Re: Knock for Knock?
- From: "OG" <owen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:23:33 +0100
"Uno-Hoo!" <Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote in message
news:IZadnYmXg_9S9T_ZnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Interesting situation. On the 15th of this month I was run into from the
rear by a dumper truck. The driver admitted fault and stated that he just
did not see my car over his load. We exchanged details and I reported the
matter to my insurance company (Hastings Direct).
Everything going through smoothly and then I get a telephone call today
from Norwich Union who are the insurers for the third party (Wrekin
Construction). They tell me that there is no dispute over blame and,
rather than me have my car repaired via Hastings, pay my excess, and then
claim the excess back from Norwich Union - they offer to arrange with my
designated repairer to pay the full bill direct in which case I have no
need to pay the excess. They also say that they will arrange for a
courtesy/hire car while mine is being repaired.
This seems fine and so I provisionally agree on the understanding that I
will first contact Hastings and obtain their agreement to this. I contact
Hastings and they say that if Norwich Union are accepting blame then they
(Hastings) will simply contact Norwich Union and claim the excess direct
from them. I can then continue to have my car repaired under my own
insurance with no excess to pay. I have now agreed to this course of
action.
What puzzles me is why both insurance companies seem anxious to pay the
(almost) full cost of the repair. Norwich Union will have known that all
they would have had to pay was the excess - so why offer to pay my repair
bill in full? Similarly, after Norwich Union having made that offer, why
does Hastings suggest that they just claim the excess from NU and continue
to pay my repair bill themselves?
It doesn't make sense to me! Does it to anyone else?
Standard insurance practice has got rid of Knock for Knock for probably 10
years now if you mean each company paying for the damage sustained to their
insured . Its been replaced by the "innocent party's" insurance company
recovers the repair costs from the "liable party's". If Hastings had paid
the repair costs they would without a doubt have recovered the cost of
claims from NU. They don't pay out for other people's liability - why should
they? They pay out for your at fault accidents, and to make sure you are
covered where its not clear who is at fault.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Knock for Knock?
- From: Uno-Hoo!
- Re: Knock for Knock?
- References:
- Knock for Knock?
- From: Uno-Hoo!
- Knock for Knock?
- Prev by Date: Re: Appeal Court judges overturn sentence!!
- Next by Date: Re: Appeal Court judges overturn sentence!!
- Previous by thread: Re: Knock for Knock?
- Next by thread: Re: Knock for Knock?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
