# insurance claim - what level is a economic write off



## fago76 (11 Jun 2007)

Our car is 02 reg, 9000 in value, was damaged in a minor collision with a Ford Transit. I say minor in that there were no personal injuries - it was a 5mph crash. 
My wife was at fault but the transit driver isn't going to claim since the damage to his van was solely the corner of his bumper.

I had an initial assesment done of the damage today, and am waiting for the insurance company assesor to confirm the repairs.

The repairs to the our car include a new side (front/rear wings, 2 doors) and front suspension components/steering rack.

In summary I think the estimate is going to be 7500 or so incl vat. Obviously with suspension work the car will be less valuable as it will have been damaged and repaired. My question is at what point will the insurance company say its damaged beyond economic repair. Secondly if they wish to repair it based on a 7.5K estimate am I entitled to ask that the car be scrapped, given the depreciation in value and I take the cash and scrappage value.

Any similar experiences appreciated.

Thanks


----------



## RS2K (12 Jun 2007)

Repairs of 40-50% of pre crash value will mean a write off afaik. It's hard to understand how a 5mph impact could cause so much damage.


----------



## Guest120 (12 Jun 2007)

RS2K said:


> Repairs of 40-50% of pre crash value will mean a write off afaik. It's hard to understand how a 5mph impact could cause so much damage.



I'm also scratching my head to work out what 2002 car worth 9,000 euro would crumble so much under a 5mph impact.


----------



## fago76 (12 Jun 2007)

Thanks for the responses. 

I had a hard time myself trying to understand it when I saw the car. Basically she was turning in a town square so it was literally just taking off speed.
I think the problem is the brakes weren't applied which meant she pulled all the way along the van

As the car pulled out it caught the front bumper which pushed back the wheel a fraction, and then continued to pull it along the side of a car. The front of a Ford Transit seems to be pretty unforgiving.

Since the suspension arm and steering rack need to be replaced its adding alot to the cost. Impact bars in doors mean they can't be beaten out.

Based on a 40-50% figure the car won't be repaired. I would have thought a 60-70% figure would have been more realistic.


----------



## Guest120 (12 Jun 2007)

Sounds nasty enough.

Out of interest was make and model of car was she driving?


----------



## ACA (12 Jun 2007)

As the accident was caused by your wife, you're not entitled to depreciation, only the cost of the repair or the pre-accident value which ever is cheaper. Your insurance company will get an independent assr to look at your vehicle and either negotiate the repair cost with the garage or seek salvage bids if the vehicle is beyond economic repair. As stated by other posters, does seem a lot of damage for such a low speed accident - if it crumpled so badly, maybe you're better off without this car.


----------



## fago76 (18 Jun 2007)

Well,

It seems the 40-50% percent figures are not always applied.

Just got the initial response from the insurance company. They approved the repairs for 6.8K which is 75% of the pre-accident value of the car.

I pointed out that I would be left with a car post repair which is worth less than the repair cost. This is assuming 2.5K write down for declaring that it has had these repairs when selling it on. Talking to the dealer I purchased it from they basically said they wouldn't touch a car like that on trade in, as its unsaleable as far as they are concerned.

So it looks like a battle with the insurance company so see if any compromise is available.


----------



## ACA (18 Jun 2007)

> I pointed out that I would be left with a car post repair which is worth less than the repair cost.


Unfortunately it isn't your insurance companies problem. Your insured vehicle has been damaged by you - thay have upheld their part of the contract by giving you the funds to repair it. They are not obliged to offer depreciation when you are claiming thru your own policy.

Is the chq for the repairs coming direct to you? If so, you could sell the remains for scrap and use the chq to invest in a new vehicle.


----------



## fago76 (18 Jun 2007)

Insurers came back after an hour and put me in touch with the assessor, and he accepted my arguments made sense.

I didn't look for an huge valuation and he was fair enough to agree that it would be categorised beyond economic repair 'D', and between the repair cost and salvage value it comes to the original pre-accident value of the car.

Panel beater who currently has the car is going to salvage it. Time is the biggest cost and he can source 2nd hand parts and on his own time put it back on the road, sell it cheaply and still make a profit.

Two lessons: 
- be realistic in your valuation. Taking my car on cbg the valuations varied from 9 to 13K. Since I only paid 11.5 I was happy to take the lower - which is the revenue VRT site value.
- unreliable cars are more valuable for salvage. Ours was a Corolla, and the engine is almost problem free, so its salvage value is low (as the engine can't be sold on quickly).


----------



## Satanta (18 Jun 2007)

Bluetonic said:


> I'm also scratching my head to work out what 2002 car worth 9,000 euro would crumble so much under a 5mph impact.


It is worth noting that cars are designed to "crumble", or more technically crumple, like this on impact. It absorbs the energy of an impact into the body of the car rather than the body of the driver/passenger. In saying that, I'd never have expected such damage from a 5mph impact.


> "The only other general downside to crumple zones is that repair costs are higher in "fender bender" accidents."


----------

