Car insurance claim for a RTA - My insurance company may have misled myself

[mav2k]

Hi, I am new here and want to start by thanking you for running such a helpful forum for people like myself.

As the thread title suggests, I was involved in a very minor RTA sometime ago, for which I was not at fault, and when I contacted my insurance company, they were very good and quickly made me an offer of settlement for the damage to my car.

However, as my car is quite old, they only offered a low amount, which did not cover the cost of repair. I was not made aware that I could have opted to wait and make the claim through the court against the other party, I thought I had to negotiate and accept the offer from my insurer.

I only found this out a few months later from my insurers solicitor, who advised they were unable to make this claim in the court now as I had already accepted a settlement from my insurer.

My question is, do I have a legal case and if so, how would I go about making such a claim please.

If you could direct me to the best forum location, I will repost my question.

Many thanks for your help.

[des8]

Was the cost of repair more than the cost of replacing of the vehicle?

[efpom]

You can still sue the other driver:
Quantum
a) Any excess on your policy that was deducted by your insurer when settling with it.
b) The difference between what your insurer paid you and the actual cost of repair of your vehicle.

[des8]

If you initiate a claim against the third party, they will if sensible, refer it to their insurers.
Whereas any excess will be recoverable, it is possible, depending on the size of the claim, that the insurers will dispute the cost of repairs if they exceed the value of the vehicle.
They might not bother, but generally insurers are adverse to betterment.

[mav2k]

Hi All, thank you for your prompt replies.

The cost of repair was going to be higher than what the listed value of the vehicle was at the time.

However, to replace the vehicle like for like, given the excellent condition would not be possible, however the insurers do not care about this.

Which is why had I known, I would have waited and added this into the claim, as I was at no fault so should not be out of pocket or without a car as a result?

I really don't know what to do or if I have a valid claim against my insurer who failed to advise me of my options at the time?

Many thanks once again for you help in this matter.

[des8]

Your insurer only deals with the claim you made against your policy.
They have no duty to inform you that you could make a claim against any third party, or any other options you may have.
If you do not think you were paid out the full value of your vehicle, you need to argue and prove the point with your insurer.
List prices do not always reflect the cost of replacing a vehicle on the open market, but it is for the claimant to prove it by eg reference to adverts on line or in motoring magazines.
Presumably you have accepted your insurer's indemnity, probably in full and final settlement, so it will be difficult to reopen the claim.

If you try and recover your losses you will possibly/probably have the same issue with the third party insurers.

[mav2k]

Hi, thank you for all your help so far, it is much appreciated.

I have just found out the exact statement the insurers solicitors emailed to myself, if this is clearer or changes anything already advised?

Email excerpt:

'Since LV= have noted the vehicle down as being a Total Loss valuation so they could mitigate their losses, if it were to go to a Hearing the Courts would only award the Total Loss valuation of the vehicle as that is what the Outlay documents that LV= provide to us will reflect on. So unfortunately, due to LV= pleading the losses in this way, it is not possible to claim for Pre-Accident Value and Repairs within the same Claim.'

As always, many thanks.

[des8]

Were LV the third party insurers or your insurer?