I would disagree with some of the above. It is possible to derive a reasonably good estimate of the cost of repairing a car from a single photograph of the damaged side. Just as Brian has done without the benefit of a photograph.
With a 15+ year old car, a simple description of the damage would be sufficient to determine whether repairing it will be viable. It would be irresponsible of an insurer to send out an engineer to inspect the car in such circumstances and indulgent of the owner to try to insist that this occurs - all it would do is lead to unnecessary increased premiums for all.
I doubt that the other party's insurers would have offered to repair this car. I suspect they would have been in touch (possibly left a message) offering a hire car and to follow-up action.
Insurers aim to keep costs of processing claims down by running very tight timebound processes. I for one do not think it is underhand that the settlement offer is overridden by another action asking the claimant to call customer services after 24 hours.
Finally, a claimant cannot insist that his/her car is repaired if repair would be uneconomic. The most sensible course of action for an owner would be to contact the other party's insurers, inform them that you wish to retain the car, and present a solid case for a higher settlement than their offer.
Personally, I have made three no-fault claims on my and wife's behalf over the past 15 years and have found insurer decisions and assessments to be spot on. Remember - they do this day-in day-out and are usually pretty good at it!
|