Re: Suing insurance company, or broker?

Peter Crosland wrote:
I know that conventionally a small claims court action would be against the party who the claimaint had a contractual arrangement with, rather than a distinct third party, but is that also the case with 'brokers' acting on behalf of an insurance company?

I've today written to my insurance company and copied in my broker, giving them a final 14 days to settle a claim before I escalate it to either the insurance ombudsman and/or the small claims court. It's an issue that's been dragging on far too long and I've not felt I've had due diligence in processing and attempting to reach a resolution of my claim following a theft of a vehicle. If I choose to issue a small claims court action without going to the ombudsman, do I claim against the insurance company who are dragging their heels and not settling the claim, or do I claim against my broker which is the person I paid the insurance premium too? Or do I list them as joint defendants?

I have used the small claims service before and been very happy with it, but I've never used it against an insurance company - do any 'special' rules apply there?
You don't have a claim against the broker unless you can prove they are responsible in some way which is unlikely.
On the contrary, my broker has been exemplary - he's apparently as frustrated at the lack of activity from the insurance company as I am. I just thought I _had_ to claim against him, because it was him I agreed terms of insurance with and paid money to - I'd never had any contact with the insco themselves until my car disappeared (and was rediscoved attached to a cashpoint machine with a length of steel cable...)

You really need to exhaust other avenues before going to court so the ombudsman is the next thing always assuming you have tried the insurance company's own complaints procedure first.

Well I've already asked the insco to pass it on to their complaints section, but it seems the total loss department are still dealing with the file and wont pass it on until the claim is finalised. In essense then, they're saying you can't make a complaint about us being slow until we've finished being slow. As for the ombudsman, I thought that it was entirely an optional step to go there or straight to court - hadn't realised that you HAD to give them an opportunity to sort it first. Thats irritating, in that no doubt they'll add further lengthy delays to the process and make me wait yet another couple of weeks before they open the damn letter and ask the insco for their comments.
As a general rule, the broker is deemed to be the agent of the insured, not the insurer. Unless the broker was at fault (eg failed to pass vital information to the insurers with the result that they have voided the policy) your claim must be against the insurers.

Whether you use the insurance ombudsman really depends on the nature of the dispute. If the insurers have repudiated cover for breach of a policy term, I'd suggest the ombudsman before taking court action. If the only dispute is about the value of property that you are claiming for, the ombudsman is unlikely to be any help at all
It is (well, other than tardiness in responding to comms). Why do you say that the ombudsman is unlikely to be of any use in those circs?

and you should put forward your evidence to justify your valuation (including expert evidence from a valuer if necessary) and then if necessary sue in the county court.
That's one of the frustrating bits. I submitted evidence of my value with my original claim, including five similar cars for sale and the price listed for my car in the owners club magazine. In reply, they've just stated a number (considerably lower than mine) without substantiating it in any way whatsoever. When I told them that I'd take as many of them as they could find for me at that price, as I was more than confident I could sell them for a profit, they stopped talking to me for two weeks. How come _I_ have to substantiate my value, and when I do they ignore it, but _they_ only have to suggest a random figure and say "that's the value".
What does Glass's Guide say about the value of the vehicle? That (or whatever other equivalent trade publications there may be) is the normal way insurers assess the value of a vehicle. There is a longstanding principle that an insurer pays the *market value* of the damaged vehicle, which is what a trader would have paid you to buy your vehicle, not what it would cost you to buy a replacement one. Maybe there ought not to be much difference between the two but there usually is, as far as insurance companies are concerned, and the ombudsman is unlikely to take your side unless you have a report from an "expert" valuer.
I dont believe Glass' carries a value for this car, as its too old. I have a fair few classics which I insure via Footman James, and an old '91 Landy Station Wagon which I used as like my personal breakdown truck. I'd previously insured it on a 'standard' policy, but at last Dec's renewal I swapped it from the insurance company who insure my modern car to Footman James on a classic policy like all my others. Didn't put an agreed value on, quite happy with market price. It was stolen in early Feb and used a couple of days later in an attempted cash machine theft and was heavily damaged when the theif collided with the building the cash machine was attached to.

I've been doing some research online from as reputable sources as I can find, and I have to disagree with your statement about market value. I am not a trader so I don't get to buy at trade prices - I have to pay 'retail'. I'm more than happy to not take money at all - my insurer has been told he's more than welcome to give me a like-for-like replacement instead. If he manages to buy that for a fiver, then he's well up on the deal, but if he ends up paying more than his offer that's his problem. The contract is to put me back in the position I was in prior to the theft, so he needs to give me sufficient money to achieve that.

The insurers appointed 'independent valuer' is patently nothing of the sort. He is contracted by, and paid by, the insurer. If he consistently gives values that 'favour' the claimant, do you think they're going to employ him NEXT month? There's really only _one_ genuine valuation, and that is the price that similar vehicles have achieved. _Those_ are the figures I've submitted - cars for sale at that price.

The insurer is trying to argue that the "value" is what you would get as a trade in rather than the real "open market value" which you might pay to replace it. This is quite standard procedure with car insurers and you face an uphill struggle to convince them, and probably the Ombudsman, that you should be paid more. I don't know if it has been successfully challenged in the courts, but if you can find a precedent you may convince them. I am not saying I agree with the way this is done just telling you the way it is. The other thing is that people seldom pay the actual asking price so you need to take that into account when making your case.

Again thanks for the interest Peter. They already tried the first of those tactics in a phone call (as I said previously, they've not written to me once yet, and I only get to talk to them on the blower when _I_ ring _them_ ). I told them I understood entirely that the trade figure was going to be lower than one you'd pay to buy it, and that that would be an entirely appropriate number had I been trying to sell it on the day it was stolen. However, I _wasn't_ flogging it, I quite liked the old girl, and so while I was grateful for his observations I'd much rather he did what the insurer was _supposed_ to do, i.e. put me back in the position I was in before the theft, by putting a car back outside my house.

I've never had a total loss before, and I'm already finding out how expensive it is irrespective of there being insurance against it. I've paid a MUCH higher premium for my new truck, higher premiums on renewal for my other cars, the cost of transferring the personal plate to the new car, etc etc. I'm not convinced by this argument that "we only pay trade, even though we acknowledge that YOU can't buy one at that price". If you claim on your household policy for a new sofa, you claim the cost of actually getting a replacement, not the price you could have flogged your old sofa for!

The other bit, not paying the asking price, is one we've yet to get to but that I anticipate they'll be trying as soon as they're forced into making their next tiny step in settling. Maybe QBE has a great haggler, so why dont _they_ nip down and do the deal on replacement? If they can knock a couple of grand off, they're well in. If they end up chiselling just a fiver off the screen, well that's entirely up to them. I'm not good at haggling, so I'll leave that to them. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I was under the distinct impression that my agreement to take a wodge of money from them is a _concession_ by me to aid settlement, because their contract was to put me back into a position I was in prior to the theft, which in my interpretation would mean THEY get to trawl round the county looking at candidates, arguing a deal, and getting it back to my house.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Suing insurance company, or broker?
    ... whatever other equivalent trade publications there may be) is the normal way insurers assess the value of a vehicle. ... There is a longstanding principle that an insurer pays the *market value* of the damaged vehicle, which is what a trader would have paid you to buy your vehicle, not what it would cost you to buy a replacement one. ... I'd previously insured it on a 'standard' policy, but at last Dec's renewal I swapped it from the insurance company who insure my modern car to Footman James on a classic policy like all my others. ... There's really only _one_ genuine valuation, and that is the price that similar vehicles have achieved. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Suing insurance company, or broker?
    ... normal way insurers assess the value of a vehicle. ... I dont believe Glass' carries a value for this car, ... Didn't put an agreed value on, quite happy with market price. ... The insurers appointed 'independent valuer' is patently nothing of the ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Suing insurance company, or broker?
    ... whatever other equivalent trade publications there may be) is the normal way insurers assess the value of a vehicle. ... There is a longstanding principle that an insurer pays the *market value* of the damaged vehicle, which is what a trader would have paid you to buy your vehicle, not what it would cost you to buy a replacement one. ... I'd previously insured it on a 'standard' policy, but at last Dec's renewal I swapped it from the insurance company who insure my modern car to Footman James on a classic policy like all my others. ... There's really only _one_ genuine valuation, and that is the price that similar vehicles have achieved. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: WTB - first car for 17yo daughter[1]
    ... Yes a freind of my daughter did that, had a crash and the insurance company ... There have been various stories in the news recently about the insurers ... In my case we shared a car (I'd be hard pressed to say who ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: the general publics IQ & why I worry
    ... covered 3rd party in any other vehicle" ... What sort of car have you got?" ... Try ringing up any insurance company and the advisor wil tell you ... would be based on worst case scenarios.....The price would be ...
    (uk.legal)
Loading