insurance claim advice

HamZilla · 8 Jan 2010 at 10:25

I slid into a parked car on my road in December. Two quotes have both estimated from £1000-£1300 for the damage to the other person's car so I will have to let my insurance handle it.
The damage to mine was broken headlight and a scratched and dislodged bumper. My MOT had expired a few weeks before so I got it done shortly after the incident and they replaced the headlight as this was the only failure on it.

I haven't told my insurance yet as I was hoping to sort it myself but as above its too much. I will let them know about it now but if I ask to have the cost of the headlight reimbursed by them and have the bumper repaired, will it count as a claim or does it make no difference as the other person will making a claim against me anyway?

Muncher · 8 Jan 2010 at 10:28

It will form part of the same claim.

HamZilla · 8 Jan 2010 at 10:37

So I may as well get my costs reimbursed and my car repaired too as I will have to pay excess anyway. The headlight replacement cost £265+vat incl labour costs.

merlin · 8 Jan 2010 at 10:42

You can claim for the headlight and the bumper and the fact you have already done the headlight isn't an issue so long as you have the receipt, it's classed as emergency repairs which you can do without having to wait for insurers inspection.

redeye_uk · 8 Jan 2010 at 10:59

HamZilla said:
My MOT had expired a few weeks before so I got it done shortly after the incident

Surely that will invalidate the insurance?

merlin · 8 Jan 2010 at 11:01

redeye_uk said:
Surely that will invalidate the insurance?

Nope.

redeye_uk · 8 Jan 2010 at 11:02

please explain. I am genuinely curious

IAmATeaf · 8 Jan 2010 at 11:34

So he had the accident when the car didn't have a valid MOT? Wouldn't that invalidate the insurance or at least cause some problems?

merlin · 8 Jan 2010 at 11:39

redeye_uk said:
please explain. I am genuinely curious

Only Mickey Mouse insurers warranty that cover is subject to an existing MOT certificate, 99.9% will just say that the vehicle has to be road-worthy, and of course a vehicle can be perfectly road-worthy without an MOT.

Also, as the vehicle isn't a write-off - they won't be asking for sight of the MOT cert anyway.

DampCat · 8 Jan 2010 at 11:42

Your insurer will still pay out for the 3rd party damage but not having re-MOT'd your car after the 12 month period can cause issues. At the very least they may refuse to cover the costs of your own damage. It CAN lead to invalidation if they're particularly picky.

Confirmed by a private car underwriter sitting 5 feet away from me.

redeye_uk · 8 Jan 2010 at 11:42

My insurer (direct line) asked to see a valid MoT certificate when i crashed my car. are they a 'Mickey Mouse' insurer?

HamZilla · 8 Jan 2010 at 11:44

I didn't get a reminder through the post about my MOT expiring, I don't know if other people do? I was aware in the back of my mind, it was due soon but I didn't realise it had already expired until I checked my docs after the incident.

LizardKing · 8 Jan 2010 at 11:48

HamZilla said:
I didn't get a reminder through the post about my MOT expiring, I don't know if other people do? I was aware in the back of my mind, it was due soon but I didn't realise it had already expired until I checked my docs after the incident.

Nope, no reminder, unfortunately ignorance is no excuse either.
You may be lucky and the insurance company will overlook it but i doubt that.

I think the floodgates are about to open on this thread.

Muncher · 8 Jan 2010 at 11:58

The MOT has no bearing on anything in this claim.

merlin · 8 Jan 2010 at 12:01

DampCat said:
Your insurer will still pay out for the 3rd party damage but not having re-MOT'd your car after the 12 month period can cause issues. At the very least they may refuse to cover the costs of your own damage. It CAN lead to invalidation if they're particularly picky.

Confirmed by a private car underwriter sitting 5 feet away from me.

It depends entirely on the wording in the policy - if it's there - they can use it (within reason), if the wording isn't then quite simply they've got no hope in hell.

As confirmed by me.

merlin · 8 Jan 2010 at 12:05

redeye_uk said:
My insurer (direct line) asked to see a valid MoT certificate when i crashed my car. are they a 'Mickey Mouse' insurer?

Some insurers can ask for the MOT if you have claimed for a restricted mileage discount, simply to check the mileage discount was warranted. The other reason for asking for the MOT is on a write off.

However, if they don't have the "MOT or no indemnity" wording in their policy - it doesn't matter a jot as they've not got a leg to stand on.

I must had pushed through at least 50 claims over the years where the MOT had expired and I have NEVER had cover refused.

Iirc Highway (now LV=) might be one of the insurers with the MOT requirement - and yes they are totally Mickey Mouse.

LizardKing · 8 Jan 2010 at 12:08

Makes sense i suppose

The MOT only proves the car was roadworthy at the time of the test.

merlin · 8 Jan 2010 at 12:13

LizardKing said:
The MOT only proves the car was roadworthy at the time of the test.

Quite, and this is why it's a ridiculous inclusion.

It's only necessary to say the vehicle should be roadworthy.

Kenai · 8 Jan 2010 at 12:17

merlin said:
Quite, and this is why it's a ridiculous inclusion.

It's only necessary to say the vehicle should be roadworthy.

How is this assessed out of interest? Especially in cases where the car may have become so damaged so as to possibly mask potentially unroadworthy issues with it...

merlin · 8 Jan 2010 at 12:25

Kenai said:
How is this assessed out of interest? Especially in cases where the car may have become so damaged so as to possibly mask potentially unroadworthy issues with it...

Motor engineers inspection.

Even when totally mangled the engineer will be able to pick out brake discs, tyre tread depth etc etc.