Insurance full settlement figure.
- Thread starter dsb
- Start date
Amazing the 2 faced responses in here, particually from people like Fox, where this £1K payout for £700 damage is ok, and asking for more is fair game where the damage done to my car and me wanting cash rather than a straight repair and being prepared to accept slightly less was fraud, and i was just out for everything i could get, and a thieving tight **** and all sorts of other carp.
Nice to know its all good and equal round here!
Nice to know its all good and equal round here!
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
He has already been offered £1k. They have decided to make him that offer.
You, on the other hand, had already been offered a repair but wanted to get money instead so you could spend it on other things.
It's totally different
Nice to know its all good and equal round here!
Dont worry, it is.
[TW]Fox;17265162 said:
No, he wants more than the £300 extra hes been offered to spend on whatever he likes. I want the money to repair my car at my convenience.
Not totally different, just shows what a crock of **** the "advice" and many opinions around here is!
He's negotiating a cash settlement with an insurer. It's standard proceedure for the insurer to make a low offer first of all
That might be your story now but it wasn't at the time. They are offering to pay in full for the complete repair, at your convenience. You want the money for other things.
Don't take it then.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
What's actually happening then?
The insurer offers him £x cash to settle which he could then use to sort out the damage caused by this accident, but the OP wants £x++ to settle and sort out this damage and damage previously caused by a different accident?
And that's not deception?
If he can get both things fixed for the money that the insurance company thinks will sort out the damage from one accident - fair play. Asking for more money specifically to sort out damage that hasn't been claimed for though is a bit deceptive.
The insurer offers him £x cash to settle which he could then use to sort out the damage caused by this accident, but the OP wants £x++ to settle and sort out this damage and damage previously caused by a different accident?
And that's not deception?
If he can get both things fixed for the money that the insurance company thinks will sort out the damage from one accident - fair play. Asking for more money specifically to sort out damage that hasn't been claimed for though is a bit deceptive.
Last edited:
The OP should never have mentioned the other damage because its just confusing everyone. Lets go through this step by step.
The OP's car is damaged by a third party.
The third partys insurance company has a duty to put the OP back in the position he was in before the incident occured. This means they have a duty to repair his car, ensure he is not disadvantaged whilst the repair is carried out, so on and so forth. This means that the insurance company must pay for:
a) A hire car
b) Bodyshop
c) Transport of the car and from the bodyshop if appopriate
d) Any other expenses
With me so far? Thats the insurers obligation.
The insurer has decided to approach the OP and offer to pay cash compensation IN LEIU of meeting its obligation to put him back in the position he was in before. They are basically saying 'Look, we know we have to do Y, but how about if we just offer you X, and then we are both happy?'. They are doing this because if they can get the OP to accept the money, it will cost them less than meeting the obligations they have. And, provided both parties are happy with the offer, this is fine and legal and absolves the insurer of its responsibilities.
The OP is waiving his entitlement and receiving a cash offer instead. This is entirely the insurers choice to offer this method of settlement, just as its entirely the OP's choice to reject this and insist instead that they put him back in the position he was in before.
Get it yet?
Right.
Now. Lets go into the OP's mind.
He wants his car fixed. The line of least hassle is to say 'Please fix my car'. The insurance company will pay for the repair, and a hire car, causing the OP the least amount of hassle. The OP has now been offered cash instead. Cash on its own is no good to the OP because before the accident he had a non damaged car, not a pile of money. He takes on hassle as a result of accepting the cash offer (Which is being made to save the insurer money) and therefore it must be worth his while. He now has two seperate thought processes that people are unfairly linking.
Thought process 1: I need to make sure the offer they give me is as much in my favour as possible, if they are going to get out of their obligation to simply sort evreything out for me.
Thought process 2: This could come in handy because whilst its in the bodyshop, I could get some extra work done, using some of the compensation they are encouraging me to accept instead of excercising my right to be put back in the position I was before the accident.
This is different to Slime101's situation because:
Slime101 has been offered by the council to have his car put back in the position it was in before the accident. This is the obligation they have. They have chosen not to make a cash offer in lieu of settlement. Slime101, however, wishes to get them to give him cash instead so he can not bother to get the car fixed and can instead spend the money on something else.
The reason its different is because the two situations are opposite way rounds. It is not the for the innocent party to dictate whether the insurer makes a cash offer in settlement.
The above is, as always, simply my opinion. I am not a lawyer.
The OP's car is damaged by a third party.
The third partys insurance company has a duty to put the OP back in the position he was in before the incident occured. This means they have a duty to repair his car, ensure he is not disadvantaged whilst the repair is carried out, so on and so forth. This means that the insurance company must pay for:
a) A hire car
b) Bodyshop
c) Transport of the car and from the bodyshop if appopriate
d) Any other expenses
With me so far? Thats the insurers obligation.
The insurer has decided to approach the OP and offer to pay cash compensation IN LEIU of meeting its obligation to put him back in the position he was in before. They are basically saying 'Look, we know we have to do Y, but how about if we just offer you X, and then we are both happy?'. They are doing this because if they can get the OP to accept the money, it will cost them less than meeting the obligations they have. And, provided both parties are happy with the offer, this is fine and legal and absolves the insurer of its responsibilities.
The OP is waiving his entitlement and receiving a cash offer instead. This is entirely the insurers choice to offer this method of settlement, just as its entirely the OP's choice to reject this and insist instead that they put him back in the position he was in before.
Get it yet?
Right.
Now. Lets go into the OP's mind.
He wants his car fixed. The line of least hassle is to say 'Please fix my car'. The insurance company will pay for the repair, and a hire car, causing the OP the least amount of hassle. The OP has now been offered cash instead. Cash on its own is no good to the OP because before the accident he had a non damaged car, not a pile of money. He takes on hassle as a result of accepting the cash offer (Which is being made to save the insurer money) and therefore it must be worth his while. He now has two seperate thought processes that people are unfairly linking.
Thought process 1: I need to make sure the offer they give me is as much in my favour as possible, if they are going to get out of their obligation to simply sort evreything out for me.
Thought process 2: This could come in handy because whilst its in the bodyshop, I could get some extra work done, using some of the compensation they are encouraging me to accept instead of excercising my right to be put back in the position I was before the accident.
This is different to Slime101's situation because:
Slime101 has been offered by the council to have his car put back in the position it was in before the accident. This is the obligation they have. They have chosen not to make a cash offer in lieu of settlement. Slime101, however, wishes to get them to give him cash instead so he can not bother to get the car fixed and can instead spend the money on something else.
The reason its different is because the two situations are opposite way rounds. It is not the for the innocent party to dictate whether the insurer makes a cash offer in settlement.
The above is, as always, simply my opinion. I am not a lawyer.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
I get that.
Like you said though, it's their obligation to put his car back to the way it was before the accident... not to the way it was before he had the previous accident. I guess if he can get both bits done for the less than the amount it would cost the insurer to sort out a hire car and repairs though - fair enough.
He'll just have to try his luck to see how much they'll go to.
Like you said though, it's their obligation to put his car back to the way it was before the accident... not to the way it was before he had the previous accident. I guess if he can get both bits done for the less than the amount it would cost the insurer to sort out a hire car and repairs though - fair enough.
He'll just have to try his luck to see how much they'll go to.
Absolutely. But if the cash settlement he negotiates out of them leaves him with enough change to get other stuff done, so be it. It isn't part of the negotiation though - its just him musing at what he'll do with the compensation he has been offered instead of them fixing his car.
Absolutely.
the money the insurance company will be offering is in full settlement. I know what you're saying about treating the insurance company as a bank, but they're not daft. They know they're paying a bit extra for the repairs, but it stops you claiming for anything else you may be entitled to. Dont think of it as them being 'nice', its just them offering you very quickly and making you agree to full settlement, before you find out what your full claim is worth. Balls in your court, as only you know what its worth.