# Can you keep the money after a car accident?



## Joe Nonety (14 May 2009)

If someone has been in a accident where the car is fine except for a few dents and has been quoted a certain amount by the panel beaters to fix the dents, can the person not bother getting the car fixed and keep that money for the quoted value?


----------



## JJ343 (14 May 2009)

I'm not sure but I don't think so. I think they will pay the person who is fixing your car directly but I am not in insurance so don't quote me on that, no pun intended.

good luck


----------



## polo1 (14 May 2009)

This happened to me and I didnt bother getting the repairs done and just banked the cheque. That was about 8 years ago so not sure if things have changed since.


----------



## Caveat (14 May 2009)

polo1 said:


> This happened to me and I didnt bother getting the repairs done and just banked the cheque. That was about 8 years ago so not sure if things have changed since.


 
Things have now changed AFAIK. I think what JJ343 says is becoming the norm now.

Never mind the fact that keeping the money and not carrying out repairs would constitute fraud of course.


----------



## JJ343 (14 May 2009)

I think that it may depend on the insurer. I had a case about year ago where I was rear ended and the damage came to less than a 1000 Euro and the other person's insurer paid the money directly to my mechanic. 

Why not just call them and tell them you're going to do the work yourself. They may give you a cheque but they'll take off the VAT which for labour is around 13% (open to correction on that). 

JJ


----------



## Mpsox (14 May 2009)

In my own case, where I was not at fault, his insurers paid the garage directly


----------



## blueshoes (14 May 2009)

a friend of mine was rear ended last week, not much damage done to her car but she got a quote and was told about 700 euro to repair. She told the fella and he agreed to give her the money they didnt go through insurance companies. His van was alot worse than her car!!


----------



## Smashbox (14 May 2009)

I think it would certainly be unethical. Are we talking about the insurance paying you the money, or the other party who caused damage?

Someone is paying you to fix your car, after they damaged it, not keep their money.


----------



## Joe Nonety (14 May 2009)

I don't see why it's unethical or considered fraud. If €X was the amount of damage done to the car, surely someone should have the choice to use that money whichever way they feel fit.
The person who caused the crash should be happy with that outcome as well seing that the job in the panel beaters was going to take 2 weeks so they would've had to pay for 2 weeks car hire as well otherwise.


----------



## Smashbox (14 May 2009)

Joe Nonety said:


> I don't see why it's unethical or considered fraud. If €X was the amount of damage done to the car, surely someone should have the choice to use that money whichever way they feel fit.


 
The money is supposed to go towards getting the damage fixed, not pocketed for the persons own use.


----------



## tiger (14 May 2009)

Smashbox said:


> The money is supposed to go towards getting the damage fixed, not pocketed for the persons own use.


Does the money not also reflect the reduction in value of the asset (i.e. the car), and it is up to the person to decide whether to restore the asset or not?


----------



## levelpar (14 May 2009)

Yes, you can keep the money. The sum paid is to restore the car to its pre-accident condition. If the car owner is prepared to leave his car in a less valuable state ,then that is his choice.


----------



## ANORAKPHOBIA (14 May 2009)

It is none of the other persons business what you do with the money. If you choose not to repair the damage this would eventually be reflected in the trade in price or the resale value when you are disposing of the car. There is no question of fraud and I would contend that it is not unethical either. 
If you cause an accident and are successfully sued for personal injury damages would you expect to be able to dictate when and how the injured party spends the award ?


----------



## Caveat (14 May 2009)

I see the point - however I would have thought that somewhere in your contract with your insurer there is an understanding that they are only paying out because you have claimed to need to do the work and that in claiming, you have undertaken to do the work - don't you generally sign stating that "all the above is true..." or words to that affect.  Part of which maybe covers this - no?  

Or maybe I'm completely wrong of course.


----------



## Smashbox (14 May 2009)

Caveat said:


> I see the point - however I would have thought that somewhere in your contract with your insurer there is an understanding that they are only paying out because you have claimed to need to do the work and that in claiming, you have undertaken to do the work - don't you generally sign stating that "all the above is true..." or words to that affect. Part of which maybe covers this - no?


 
That would have been my thinking. 

Claiming for car damage is different from suing someone for injuries sustained too.


----------



## levelpar (14 May 2009)

> I see the point - however I would have thought that somewhere in your contract with your insurer there is an understanding that they are only paying out because you have claimed to need to do the work and that in claiming, you have undertaken to do the work


 
Your claim would not be against your own insurer but against the other party's insurance


----------



## allthedoyles (14 May 2009)

I crashed , was in the wrong and paid other driver € 1,600 total.

It was based on a quotation from a local garage .I ensured the bank-draft was made payable to this garage .

However , I dont know if the repairs were ever carried out .............and could it be possible that the garage would hand over this money to driver , if he/she requested it ?

ps. There was actually no visible damage to car , it was all 'internal injuries ' ( underneath the boot )


----------



## parry (15 May 2009)

can anybody in the insurance business *clarify* this please


----------



## kfk (15 May 2009)

allthedoyles said:


> I crashed , was in the wrong and paid other driver € 1,600 total.
> 
> It was based on a quotation from a local garage .I ensured the bank-draft was made payable to this garage .
> 
> ...


 
Do you mind me asking how you crashed into another car without causing any visible damage?

I dint see anything unethical about claiming from insurance or other party and keeping the money. 

Can the owner claim any compensation other than garage repairs to a vehicle? Even if the car if fixed to a high standard after a crash, it is still a crashed car.


----------



## allthedoyles (15 May 2009)

kfk said:


> Do you mind me asking how you crashed into another car without causing any visible damage?
> .


 
I know it sounds strange , however , I hit the car from behind with not much force , and I swear, bar one small spot of paint missing , there were no dents or other visible damage to the car.

After a thorough check in the local main dealers , it was discovered that the material underneath the boot was damaged .

The quotation to fix was € 950 labour and €650 parts .

The insurance company checked this out and said there was nothing they could do , to reduce the claim


----------



## ACA (15 May 2009)

I work for an insurer.

The damaged party is entitled to be paid for the damage to their vehicle - if they decide to take that money and go on holiday instead of getting their car fixed, that is their choice.

From an insurance point of view, restitution has been made for the damages and what is done with the money is entirely up to the person who owns the property.

Some insurers say that they only pay the garage - it is your money and if u would rather that it was paid direct to you, tell them so.


----------

