Car insurance, am I being had by AMI?

Forums › Off topic › Car insurance, am I being had by AMI?

1 | 2

BlueOwl

85 posts

Master Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2786084 29-Sep-2021 09:22

1101:

BlueOwl:

So your advice is to decline AMI's reimbursement of $1700, and privately pursue the same insurance company, via the other driver, for a smaller amount? Why would anyone do that?
And if your friendly cheaper panelbeater starts working on it, and finds the chassis is bent beyond repair, then what?

Did you even read the original post ? did you read my post (nope) ?
He believes the car is worth $3k, his insurance will only pay $1700 .
He doesnt want to accept $1700 .

Yes, I did read both thankyou. In particular I read the part where he insured the car for $1700.

RunningMan

8955 posts

Uber Geek

#2786094 29-Sep-2021 09:47

BlueOwl:

1101:

So, with your low value car , dont make a claim via your policy.
Make a claim directly against the other driver .
Get a repair quote . Contact the other driver and demand that payment.
Be prepared to take the claim against the other driver via the Disputes Tribunal, AMI will not make this easy .

So your advice is to decline AMI's reimbursement of $1700, and privately pursue the same insurance company, via the other driver, for a smaller amount? Why would anyone do that?

And if your friendly cheaper panelbeater starts working on it, and finds the chassis is bent beyond repair, then what?

I think @1101 is saying pursue the at fault driver (who coincidently has the same insurance company) for the full amount to repair or replace the OP's car, not for a smaller amount (as that would obviously be pointless).

In this scenario the value the OP has their car insured for (be it $3,000 or $1,700) is irrelevant, as they are not making a claim against that policy. They could have no insurance whatsoever and still purse the at fault driver. The fact the OP happens to also be insured through the same company is a red herring.

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#2786097 29-Sep-2021 10:01

This highlights an interesting dilemma, and one in which I would argue that AMI is in breach of the insurance code of conduct.

. We’ll act in the interests of our customers by treating you honestly and
fairly, and fulfilling our duties and obligations.

There is a clear conflict of interest here, and AMI are not clearly acting within the OPs best interest. I suspect this is because its they, not the other driver who will ultimately pay out the repair or replacement cost. As the 'not-at-fault' driver the OP is absolutely entitled to compensation to return their car [or be paid out the cost of a similar car] to the position before the accident irrespective of any type of insurance they personally have. I suspect if they elevated this case within AMI, and suggested they would make a complaint to the ICNZ they may see a different approach.

cshwone

1070 posts

Uber Geek

#2786118 29-Sep-2021 10:47

itxtme:

This highlights an interesting dilemma, and one in which I would argue that AMI is in breach of the insurance code of conduct.

. We’ll act in the interests of our customers by treating you honestly and
fairly, and fulfilling our duties and obligations.

There is a clear conflict of interest here, and AMI are not clearly acting within the OPs best interest. I suspect this is because its they, not the other driver who will ultimately pay out the repair or replacement cost. As the 'not-at-fault' driver the OP is absolutely entitled to compensation to return their car [or be paid out the cost of a similar car] to the position before the accident irrespective of any type of insurance they personally have. I suspect if they elevated this case within AMI, and suggested they would make a complaint to the ICNZ they may see a different approach.

Totally agree. The OP's insurance cover is irrelevent here. It is the at fault driver's insurance company who should make good irrespective of the OP's insurance. AMI are abusing the system to limit the amount they are willing to pay out as they have knowledge due their position as insurer of both parties.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#2786202 29-Sep-2021 11:33

cshwone:

Totally agree. The OP's insurance cover is irrelevent here. It is the at fault driver's insurance company who should make good irrespective of the OP's insurance. AMI are abusing the system to limit the amount they are willing to pay out as they have knowledge due their position as insurer of both parties.

I'll play devils advocate.

You're saying that the OP's past agreement about the vehicle worth is irrelevant. Surely in this world we should honour the things we say?

AMI is not to know whether the vehicle is insured for the correct amount, which is why they solve this through their agreed value approach.

What is AMI supposed to do? Tell the other party that the OP has changed their mind on the vehicles value? The other party could argue the OP is just trying to get more money.

Another thing, maybe it is a breach in privacy for AMI to tell the other party that the OP has told AMI the market value is $1700? Maybe AMI should have determined a new market value with the OP to present to the other party .... and what if AMI is insurer for both?

Maybe the OP could take the other party to the disputes tribunal privately... but the other party could still argue that the OP previously claimed the vehicle is worth 1700. What is the adjudicator to think? Does the adjudicator take human fallibility into account and re-adjust the market value?

I hope the OP wins though, not very fair if they don't get what the vehicle is actually worth in an accident that is not their fault ... i'm really fussy about insurance, make sure everything is correct.

cshwone

1070 posts

Uber Geek

#2786210 29-Sep-2021 12:02

The agreed value approach is between the OP and their insurer. The OP was not at fault in this situation and it is up to the at fault drivers insurer to make good the damage irrespective of what the non-fault drivers agreement is with their insurer. I have been in this situation where the value of the repairs was assessed against the market value of the car at the time of the accident by the at fault drivers insurer and we reached agreement to write off the car and gave me a cheque, which was incidentally more than the value I had the car insured for.

AMI are just using their position as insurer of both vehicles to minimise the payout.

David321

485 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2786239 29-Sep-2021 13:15

HI all,

Thought I would update everyone on here as to the agreement reached.

AMI are going to pay out the $1700 and then take the car and get a pre-accident valuation done on my car, they will then sell my damaged car and use that money to top up the $1700 the value of the car before the accident. They are also now willing to cover the cost of the valuation and arrange it themselves also (something they would not do before) saving me a hassle and $120.

I am picking the market value may be $2,500 meaning they would need to sell the car for at least $800 for me to get the $2500 I believe it is worth, I am not sure if they will get $800 for it meaning I might be slightly out of pocket but considering I got the car at a bargin $1900 I am not to concerned, I am over the whole ordeal now and want things settled.

My wife and I also got a bit excited about an SUV we looked at last night and have agreed to buy this (pending a good pre purchase inspection result tomorrow), so maybe that had some sway in cutting out losses just to settle this whole ordeal.

I had no interest in taking the other party to the disputes tribunal as she was a lovely old lady and I did not want to put her through that, nor take the time off work, submit the forms, pay the fee, enforce the outcome etc, it was not worth the extra $800 I would have hoped to have got. (Which I might end up with now hopefully).

_David_

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

cshwone

1070 posts

Uber Geek

#2786253 29-Sep-2021 13:30

David321:

HI all,

Thought I would update everyone on here as to the agreement reached.

AMI are going to pay out the $1700 and then take the car and get a pre-accident valuation done on my car, they will then sell my damaged car and use that money to top up the $1700 the value of the car before the accident. They are also now willing to cover the cost of the valuation and arrange it themselves also (something they would not do before) saving me a hassle and $120.

I am picking the market value may be $2,500 meaning they would need to sell the car for at least $800 for me to get the $2500 I believe it is worth, I am not sure if they will get $800 for it meaning I might be slightly out of pocket but considering I got the car at a bargin $1900 I am not to concerned, I am over the whole ordeal now and want things settled.

My wife and I also got a bit excited about an SUV we looked at last night and have agreed to buy this (pending a good pre purchase inspection result tomorrow), so maybe that had some sway in cutting out losses just to settle this whole ordeal.

I had no interest in taking the other party to the disputes tribunal as she was a lovely old lady and I did not want to put her through that, nor take the time off work, submit the forms, pay the fee, enforce the outcome etc, it was not worth the extra $800 I would have hoped to have got. (Which I might end up with now hopefully).

I am glad you are happy but this sounds so wrong to me. The point of insurance is to have someone hold the risk on your behalf. They should give you the pre-accident valuation, not transfer the risk back on to you by saying they will top up with whatever they sell the wreck at. Bet they won't be trying to hard to onsell.

It appears they are still using your insurance details to determine payout and this is wrong.

tigercorp

668 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2786343 29-Sep-2021 14:18

cshwone:

I have been in this situation where the value of the repairs was assessed against the market value of the car at the time of the accident by the at fault drivers insurer and we reached agreement to write off the car and gave me a cheque, which was incidentally more than the value I had the car insured for.

Just for my curiosity about the process, how did you get to the position where you were directly in contact with the at fault drivers insurer? Was it something you had to chase from the other driver or did you get the details from your insurer.

ilovemusic

1439 posts

Uber Geek

#2786356 29-Sep-2021 14:33

David321:

HI all,

.

I had no interest in taking the other party to the disputes tribunal as she was a lovely old lady and I did not want to put her through that, nor take the time off work, submit the forms, pay the fee, enforce the outcome etc, it was not worth the extra $800 I would have hoped to have got. (Which I might end up with now hopefully).

Often underneath that "lovely old lady" veneer is a sharp mind of limitless cunning.

😂

cshwone

1070 posts

Uber Geek

#2786357 29-Sep-2021 14:34

tigercorp:

cshwone:

I have been in this situation where the value of the repairs was assessed against the market value of the car at the time of the accident by the at fault drivers insurer and we reached agreement to write off the car and gave me a cheque, which was incidentally more than the value I had the car insured for.

Just for my curiosity about the process, how did you get to the position where you were directly in contact with the at fault drivers insurer? Was it something you had to chase from the other driver or did you get the details from your insurer.

Quite simply asked the other driver for his details at the time of the accident including who he was insured with.

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#2786364 29-Sep-2021 14:37

surfisup1000:

You're saying that the OP's past agreement about the vehicle worth is irrelevant. Surely in this world we should honour the things we say?

No it is not relevant, as the sum insured is agreement for payout. IE. What they are happy to have it paid out up to if they make a claim against their insurance - which they do not need to do. The real world cost of replacing or repairing the vehicle is what matters in this case against the womans insurance.

David321:

I had no interest in taking the other party to the disputes tribunal as she was a lovely old lady and I did not want to put her through that, nor take the time off work, submit the forms, pay the fee, enforce the outcome etc, it was not worth the extra $800 I would have hoped to have got. (Which I might end up with now hopefully).

Good to hear you got a resolution you are happy with. I still think AMI have behaved poorly. As an aside, although you would take the lady to the disputes tribunal, technically it would be AMI you would face there as her agent - if they even let it get that far, pretty hard to defend a t-boning, and if you had trademe examples showing a similar vehicle current going rate.

allan

2043 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2787112 30-Sep-2021 16:13

It's been quite some while since I worked for an insurance company (one of AMI's predecessors), but it would have been interesting if the OP had chosen to pursue the other party via the disputes tribunal.

Because the other party had made a claim I think the abrogation clause (you assign your legal rights to the insurance company to act on your behalf) would have kicked in and potentially AMI would have ended up having to foot the bill for the OP's additional loses, rather than the other party personally. Anyway a moot point at this stage.

Ruphus

465 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2787248 30-Sep-2021 18:05

Sounds like the OP had the car insured for third party, fire and theft, hence the Sum Inssured value and not agree value.

The fact the OP paid $1900 for the car but was offered $1700 as a write off seems reasonable.

Sure, you might think it's worth more than what AMI offered but is it really? What's make, model, mileage and condition of the car?

Is this a case of someone over insuring the vehicle and not understanding the details of their policy?

David321

485 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2787470 1-Oct-2021 07:55

Ruphus: Sounds like the OP had the car insured for third party, fire and theft, hence the Sum Inssured value and not agree value.

The fact the OP paid $1900 for the car but was offered $1700 as a write off seems reasonable.

Sure, you might think it's worth more than what AMI offered but is it really? What's make, model, mileage and condition of the car?

Is this a case of someone over insuring the vehicle and not understanding the details of their policy?

Sorry mate but you could not be more wrong.

1 - I have full comprehensive insurance with AMI for the car.

2- Paid $1900 for a car that was worth about $2700-$3000, the guy had to leave the country urgently and I had cash ready to go, I had the upper hand in negotiating. What I pay is nothing that should be considered by AMI when paying me out.

3 - It is a 1998 Nissan Spacio with 150,000kms on the clock, comparable cars on trademe (same model and similar k's) are going anywhere between 2.5k and 3k.

4 - The car was insured for $2700 and AMI had lowered it to $1700 due to depreciation, however this should not even be considered, as the insurance company of the person who hit the car should be paying the repair or market value of the car. To do what they are doing is like me burning someone's house down, them having a rebuild quote of $600,000 and me finding out they only insured the house for $$400,000 and therefor deciding I only need to pay the $400,000, leaving them $200,000 out of pocket.

_David_

1 | 2