Oh no I'm sorry to hear that. Our car got totalled because repair cost more than the car but it was still a good car and didn't have any chasis damage. Really annoying.

[–] sylverstream 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's a bit confusing how it works. We have comprehensive insurance for an insured amount of $35k, so they say they will pay either the repairs, or $35k. But if we had 3rd party only, there is no insured amount, they would just get the money from the 3rd party insurer; think then it's just market value.

We've now realised that the price of similar cars has gone up so our insured amount won't pay for the same car. If we had 3rd party only, think we would have been better off.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

At the end of the claim, you should have your car back in the same condition it was prior to the accident. If repairing it is going to cost more than the vehicle's value, then you should get its market value. Comprhensive cover (insured amount) should only come into play if you are the at-fault party.

Your insurance company will be chasing the other party's insurance company for the costs of getting you back on the road. Sometimes, your insurance company is the other party's company, as well. In this situation, they are meant to stay impartial and look after you both as well as possible. That can be an issue though when they are chasing themselves for the costs of the accident. Don't let them mess you about with insured value of the vehicle if you weren't at fault.

Make note of what they are saying (literally: with a pen and paper), and the dates/times of the calls. Be clear that you expect to have the vehicle repaired or replaced. This is precisely what you are paying all that money for for and the whole purpose of their existence. If they refuse, take your notes and go to IFSO.

[–] sylverstream 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for your insights! Yes I've found it weird they keep referring to the insured amount.

Will keep it in mind for further comms. Thanks again for your detailed post, this is all new to me.

[–] liv 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They say they are going to chase the other company for payment.

In practice, many of the insurers in New Zealand have knock for knock, agreements with each other, meaning @sylverstream@lemmy.nz's company will actually pay their own costs and the other party's company will pay the other party's, regardless of fault. But they don't usually tell customers that part.

[–] sylverstream 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks that's insightful. I had the idea they would pay for it. But perhaps the 3rd party is also with AA I don't know.

[–] liv 2 points 1 year ago

The concept is they pay for it. It's just the reality is all the knock for knock crew don't ask each other for money.

[–] liv 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it helps, I had third party fire and theft with AA and they wanted to just give us their book value instead of our agreed value (since it was the other party's fault our agreed value didn't come into play) which was super annoying since their book value was only half the agreed value - which they had set in the first place. So you are probably much better off having full.

[–] sylverstream 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's odd, as a test I did a quote for 3rd party and they don't ask for insured amount.

How long ago was it? Can you still raise a dispute?

[–] liv 2 points 1 year ago

About a year ago. Dispute was raised and settled to my satisfaction but in future I will always query the insurer's book value if I have to do a third party fire & theft with agreed value.

Kind of annoying because you don't want to underinsure.