If I were in the same position as @Wend is now, having admitted fault, offering to pay for damages, and opting to essentially represent myself as uninsured, I would just pay the money and just make it all go away.
Put it down to experience in this unjust world.
Sure, the amount claimed for the repair is outrageous to you, but you haven’t seen anything yet if costs start to mount up.
I repeat, do not play games with debt recovery companies. They are very very good at what they do. That is why many companies outsource to them for receivables.
The value of the debt might seem very large. For many Australians it would be unaffordable. The two references might help to explain some of the alternate pathways. Although given it is only the size of the amount owed to argue, it is a much lesser amount to gain. Assumes the costs in time and legal support if required are not greater.
Thanks Mark for the consumer advice links. And for Naya re information re my insurance.
I have asked for details of the amount several times, time to point out my rights?
Could not wait on hold for too long today so will try again tomorrow.
Something to be aware of with car insurance.
Many car owners with older cars not worth much anymore would opt for third party fire and theft coverage rather than more expensive comprehensive insurance.
Normally you would not be covered for damage to your own car unless it was directly due to fire or theft.
However, if you can identify the other driver and car, demonstrate the other driver was at fault (they admit it in writing or at the incident time or it is obvious like they hit you while you are parked), AND the other driver is uninsured, or chooses to not use their insurance, then your damage and repair WILL be covered by many TPFT policies to a certain degree.
The other car owner in this case obviously knew this, and went straight to their insurer with a claim.
Hi Wendy,
You can still contact your insurer, but as noted elsewhere, they may not be terribly willing to stump up the bill. They may have more leverage over the other party’s insurer though.
Also, depending on which state or territory, there may be a financial services ombudsman in your state.
They may be able to advise what your options are. In Victoria, the threshold for uninsured claims they’ll assist with is $3K(ish)
Given it appears to have been passed on to a debt collector, it might be difficult to turn around.
Always take photos; and assume insurers will be difficult to deal with. That way, you’re less likely to be disappointed.
I’m quite surprised at the negative responses here. There is no reason why Wend needs to contact or use his/her insurer, and thus it doesn’t matter if he/she admitted fault. Even at $500 over his/her excess, the extra costs in premium increases due to making a claim might make it worth leaving his/her insurance out of it.
With regard to the actual claim amount. Unfortunately it is not unlikely that a panel beater working for an insurance company is charging $1500 to repair a light scratch. It is not clear if you agreed to just pay the bill or asked for a quote in the first instance.
I had a similar issue of a scratched bumper, no dents or other damage, insurance panel beater quoted $1200, and I got my local scratch and dent man to fix it up for $160.
If the insurance company asked you for $1500 to repair the damage then you do have the ability to ask them to justify the cost. I’m surprised that they didn’t respond to your query and sent it to a debt collector - this is clearly grounds to dispute the debt.
You could contact the other party and ask them again for a quote for the repair, explaining that their insurance company has not done so. You don’t have a contract with or obligation to their insurance company.
If @wend desires to self insure that is correct to a point, but the amount is more than expected causing the question. Furthermore the accident must be disclosed at renewal time and failure to do so could result in a future major claim being refused and the policy cancelled, if the failure to disclose it is discovered.
Considering the situation described in the OP the horse has bolted.
Reality is Allianz now holds a recovery debt that has been turned over to a collection agent. The other party is no longer involved as they filed a claim and apparently their vehicle was repaired.
A standard pro forma in most policies reflects the following text as affects the other party and is germane to Allianz’s claim on @wend, bold added.
If you’ve suffered loss or damage or, incurred a legal liability as a result of an incident covered by this policy and you make a claim with us for that incident, then we have the right and you have permitted us to take action or start legal proceedings against any person or entity liable or, who would be liable to you for the recovery of your loss. “Your loss” means your insured, underinsured or uninsured loss or damage or legal liability, costs, payments made and expenses in relation to the incident. Any action or legal proceeding we take will be commenced either in your name, or in the name of any other person or entity that suffered your loss. We will have full discretion over the conduct and any settlement of the recovery action. If you make a claim with us for your loss and you’ve already started action or legal proceedings against any person or entity liable or, who would be liable to you for your loss, then we have the right and you have permitted us to take over and continue that action or legal proceeding.
Ask yourself @tungsten if the other car was not an old car with at a reasonable guess maybe a few hundred or at most a thousand dollars of damage, but instead a very expensive Rolls Royce, or Ferrari.
Would you still opt to go it alone, or would you let your insurance company handle it and then your total liability to pay would be limited to your excess. At worst.
The OP’s responsibility is to the other party, they don’t have a contract with the other party’s insurance company. The other party can of course choose to have their insurance company act on their behalf - it is not clear if the OP was actually notified of this.
I’ve been on the other end where the at fault party’s insurance company were delaying (for over 9 months!) and had not paid for the damage that their client caused, and I had to start proceedings against the at fault party in small claims court - not against their insurance company.
Of course not, that is why I have comprehensive insurance. But in this situation where the damage is minimal and the cost of repairing it is less than the cost of the excess and increased premiums then I would probably elect to just pay for the repairs and not include my insurance.
By filing their claim they did so. By sending an invoice for their costs they advised the at fault driver. Once again it would not matter how the line items were presented, if the total asked was $1,500 it was $1,500 due. Allianz should have replied but I am not aware if they were obligated to. For argument, they were obligated to fix their customer’s vehicle not seek the lowest quote that suited the at-fault driver.
Which is how it works. The at fault driver would have either had to defend it or if they had made a claim, their obligation is to support and act to help their insurer. A remiss insurer is no defence in court, but representation is a different matter to liability. If you won in court the other driver would have been liable and if found so, their insurance would have had to pay unless there was more to the story.
It does not matter if you do or do not, it matters if the not-at-fault driver files a claim, their insurance repairs their vehicle, and then their insurance company seeks their due recompense, and that is ‘who’ ‘you’ deal with.
Part of the reason for this will be the way an insurance contract is worded. Generally an insurance company will be obliged to restore a car to the condition it was in before an incident. This may include things such as using manufacturer identical paint rather than a close alternative, or replacing a part that could be fixed but would still have signs of damage. Is $1500 reasonable? I couldn’t know, but just a suggestion of why prices might seem so different.
Allianz would be required, under the General Insurance Code of Practice to comply with standards for collecting money. Any Collection Agent appointed must comply with the Debt collection guidelines published by the ACCC and ASIC. Allianz must ensure that they provide you with information to show that the amount they are seeking to recover from you is fair and reasonable. This may include information on the relevant loss and/or damage and the claim; the actual cost of completed repairs; and the evidence relied on when we calculated the amount.
This is regardless of whether you choose to settle the matter with Allianz without engaging your own insurer or not.
That is from section 133 of the code. The rub is Allianz is not obligated to find or use the lowest possible quote. Being a cynic it is probable all insurance companies pinch every mill when they have to pay out from their own P/L and have to pre-approve repairs, but when they can recover money they might just ‘get it done’ and pass on the cost to the at fault party noting it can be more than just the repair as previously mentioned (hire car, taxis, incidentals, admin(?)).
Another practical matter is how does one discern a ‘fair and reasonable’ repair cost after the fact? Allianz presents an invoice and a consumer is left to dispute it. Without evidence and expert testimony that usually comes with a cost there are a lot of what if’s, codes and rights, but then reality to meld it for what is a small amount as dings go can put a different light on it.
Fair enough, but one of the original issues was not being provided evidence substantiating the cost such as quotes/invoices. Insurance companies will usually squeeze the costs down, as they have no guarantees of successful recovery.
Generally true, but the Hayne Royal Commission recommended certain provisions of industry codes need to be enforceable by ASIC. The recommendations are, I think, out for submissions before elements of codes (such as General Insurance COP and the Banking Code) become enforceable and therefore any contravention will constitute a breach of the law. So might have some teeth going forward.
I also don’t agree with almost all the responses here. There is no obligation on you to notify your insurance company unless you want them to handle it, and no requirement therefore for you to comply with their conditions. You also have the right of an itemised (to a reasonable extent) invoice. I also don’t agree that because it has gone to the debt collectors, that you should pay up immediately, although that may be the best course.
But all communication with the insurance company, requests for details etc., should have been in writing. You then advise thee debt collector that the amount is in dispute and copy them all the many unanswered requests from you.
Without such requests in writing, you have little chance I’d say.
No point either in trying to contact your insurer now.
Good luck!
It is worth reading your PDS for car insurance. I did and checked ours + another and both had this requirement. While one isn’t forced to do so, if one chooses not too, it could be grounds for refusing a future claim. The refusal may be on the grounds of pre-existing damage, pre-existing damage which contributed to the accident or getting old damage repaired under a new damage claim (avoiding an excess payment).
Policies also often state vehicle to be free of damage and in good order. If one has taken insurance on this basis, there is an obligation to notify the insurer this is no longer the case.
I thought this was the case, but our own policy states to report any claims or court action to the insurer ASAP. This would include the claims outlined above.
The other risk not doing so - if the other party makes a damages claim (say a personal injury in the future causing some loss) because of the accident (even if one thinks it is really minor and shouldn’t have caused an injury), one could find them financially crippled by trying to defend themselves for such claims. If one goes to their insurer at such time, they will have no record of an accident/incident and one would then also be fighting the insurer to cover any liability.
I absolutely agree that an policy holder or an applicant for one need to notify of any accident claims whether they used insurance or paid the claim themselves. Insurance companies always state that the policyholder or applicant don’t need to notify of any changes that lessen the Insurers risk, but accidents, serious driving penalties, speeding fines are all risk increases and if you fail to notify can result as you said in a denial of a claim or cancellation of the entire policy. In some cases changes in use that include but not limited to where the car is stored, kilometres driven, modifications to the vehicle; may result in a premium change or refusal/cancellation.
When insuring with a insurer an applicant must notify of any refusals or cancellations made by insurance companies and any traffic offences (usually for the last 5 years) as well as any accidents that an applicant has had. The requirement continues to apply even after acceptance and for renewals of the policy. It must be remembered that an offer to renew is actually the offer on a new contract as nearly all motor vehicle policies are 12 months in length, there are some specialty ones that can offer different lengths but they are not the norm.
A claim for damages against the policyholder can occur up to 3 years from the date of the accident. It doesn’t need to happen immediately and these claims can also involve liability for associated damages beyond the repairs eg loss of income.
