Ofentse said:
WIDEOPN-X3 said:
Apologies for the long post but it may prove useful to someone out there.
Something to remember with insurance is this. The basic premise is that insurance is there to put you back in the position you were in before the loss. Nothing more. Nothing less.
So, this brings to the fore the argument I have had on numerous occasions with Brokers. Take for example my X3. I have to insure it for supposed RETAIL value which is currently R428k because that is the "book value" (that book to me is utter shyte!!)
If i look on the interwebs for identical spec X3's I cannot locate any 2013 models with similar mileage (140k kms) but there are a few with the same spec. And the asking prices are in the mid to late R300k range.
So where does M&M get their values?? We are told that it is an average of the sale prices achieved for the vehicle in the previous 2 months (I am open to correction here). Well if that were true, the prices would be higher on Car/co.za etc etc.
So that's the one side of the coin. The flip side is the example of the Citigolf earlier in this thread. You have 2 options with car insurance. Option 1, a valued policy where with supporting documents, you say I want to insure the vehicle for a sum of money. I did this with the 540i. It was insured for R100k even though book value was R68k. In the event of a total loss / theft, I would be paid R100k. Period.
Option 2 is that you insure the car for the book value that the Insurer tells you to insure it for. That is going to be as per "the book". So you have the situation develop where the car is totalled like the Citi was.
Your claim turns on what the insured value was but here's the thing. You say you paid R65k and they offered R28k 6 months later. If you overpaid for the car, well then the valued policy route would have been best. If however, Outsurance told you that's what you had to insure it for then lowballed you you have further options. Ombudsman is one but of course is lengthy.
The other option which folks miss is directly linked to my first sentence in this post. (insurance is there to put you back in the position you were in before the loss.....). So , when faced with this scenario you are quite entitled to say to your insurer that you don't want to be paid out, you want your car replaced like for like. (ie put back in the position you were in before the loss.)
The insurer can then go and source a similar vehicle and deliver it to you. When this is put to insurers, the game changes very quickly.
We have just concluded this exact fight with a large motor insurer on behalf of my colleague in respect of a mint condition Corolla RXi. These cars are selling for up to R 100k. The car was insured as per book value for R58k. The car was involved in an accident and the insurer wanted to write off and pay my colleague out R45k. (a myriad of reasons were given including his mileage being high etc etc).
We simply said, please replace the car like for like. The matter settled after 3 weeks of jousting with the insurer settling at insured value. My colleague then bought the scrap back for R35k and is repairing it for R23k using Toyota parts. (the cheapest quote was for R41k).
Insurance is a business like any other and they will always seek to maximise the profits. But not to my detriment is my attitude.
You are 100% correct WIDEOPN-X3, the problem with most of us is that we don't really make it our mission to acquaint ourselves with how these vultures operate. The options you are mentioning above only became apparent when it was too late. Outsurance did in indeed hop around the fact that the citi was only covered for book value.
Unfortunately, most people are of the opinion that when they take out what is usually referred to as comprehensive cover then they are fully covered an will not suffer an immense loss should sh*t hit the fan down the road. But i have come to realise that this is not the case, and learned that the hard way.
Yes in my policy Outsurance mentioned 'replacement of the car' as one of the options available to me, but sadly did not want to entertain this option when my car was written off...
Offentse just for clarification, the sentence bolded above. Did Outsurance not want to entertain this or you?
Outsurance do not have a choice if you insist that you do not want settlement in the form of cash. You are not obliged to accept the cash and indeed are well within your rights as the consumer (and the insured) to insist that the vehicle is replaced like for like.
You see what happens is that when the insurer realises that they cannot replace the car for what they are tendering as settlement they either up the offer or indeed source a car.
In this regard, if a replacement car is tendered as settlement, it is incumbent on you to ensure that the vehicle they source is indeed up to scratch. That's of course where a person like Coisman is invaluable in sourcing the background on a car (sidebar Coisman, business op :rollsmile
The message I am trying to convey in all of this is that all to often we are bullied into doing what the insurer wants in flagrant disregard of consumer rights.
