weevel wrote:
Hang on a minute - I know why this made my head hurt before - i've had a think about it and I still don't understand how you end up so out of pocket.
Let's say you drove your car into a wall, entirely your fault, but a mistake nonetheless, your insurance would pay out the market/agreed value of the car minus your excess. So you'd get $3650. Then you'd have the option (a seperate matter entirely) of buying the wreck back @ $425, so you would end up with your damaged car plus $3225 to get it fixed. Bearing in mind that the reason they wrote it off is because they judged it would cost more than that to fix (Beyond Economical Repair)
This should be no different, you should still get paid out the $4650 minus the $1k XS. And then you can buy the car back from them. If they don't pay out on the policy then they don't get to own your car to sell it back to you. In you scenario here the only payout appears to come from the other insurer...?
(of course one difference is that your future premiums would go updue to an 'at fault' claim but that's not the point, they should still pay out on the claim regardless)
The apportion of blame is for the insurance companies to decide between themselves for their accounting purposes and surely and should not impact what you get one little bit - the only effect would be that they have apportioned 85% blame to you so you will have an 'at fault' claim on your record.
Otherwise, you'd be better off just telling them that you drove into a ditch???
Someone please tell me I'M NOT GOING NUTS, does that make sense to anyone else??
it's because its third party insurance only. so she's paying for 15% of my car. but the 1k excess is to get her car fixed.