through AAMI disputes, then the external mob (FOS) before small claims. If you don't, the magistrate in small claims will ask why not, it could go against you. All you need to do is ring AAMI (they should have allocated a claims officer to your claim (well the other drivers claim), simply tell them you are not happy and wish for the claim to be heard by their IDR (Internal Dispute Resolution). If they say 'No', or resist, tell them you want the matter heard by the FOS (Finance Ombudsman Service). You may need to contact the FOS at that point. (could be a small cost to you, not sure).

[255-LS1]

oh cool thanks fro that Madmax, ill get onto it ASAP and yes you are right that i do have the right to see their version of events as i am entitled to it if i am "going to accept" 30% liability for the accident.

Thanks again mate will keep you posted

Camo

[255-LS1]

well well well look whos finally agreed to play ball.

Story is, i cancelled my claim with RACV yesterday, rand AAMI said id be doing the dealing now by myself. They said that they weren't accepting full liabilty still. I said well have you seen the damage to my vehicle?? in the photos and series of events i faxed to you. They said the images are inconclusive (dodgy fax maybe who knows). so emailed them a more detail version of what i have posted above, with pics. Sent this last night, go a phone call 9.30 this morning "Hi Cam just informing you that AAMI are accepting full liabilty for the accident"....... somone care to comment.

I have to possible reasons as to why this has dragged out for so long.

1) they genuinly couldn't see the damage in the faxed images so still thought they had a case.
2) RACV weren't pulling their weight due to my 3rd party cover, if i got 100% payout they would get nothing and would've wasted costly time on my claim which gives them nothing at the end of the day.

regardless i am still happy with the outcome. AAMI inspection next wednesday.

Any pointers for the inspection. I have two quotes both over 3K. Now redbook values my car at about 2k. whats going to happen here, is the asecory going to realise that my car is worth way more than that. Or is he going to write it off due to the damages being more than the value of the car?? If this happens, will they pay me out for an agreed value and do i get to keep my car?

Cheers

Camo

[Wonky]

Great news! :goodjob: I'm not sure what happens but assume that given the damage is more than market value on the car they will probably only give you market value. You may then have the option of buying it back for salvage value i.e. what a wrecker would give them for it.

[Devil CV8]

Great news! :goodjob: I'm not sure what happens but assume that given the damage is more than market value on the car they will probably only give you market value. You may then have the option of buying it back for salvage value i.e. what a wrecker would give them for it.

As Camo is not a client of AAMI all they can do is pay him out. They have no right to take his car even if they deem it a write off. They may bluff him and say they will pay him market value minus salvage value, but he has every right to insist on full payment without any deduction of salvage value. In that case the best thing to do is take the $$ and fix it himself.

[255-LS1]

ok thanks for that devilCV8, they said that they will pay direct to the repairer. Is there anyway that i can just get cash payment out of them so i can fix it myself??

Cheers

[Wonky]

As Camo is not a client of AAMI all they can do is pay him out. They have no right to take his car even if they deem it a write off. They may bluff him and say they will pay him market value minus salvage value, but he has every right to insist on full payment without any deduction of salvage value. In that case the best thing to do is take the $$ and fix it himself.

Even better! :)

[Devil CV8]

ok thanks for that devilCV8, they said that they will pay direct to the repairer. Is there anyway that i can just get cash payment out of them so i can fix it myself??

Cheers
As they are going to pay for it to be fixed then there isn't much else you can do.

[TheRealMadMax]

ok thanks for that devilCV8, they said that they will pay direct to the repairer. Is there anyway that i can just get cash payment out of them so i can fix it myself??

Cheers

Yes - Just tell them that you want to be cash settled. They can't dictate to you where you get your car fixed.

If they write it off (total loss), they will send you a cheque/eft the payment. This will be for the market value of your vehicle. This is where you will need to battle a bit more. They will try and skimp where possible, so be prepared for the low end of the market value. If this happens, do your research, find similar vehicles for sale, with similar kays and options, keep this as evidence of the current market value.

Looks to be a write off situation, however, they may find a repairer who is willing to fix it cheap. If that is the case, I wouldn't accept it. Ask them to satisfy your demands for the cheaper of your 2 quotes (assuming they are from reputable 'normal' smash repairers).

The bottom line here is, they need to put you in the same position you were in prior to the accident, e.g. appropriate compensation.

[planetdavo]

Remember all that insurance only requires the repair to match the condition of the pre-accident vehicle. On a 25 year old car, that usually means second hand parts, less than show car respray quality etc, so a "cheaper" repair can still end up much better than before the accident.
It may depend on the state, but my girlfriends car was recently written off when someone pulled out of a side street and clipped the rear quarter. The repair exceeded the car's value, so it was "total lossed". She could have bought it back, but they explained to her that a car total lossed then requires a roadworthy check again before it can be re-registered once repaired, adding further expence, as most older cars are rarely ever fully roadworthy.

[255-LS1]

cheers for that guys

an update:

i had my inspection today, what i friggin waste of time, sat there for 20min not being served, had to wait for them to sort quotes etc, then some bloke inspected my car, he had no idea, is it WB, HZ bla bla is it auto. He then sused it out and arrogantly said "you know its going to be a write off...."

I replied accordingly "why is that?" he said "cos repairs exceed market value" whats market value i asked "2300" he replyed. I felt like saying get f'ed but kept my cool. I said thats crap mate, i pulled out adds of similar utes of condition and mods, 7000 - 12000 was the going rate, he did want to hear about it much. I said my car is worth way more than 2300. he (again arrogantly) said "what you've put a stereo in it..." i nearly laughed, is this a joke i thought.... this blokes having a laugh for sure. He then proceeded to tell me my options that were id get paid out market value less the salvage value (which is waht devilCV8 predicted they would try and skimp me). I didn't agree to anything and just left in a huff he said he'd call me when he'd figured out what the salvage value was.. bloody hell do these ppl know anything, if someone went in there with an immac show car (albeit 1970s vintage) are they going to give them 2k for it, i surely hope not.

Any tips on what my next plan of attack should be. If they write the car off and i keep it, does my rego get cancelled?

Cheers

Camo

[Devil CV8]

Basically you need to stick to your guns. They have no right to reduce their payout figure to you by the salvage figure.
For example:

Repair Quote is $3500
Market value offer is $2300
result is they pay you $2300

If you can get them to agree that market value is higher then you may get more, although I doubt that.

As to if they have the right to notify RTA that your car is a repairable write off, not sure. never been in that situation. But going on the fact they have said the market value is $2300, that is what they need to pay you, not a repairer. Damage has been quoted, they accept the quote and decide that market value is less, then that is what they pay. If they baulk at paying, inform them that you intend to follow it up with the appropriate department. ie insuanse ombudsman.

[255-LS1]

nice thanks devil will give him a serve tommorow

Cheers
camo