Car-Crash Not at Fault - Car Written off

kamac93 on 15/02/2024 - 19:55
Last edited 15/02/2024 - 20:29 by 1 other user

Hi all, my mother was in a minor car accident, where someone hit her and her brand new Corolla with 150kms has been written off.

The final purchase price was about $42,000.00 with additional window tinting and paint protection added by a different company for $1,500.00, totaling $43,500.00.

Currently with AAMI insurance, the other at-fault car was with RAC.

The insurer cannot find a similar (Brand New) metallic colored Corolla (we had to wait ~8 months, delivered in Nov 2023), and has offered a payout of what she was insured for, which is $39,000.00 - obviously wasn't expecting an accident right away, and would've been acceptable if she was the one at-fault.

According to the T&C's of AAMI, although she is not at fault, they will only offer a cash payout of the insured $39,000.00 and not the purchase price of $43,500.00 (which I find absolutely BS).

Otherwise she can try and decide on another vehicle they can try and replace this with. I'm thinking a VW Golf etc. Something with good resale value and just general overall reliability of a Toyota (e.g. no Kia, Hyundai etc). Likelihood these will probably also not be readily available.

Just wondering on people's opinions and if anyone has been in a similar situation?

Take the cash or try to find a VW Golf/Toyota Yaris Cross/Toyota CH-R

Thanks!

Automotive Car Toyota

Comments

  • grr1701 on 16/02/2024 - 10:42
    +4

    VW in the same breath as Toyota? Just stick with Toyota.

  • thebossmel on 16/02/2024 - 11:12
    +3

    Although your insurance contract is with AAMI for $39,000
    Is there no way for you to deal directly with the other party's insurance (at-fault car was with RAC)? If you have other party's claim number why not talk to there insurance?

    Ultimately its other insurance which need to pay and not AAMI.

    • trapper on 16/02/2024 - 11:52
      +1

      She can sue the other driver for the full costs.

  • Cluster on 16/02/2024 - 11:16
    +4

    A minor car accident and a $42k car was written off? What kind of damage could be caused by a minor accident that a $20k repair bill can't cover it?

    I hit a kangaroo and two doors needed to be replaced as well as front end damage, and the damage to my hatchback was $6500, and insurance repaired the car worth about $12k on a good day.

    • Kremleen on 16/02/2024 - 13:39

      I'm assuming airbags were deployed. Otherwise, writing off cars from structural damage would imply a serious impact

      • kerfuffle on 16/02/2024 - 13:47
        +2

        Except OP said it was minor … I'd definitely count any accident where airbags were deployed as major

        • Cluster on 16/02/2024 - 15:08

          Mmm, indeed. I smacked into a kangaroo at 60km/h and no airbags deployed. Airbags aren't meant to deploy in mild accidents.

      • Cluster on 16/02/2024 - 15:11
        +2

        Hmm, it looks relatively mild, but with the wheel ripped off that way there's obvious major suspension damage and if the car wasn't in neutral, gearbox and maybe even engine damage as well. Damage may have rippled down the side of the car requiring replacement of both doors.

        My car after hitting a kangaroo looked pretty rough but there was no wheel damage.

      • hocus on 16/02/2024 - 15:14
        +12

        I'd say thats more than minor ….

      • kaleidoscope on 17/02/2024 - 12:02
        +1

        Cars get written off for much less damage, especially if it involves structural or frame (mostly when its side collided even if it looks minor from outside)…

        That is no way a minor damage.

    • ameyas7 on 16/02/2024 - 23:18

      I have started to wonder if it's getting a common practice to consider minor accidents as write off's. We had been in similar situation recently whereby our car was on main road (under 50 km limit) and another red p bumped into our car while coming out of their drive way. Left hand side panel, bumper and headlights were impacted but I didn't expect it anything close to being considered as write off. Earlier I had the same impression that vehicle gets writen off only due to severe issues such as either chasis being damaged, airbags being deployed or some safety / compliance issues but i was told that if cost of fixing it is too high, then the insurer can still consider to write it off. Fortunately, for us they fixed it eventually but it is kind of a weird spot to be in given that currently there are no decent alternatives in used cars and as we wanted to replace it with Toyota hybrid, wait times were crazy long for brand new ones. I'd say try to find out why insurer is considering it as a write off. In my case, i thought that as the cost of fixing might exceed 50% (as our car is almost 9 yrs old) but in your case it doesn't seem to be the case as yours is almost brand new. Most importantly I hope everyone involved is doing alright. Its an unnecessary headache to replace car like this especially if that's the only vehicle you own and you are not at fault but sometimes things do happen. Good luck.

  • trapper on 16/02/2024 - 11:53
    +1

    You can still sue the other driver for the full loss.

    Anything you recover first goes to repaying your own insurance company though - ie the first $39k. You get to keep the rest.

  • mrhugo on 16/02/2024 - 12:05
    +5

    News to me that VW is considered reliable with good resale.

    VW ≠ Toyota

    A message to others, agreed value is just that, agreed. Market hands too much control to the insurer which are generally going to act in their favour (i.e. they will give you a pathetic payout).

  • turk182 on 16/02/2024 - 15:27

    Also remeber upon pay out your policy will be cancelled so you'll lose that aswell

  • djsweet on 16/02/2024 - 16:19

    The other party is required to pay an amount to get you back to cost neutral (made whole or whatever). Chase the other party directly if you want the whole 43k.

    Aside, I wonder if your insurer would get the 43k out of the other party and just give you 39k. Then pocket the rest 🧐

  • ddr0001 on 16/02/2024 - 16:48
    +5

    A Golf and a Corolla are at opposite ends of the reliability spectrum.

  • rxjb on 16/02/2024 - 17:57

    What is the market value of your car? If higher than what AAMI is offering, cancel your claim with AAMI and claim on RAC. You will be lodging a third party claim. RAC cannot enforce any PDS on you. You claim isn't restricted by the PDS which may be detrimental to you.

    • Jackson on 16/02/2024 - 21:49

      shouldn't AAMI just do this for him? It's literally a phone call to RAC and tell them to make good

    • ameyas7 on 17/02/2024 - 08:37

      Sorry what does RAC stand for?

      • kerfuffle on 17/02/2024 - 08:37

        Royal Automobile Club

        • ameyas7 on 17/02/2024 - 08:44

          Interesting. Thanks for that. I'm guessing one needs to be a member of that before dealing with them. I didn't know it's for common automobile users. I always thought it was more for car enthusiasts or people with vintage &/or high end sports cars etc.
          RAC looks like it's valid only in WA? Maybe I misinterpreted it as RACA

          • kerfuffle on 17/02/2024 - 09:29

            @ameyas7: The NSW version is NRMA.

            • ameyas7 on 17/02/2024 - 11:15

              @kerfuffle: I see. OP already heard the outcome from his insurance provider which is AAMI. So it's still not clear why @rxjb was referring OP to RAC in that case.

  • Drakesy on 16/02/2024 - 18:21
    +1

    Definitely push for more, if they can't find you a direct replacement be like that's ok i'll let you repair it and take the loan car for the duration.

    It's not on you to take their sh1tty offer.

  • gromit on 16/02/2024 - 18:45
    +8

    What does it matter what AAMI insure for, she is NOT at fault, the party paying is RAC. She should be able to claim for all costs (minus the rego etc which she will get a partial refund for). If they refuse take it to AFCA, she has a right to be made whole regardless of what AAMI's policy says, in fact she has a right to be made whole even if she had no insurance herself. On top of the car that includes any costs of taxi's or car rental costs etc.

    • kamac93 on 16/02/2024 - 20:29

      Thank you! Finally some common sense…

    • cloudy on 17/02/2024 - 06:39
      +3

      Completely agree with you…. But, and here’s the but.

      There is a massive wait for a new corrola, so the question is what’s a fair and reasonable alternative?

      They’ve offered 39k for a used car that is 43,500 brand new, that sounds fair and reasonable, given there is no similar lightly driven used car to swap it with.

      People will argue that this is a basically a new car etc etc, but it’s not the day OPs mum drove it.

      • gromit on 17/02/2024 - 12:53
        +2

        the fair and reasonable compromise is a 100% coverage of ALL costs, that includes stamp duty, any onroad costs, all the after market window tinting etc. In a not at fault accident you are entitled to be made whole, that means you should not be out of pocket.

        • cloudy on 17/02/2024 - 18:27
          +1

          Totally agree with you. Nothing you say is wrong hence the figure.

  • drfuzzy on 16/02/2024 - 19:54

    Can you buy the written off car from the insurer, then sell it privately?

    I had a friend do something similar and he was miles in front.

  • thanatos350 on 16/02/2024 - 20:02
    +1

    Don't AAMI have a new-for-new thing if your car is written off within the first two years?

    • kamac93 on 16/02/2024 - 20:29

      Their excuse is “there’s no similar available new corollas” after looking for two days even though their policy states 90 days.

      • thanatos350 on 16/02/2024 - 22:45

        Damn. Is ordering a new one not an option with them? If not, it renders the benefit sort of redundant at a time where many manufacturers don't hold much new stock. On the surface, If they've insured you guys new-for-new, you'd expect to be entitled to at least the money it costs to obtain a new one. If they use that to promote the policy, it should be their job to hold up their side of the bargain. The policy docs likely explain this, but it's still shitty.

        If all else fails, the 39k could get you a nice Mazda. I just bought one for a little less and it's great. They have stock, too.

        • kamac93 on 16/02/2024 - 23:23

          Yeah I’m waiting for the reply asking to order a new Corolla, even with a 6mth wait. Current car replacement vehicle is a CX-30 which is nice but more consumption than the hybrid Corolla.

          Plan B is getting a new Hyundai i30 Sedan Hyrbid that is just getting released for $37k

          • ameyas7 on 17/02/2024 - 09:24
            +1

            @kamac93: Make sure you do good research on the specific model. Different manufacturers use hybrid system differently. For instance, Toyota and Nissan hybrid models are way different when it comes to how their hybrid system works. I feel Toyota hybrid is one of the best in terms of reliability and fuel efficiency.

          • thanatos350 on 21/02/2024 - 15:25

            @kamac93: Just be aware that it could cost more than $37k, if you're only looking at MSRP.

  • ribze1 on 16/02/2024 - 20:21
    +6

    The travesty here is that a Corolla costs $41,000!

    • kerfuffle on 17/02/2024 - 07:31

      That's not even the top-spec version; it's $45K for the ZR Hybrid sedan (and slightly cheaper for the hatch)

    • nikey2k27 on 18/02/2024 - 22:09

      used one are $42,000 2022 with 25,000 on the clock.

  • cycleri3 on 16/02/2024 - 21:02
    +1

    Get a BYD Dolphin, similar sized to Corolla but roomy on the inside and as a bonus its an EV so will be cheaper to run and better for the environment. Base model is around what your corolla is for.

    • Jackson on 16/02/2024 - 21:51
      -7

      Please this OP, I can't believe your mum spent $43,500 on a 4 cyl 1.8L car that's basically tech from 10 years ago, when you can get an EV that's maxed out on the latest tech, doesn't cost anywhere near as much to run, and is better for the environment, it's really a no brainer.

      The corolla wasn't even a hybrid, what's going on with the car market these days? I know someone who bought a base model for 20k only 7 years ago, they can't double in price?

      • kamac93 on 16/02/2024 - 22:42
        +2

        It was a hybrid.

        • Jackson on 17/02/2024 - 01:09
          -2

          Ah ok that makes a bit more sense I guess, when I did a quick google it came up as either 1.8 or 2.0. Thanks for clarifying, I would still go a full EV over a hybrid myself, and would recommend it if the driver wasn't doing very long trips or big kms daily

      • Tomhaigh1 on 17/02/2024 - 00:28

        Are you comparing BYD with toyota?

        • Jackson on 17/02/2024 - 01:17

          Yes, I am comparing cars with 4 wheels in the same class, and in 20 years you might find that Toyota has fallen off their perch while trying to convince the world not to move forward with EVs.

          I don't expect every part of a BYD to be up there in quality with a Toyota, so far there's been some reports of failing AC units, but EVs are inherently more reliable than petrol cars, it's better to just go the whole hog with EV than get a hybrid for most people, and there's saving is petrol, servicing, and in some cases e.g. Engine noise and vibrationsx EVs feel more refined

    • Drakesy on 17/02/2024 - 11:59

      The MG4 has it pipped spec and looks wise imho though

  • jaimex2 on 16/02/2024 - 23:38
    -3

    Live and learn.

    Also marketing seems to have worked a treat on you.

    • mousie on 17/02/2024 - 10:46
      +2

      Quite a disengenous and unhelpful comment.

      • jaimex2 on 17/02/2024 - 12:32
        -2

        Not sure what you expect, no one can help the op other than give an opinion.

  • trevor99 on 17/02/2024 - 09:56
    -1

    Take the money and get a Subaru Crosstrek. Better car anyway.

  • mousie on 17/02/2024 - 10:16

    I'd complain to AFCA and say that you're not happy with the outcome and say that she took the policy in good faith thinking that she would be covered in the case of total loss.

    In which case there isn't coverage for total loss.

    Their insurance company can settle with yours and you don't need any involvement on that side.

    • imurgod on 19/02/2024 - 10:54

      Ordinarily I'd agree (after going through the insurer's internal dispute resolution process) but in this case, they'd stand no chance with AFCA because the OP opted for agreed value and the insurer has acted in accordance with the ICA.

      • mousie on 19/02/2024 - 13:10

        Work in general insurance or in complaints?

        Asking for a friend

        • imurgod on 19/02/2024 - 13:11

          It's no secret that I work in general insurance.

          It's how I know so much about it.

          • mousie on 19/02/2024 - 13:53

            @imurgod: Yes, and typically although AFCA requests that the organisation gives a chance for their own IDR process to be instated, one can independently lodge with AFCA regardless.

            It then assists with setting a timeframe to actually review the matter. IDR and EDR case managers will know this.

            • imurgod on 19/02/2024 - 13:55

              @mousie: One of the first questions AFCA asks is if you've gone through the insurer's IDR process.

              If not, they will ask you to do so.

              I have found that doing them simultaneously hasn't helped timeframes, especially at the moment.

              • mousie on 19/02/2024 - 14:02

                @imurgod: But the customer in this case has, and although you may disagree with the outcome, they have tried to resolve with the insurance company directly.

                I've seen demonstrably that lodging with AFCA certainly at a bare minimum provides management visibility as matters get triaged.

                Or even a media threat.

                There is plenty of poor advice in this thread.

                • imurgod on 19/02/2024 - 15:29

                  @mousie: I didn't see where the OP said they went through IDR, but if they did, then, yes, AFCA is the next step (insurers don't care about media threats these days).

                  The last AFCA submission I worked on, AFCA pushed the timeline out an additional 16 weeks and that will get worse following the nat cats we're having.

                  That said, I'd say that AFCA would rule in the insurer's favour here anyway as they've met the terms of the contract (assuming it was insured on agreed value basis).

                  The OP could also ask AAMI to seek recovery for the outstanding amount, issue a statement of claim against the third party or even claim for the shortfall against the 3rd party insurer direct.

                  And yes, there is always a lot of bad advice in these types of threads.

  • DemocracyManifest on 17/02/2024 - 14:05
    -1

    If you are getting $39k back who cares

  • bluesky on 17/02/2024 - 16:27

    Quite a few comments suggesting that claiming from the at-fault party's insurer may yield a better outcome.

    Just curious. Once you have lodged a claim with your own insurer, is it possible to change your mind, cancel the claim, and go to the at-fault party's insurer directly? Especially if the payout from your own insurer seems low, or not reasonable.

    Or do you just get one chance to decide which insurer to put in the claim with - your own, or the other party's - at the start?

    • kamac93 on 17/02/2024 - 17:19

      For some reason from the start it was being dealt with our insurer, didn’t realise we had a choice. They just started organising everything. Might have to look at claiming against the at fault insurer (RAC).

      • bluesky on 17/02/2024 - 17:36

        Yeah, that was my question. Could you just start again and claim against RAC, which may be beneficial? Or can RAC say they don't want to deal with two parties (if your insurer has already started negotiations with them)?

        Even if your insurer wants to charge you the excess for having lodged a claim with them (not sure if this is the case) but if you can now switch to claim from RAC, it may be worth it.

        • jackspratt on 17/02/2024 - 17:42
          +1

          I would have thought - though I may be wrong - that as you have no contractual relationship with the other insurance company, you can not claim from them.

          However, you could claim from the at-fault party directly, and let them go to their insurer.

          • bluesky on 18/02/2024 - 14:08

            @jackspratt: Makes sense what you say, you are claiming against the at-fault party technically-speaking, who will go to their insurer.

            Informally-speaking though, and it is a genuine question, since I have zero experience in this area, will you be asking for a reference or claim number from the at-fault party issued by their insurer, and conduct claim discussions direct with their insurer? Otherwise, if the at-fault party still has to be involved, it seems rather inefficient.

  • UFO on 17/02/2024 - 17:06
    +1

    Don't claim via your own insurance company, claim directly with the driver at fault.

    Show them receipts of recent purchase, and make your claim with them.

    What you have insured your car for (or if you have any insurance at all) is completely not related to the matter. It's not your insurance that is being relied on here, and your insurance company settling with the other side for less than replacement value is not in your best interests.

    If necessary lawyer up and then those costs might be able to to be claimed too.

    But your insurer is under no obligation to pay you anything other than the $39k. That stuff up is completely on you for agreeing to a value below purchase price!

  • wade2006 on 17/02/2024 - 17:45

    Suggest you watch redriven on youtube gain some appreciation of unreliable cars. Hyundai's & Kia's dont have market leading reliability but are better than VW's.

  • Jellyfish01 on 17/02/2024 - 20:49
    +2

    VW’s are not reliable. This is coming from someone who has owned one (and knows of others who have owned VW’s). Fun to drive, awful reliability. If you plan on having it for less then 4 years then go for it. All car brands have issues. Toyota used to have a good reputation for reliability but Kia and Hyundai actually are market leaders. The perception that Toyota are the most reliable is actually not the case anymore - talk to mechanics and you will find out a lot.

  • netsurfer on 17/02/2024 - 21:15

    From AAMI's Web site, regarding write off:

    If your car is less than 2 years old, and you're the first registered owner, we'll replace it with a new car of the same make, model and series (if available within 90 days), or similar if not available. If you choose not to accept the replacement car, or where an agreement cannot be reached between us on a replacement car, or a replacement car cannot be supplied, we will pay you the amount covered on your certificate of insurance (less any deductions).

    Guessing it is quite hard to find a metallic colored Corolla right now (that needs to be available within 90 days) so they are doing the sum insured method instead. I understand it is unfair, especially she is not at fault and it is only 150km. Thing is, technically, once the car is no longer brand new, its value drops.

    It's very unfortunate and unlucky. With any accident, all parties will have unpleasant experience. I doubt AAMI's temporary hired car offered to your mother is perfect (most likely an inferior car).

    Get the details on all possible car models AAMI is willing to offer and hopefully one would be worth closer to $43,500.00. If none of them is even worth $39,000.00, take the cash. Obviously, if going with taking an alternative car, your mother needs to be happy with the alternative car. Big companies generally can get cars at a cheaper price. I remember years ago I had a company car (salary sacrifice packaging) and the price of the car is cheaper / better than what I can possibly get from a dealer myself. You might also need to think about running cost (i.e. services, but hopefully all new cars now include a few years of free services).

  • GrueHunter on 17/02/2024 - 22:20

    they will only offer a cash payout of the insured $39,000.00 and not the purchase price of $43,500.00

    "They're adhering to our agreed terms! It's an outrage! The premium only covered $39k, but they should just cover $43k anyway, because I say so!"

  • Uncle Chop Chop on 18/02/2024 - 11:56

    If you aren't at fault, you can always chase the insurance company of the at-fault party for the replacement cost of the car, rather than settle for the $39K offered by your own insurance.

    • CocaKoala on 18/02/2024 - 23:27

      I don't genuinely understand this - wouldn't the OP's insurance actually do this chasing up and get the money if it were a possibility? Are they just being lazy?

  • Infusion on 18/02/2024 - 18:22

    So not at fault and the car is insured for $39,000…

    What if she didnt initiate her own insurance to liaise with the 3rd party insurance at fault and done it themselves? Can they demand 43k?

    • Uncle Chop Chop on 18/02/2024 - 19:58
      +2

      Basically what I posted above. You can claim from the other party's insurance directly, just like you would if you were uninsured, and you'd base such a claim on what the vehicle cost / the replacement cost of the vehicle.

      • Infusion on 19/02/2024 - 08:13

        Apologies didn’t see that!

  • nikey2k27 on 18/02/2024 - 22:06

    if only her drive most of grab Yaris cross i got one in 3 month after my Prius c 2018 hit by stolen car big different it back seat in little room top of line Yaris cross is $42,000 i could walk in off street got one drove out that same week.

  • CocaKoala on 18/02/2024 - 23:16

    and has offered a payout of what she was insured for, which is $39,000.00

    So that's what they will pay. You should however check to see if the cover compensates for damages to personal property as a result of an accident (there is usually a cover of $1000 or so I think). You might want to carefully check that no expensive sunglasses, watches, footwear, mobile phones, etc. were damaged during the accident which might total to $1000 or more? If so, you might want to add such items to the claim as personal property damage.

    This is why I insure my cars to a specific value instead of "market value" BS, which you might want to consider as an option in the future.

    Also, a VW is not in the same league as a Toyota for reliability (a Kia, and Hyundai might actually be far better than a VW in that department).

  • daydreamerzzz on 19/02/2024 - 08:30

    The car was insured for $39k and now you want them to pay out market value, should’ve read the PDS.

    • TheMills on 19/02/2024 - 12:39
      +2

      AAMI is being lazy and exploiting it to their advantage.
      PDS:
      If your car is less than 2 years old, and you're the first registered owner, we'll replace it with a new car of the same make, model and series (if available within 90 days), or similar if not available. If you choose not to accept the replacement car, or where an agreement cannot be reached between us on a replacement car, or a replacement car cannot be supplied, we will pay you the amount covered on your certificate of insurance (less any deductions).

      • kamac93 on 21/02/2024 - 21:25

        I’ve started a claim with the other at fault insurer.

        My thought was what if hypothetically the car was insured for $49,000? Would they still easily offer a cash settlement on a significantly larger amount?

  • atwilliams on 19/02/2024 - 09:56
    +1

    For new cars, I always go with a policy which has a "replaced with a new vehicle if written off in the first X years" benefit.

    • imurgod on 19/02/2024 - 10:51

      Most policies offer this and it negates the need to insure for agreed value too.

    • kerfuffle on 19/02/2024 - 12:20

      OP has this policy. The problem is that they can't replace the written-off vehicle with the exact same car and have provided alternative cars

      • atwilliams on 19/02/2024 - 13:14
        +1

        If the car is still being manufactured (which it is), I would insist that they honour the "replace with new" clause.

        Not sure why the OP is even considering a lesser offer.

        • kamac93 on 21/02/2024 - 21:27

          I’ve asked and happy to order a new Corolla. Problem is wait time (6 month min). Insurer is stubborn that one won’t be available within 90 days.

  • imurgod on 19/02/2024 - 10:50

    Wait, so you insured for $39K agreed value and that's what they're paying?

    The insurer in the right. They've honoured their side of the contract.

    There is nothing stopping you from going after the at fault party for the remainder directly and their insurer may pay it (actually, they're likely to pay it to avoid court).

    It was silly of you to go Agreed Value on a brand new car as you will short-change yourself (as you've discovered) because insurer's will provide a replacement vehicle for the first 2 - 3 years so you would have had a strong case to argue the settlement offer.

    FYI, this would've all been avoided if you'd gone through a good broker.

    • TheMills on 19/02/2024 - 12:41

      Do you mean Insurance broker? Who are these brokers?

      • imurgod on 19/02/2024 - 12:42

        There are lots but do some research and make sure they're a good one.

        Like everything else, there's good and bad operators.

  • foxpants on 19/02/2024 - 11:12

    I'm thinking a VW Golf etc. Something with good resale value and just general overall reliability of a Toyota (e.g. no Kia, Hyundai etc).

    You had me up till here, look neither are up to Toyota level, but there is a colossal divide between Kia/Hyundai and VW.

    As to the question, seek to be made whole by at fault parties insurance, your policy is giving you exactly what you paid for.

  • TilacVIP on 19/02/2024 - 21:47

    Seems like a lot of people here have a hard time understanding what "agreed value" means.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join