Practically Classics Forum

For anyone who believes that having the guilty party's insurance engineer look up eBay results for similar cars will give you a sufficiently high value to ensure that an older car - in this case my 1990 daily driver - will be pulled when the procedure is required rather than dismissed as being unworthy of dozer time, think again!
Hoopers' engineer sat in the house with her tablet connected to a search for previous selling results for examples of the make & model, most of which would have been a tad cheaper since they hadn't been dosed with Ensis by Bigging from new and even if they had, how many other cars of that age continue with their six monthly checks to preserve the treatment provider's original warranty?
Apparently none, but fortunately, when her colleague came out to remove the slightly squished rear bumper for a closer look and found that every one of the original studs, nuts and screws was so soaked in Ensis that they all came out without any need for extra leverage or heat, he determined that the car could be repaired, once he'd double checked that it was in fact a UK car and not an Aussie or African import which, he assumed, was how it hadn't succumbed to the usual rust that has killed eight of the other 49 examples that were sold here between 1986 and 1990. The fact that it took him twenty minutes and half a tub of my best hand cleaner to get the still-clagging Ensis off his skin should have given him the clue he needed..

Anyway, I hadn't claimed on my own insurance, this because the coke-fuelled student in the unroadworthy Clio (an MOT failure the week before the collision on brakes, structural rot, wheel bearings, tyres, suspension bushes, springs, dampers, headlamps, steering rack, column, TREs and more) confessed liability at the scene and claimed from his own policy. However, because my key policy - this year for the first time provided by Lloyds Insurance Services for around half the cost of similar policies from Wright's, Adrian Flux and even PF Spare - had the car covered for a value that would have bought me a much more expensive replacement than I would have wanted, that valuation was accepted without hesitation by the student's insurer and so my shiny old AE92 is to be repaired properly.

A bonus of this happy situation is that I won't have to fit my recycled bumper and use penny washers under the studs to get that bumper to sit straight ( ) since the car will be taken to a bodyshop where an absolutely split new bumper along with new brackets, new trim strip and even a new number plate lamp bezel will be prepped, painted and fitted to the car once the shell has been placed on their jig and dozed gently back into shape. The massive box sections that run the length and perimeter of the car's underside are fine but the rear valance between the N/S leg and the rear quarter on that side has been dented slightly (hence my plan involving the penny washers) so, in order to fit the new bumper without such bodgery, the jig will be needed as some bright spark at Toyota decided that the rear valance should be comprised of a chunk of steel that's 0.080" thick, yep, that's right, the equivalent of 14swg, but made up from three separate skins as the dent is in the open area of the confluence of three parts. Presumably Those cunning production engineers drew it this way so that the bumper doesn't transmit any impacts directly to the chassis leg, in which case it worked this time.

This means that the guy with the local Autorestore franchise won't be coming to do the job at my place with his mobile rig after all, a shame as he's very good at what he does, but that wretched H&S legislation means that using washers or other packing media is a big no-no so the car must be pulled and I can't see my Jockey winch being up to that even if I set it up between my tree and next door's similarly chunky one.
This wouldn't be happening had my key policy not given me agreed values for the cars it covers, so think on..

Agreed value insurance is a must on classic cars because the value can vary from a clapped out shed that just makes it through the mot to a conkers de elephant. Price guides vary with classic as well.
My car is agreed at £#####. Its middle of road in condition. A minter is 3 times the price. And a dog a third of the price. The range of value is huge.

Last claim was when a mot tester hit another car whilst driving on to the ramp. Legal expenses insurance is also very handy and they sorted out my uninsured losses.

Best way to handle an accident is don't admit liability and be polite to the other party. If the accident is your fault tell that to your insurers. Never lie to them it complicates things and delays settlement.

Bob

History wrote:......Best way to handle an accident is don't admit liability....

Then, confusingly, History also wrote:If the accident is your fault tell that to your insurers...

I've never had issue with insurers settling claims at a fair value. When my previous RR was shortened by a lift engineer in a 7.5 ton lorry, they initially offered me £500. I sent 2 dozen adverts with prices from £2500-7500 and they settled somewhere in the middle. I was quite happy as the replacement only cost me £700

History wrote:Best way to handle an accident is don't admit liability , and be polite, to the other party. If the accident is your fault tell that to your insurers. Never lie to them it complicates things and delays settlement.

Which is what I was told - be polite and don't admit liability to the other party! There is a danger that, if you lie and are caught so doing, the insurance company can really make you regret it - that agreed value suddenly becomes a myth!

The fella who ran into the back of me had no alternative but to admit liability. By doing so, he was being honest! How would he have been thought more honest by claiming that I was responsible, especially as he did it right outside the local Rington depot where the staff were sitting outside on a teabreak, watching him and knowing that he was about to hit me. Admittedly they didn't know that his only functioning brake was the n/s/f, nut this soon became apparent as he drove onto their wall after he gave my car a good shove.

His insurance company accepted the statements from the police and the Rington's staff before he'd even reported to them himself, which he waited a fortnight to do so that he could have his car repaired and tested, though of course it shouldn't have been on the road after failing on several safety-related points, but for all he'd had a nose full (he wrote his details for me on a CD card that still had powder and blade marks on it ), but he was more, not less honest for admitting liability.

I stand by my questioning Bob's change of POV mid-post. My apologies if the whole point was to put both sides across but that's a) not how it read and b) little if anything to do with whether agreed value insurance is worth the bother.

I meant don't admit liability to the other party involved in the accident. But if the accident was your fault own up to YOUR insurers.

Bob

History wrote:I meant don't admit liability to the other party involved in the accident

OK, so let us say that you were distracted, too close to the car in front of you and then, when that car slows down for a junction, you hit the back of it. Are you seriously telling me that under these conditions, you'd stand there and deny that you caused the collision and, that when you made this clearly ridiculous denial of your liability, you'd expect the poor mug whose vehicle you'd whacked to remain polite?
For sure you'd be doing the right thing by admitting liability to your insurance company but by trying to deny responsibility for such a thing to the innocent party that person, whose day you'd just ruined, would be somewhat irked to put it mildly and such a denial would cause all of those present to question your honesty as the blame would be beyond doubt and you'd have told a bare faced fib.
I have (fortunately) never run into the back of another vehicle but if I ever do take my eye off the ball to that extent, I'm 'fessing up immediately. Unless the car in front happens to be driven by one of thae "crash for cash" merchants, in which case my onboard camera would show that they'd reversed at me.
I may now fit one in the back window too, seeing as there are people out there who'd try to dodge around the truth in these situations!

Strongly agree with John there.

I believe that the principle of taking responsibility for one's actions in life is an important one, and a value that seems to be sadly and increasingly lacking in modern society. If I cut my finger while working on my car I don't immediately look for someone else to blame, I accept that I've been a twit and try not to do it again. Likewise, if I am clearly and solely the cause of an vehicle accident/collision, I'm going to take responsibility for it and admit it was my fault to any other stakeholders, irrespective of who they are.

Sorry if that sounds old-fashioned, but it's a principle I feel strongly about.

I agree that honesty and responsibility are sadly lacking these days, but I was told by my insurance company that I was doing the wrong thing when I wrote the Cortina off (by me hitting another car in 1976) and admitted responsibility to the other driver. I did admit responsibility for writing the Montego and the last Golf off - though the Golf wouldn't have had a mishap if the wagon driver had made sure a large cobble (or small boulder) didn't fall of his wagon.

Unfortunately there are many that are dishonest in their dealings with insurance companies these days. Not only with "crash for cash" and other motoring claims, but things like domestic incidents. Sadly I'm thinking of some claims following the flooding in our area about ten or eleven years ago...