VF Ute "New Car Replacement" value

[stooge]

I think $50K payout may be achievable

i think you might find in the fine print "new replacement upto the original purchase price" which will be why the purchase price is on the policy.

 

[Skylarking]

i think you might find in the fine print "new replacement upto the original purchase price" which will be why the purchase price is on the policy.

I haven't read the policy other that the snippet posted but i'd argue that it's disingenuous for them to sell a policy that purports to provide a new for old replacement for a 4 year old vehicle, then effectively undo that feature in fine print by limiting payout to the 4 year old purchase price. Such would make the extra cost premium for such a new for old replacement somewhat misrepresented and AFCA may be interested in such.

In any case i don't believe it's an "upto" situation in this case. The posted policy wording is they'll replace the car with the "same make and model if it's available" and if not available they'll replace it with something that "is in our opinion a similar make and model". The insurance company can't be unreasonable in defining what is a similar make and model. And if an agreement can't be reached then it's the "what it would have cost us" hypothetical or "the amount shown on your certificate", "whichever is higher".

So there is a scope for negotiation which must start with what is a similar vehicle based on the SV6 Black's features...

 

[stooge]

I haven't read the policy other that the snippet posted but i'd argue that it's disingenuous for them to sell a policy that purports to provide a new for old replacement for a 4 year old vehicle, then effectively undo that feature in fine print by limiting payout to the 4 year old purchase price.

Here is a snippet of the gio fine print

You must be the first registered owner and your car continuously insured under GIO Platinum Car Insurance from within 13 months of your car’s purchase until the time of the total loss. A replacement car of similar make and model must be available or we will pay your replacement cost.

I read that as...
because they cant find a new ute of a similar make they will pay a cash settlement and that will be the "cost" or original "purchase price"

Soon as you start talking about a different vehicle that is a higher cost than the original purchase price i would suspect they will choose the cash settlement as it is cheaper and if any finance exists that will be paid to the finance company and you would get the remainder if any.

 

[Skylarking]

Here is a snippet of the gio fine print


I read that as...
because they cant find a new ute of a similar make they will pay a cash settlement and that will be the "cost" or original "purchase price"

Soon as you start talking about a different vehicle that is higher than the original purchase price i would suspect they will choose the cash settlement as it is cheaper and if any finance exists that will be paid to the finance company and you would get the remainder if any.

That's not how i interpret it as replacement costs =/ original purchase costs.

Read post #17, which is much clear as to how the situation is handled, especially the part after If.

I interpret those clauses in post #17 as the insurance company will pay you what it would have cost them for an acceptable replacement, or the amount listed on your certificate of insurance, whichever is the higher.

But the insurance company would need a crystal ball to know what it would have cost them for a vehicle that no longer exist. So the issue becomes how does one want to interpret "in our opinion a similar make and model" along with "what it would have cost us". That's the key to agreeing about the price. One needs to sort out Make, then Model whick leads to price...

Obviously, if one is in an urgent need for a replacement car, they'll work that out rather quickly and as such will feel like they've got the upper hand and you'll be lowballed.

 

[stooge]

That's not how i interpret it as replacement costs =/ original purchase costs.

yes but if you read it it defines that " similar make and model must be available or we will pay your replacement cost "

that type of wording in woods case allows them to say there is no vehicle available so they will do a cash settlement and that amount if going to be based on what he paid because they cant find a vehicle to work a value from.
wood cant say "well i want a 50k colorado" and expect them to pay it because that is not how it works.
they cant pull a value from thin air or base the value on used cars and with no vf sv6 black ute model available new they will base the value on what he paid new which on the policy says 37k

as for after if in post #17 that just reinforces what i am saying here because it states "the amount covered, shown on the certificate" which is the 37k on the certificate.
whichever is higher does not mean a 50k colorado it means a value they claim it would cost to replace(purchase price) or the amount on the certificate which was the agreed value between wood and gio.

the wording in the pds allows the insurance company to choose to say a vehicle cannot be found because there are no new vf utes so we choose to pay out the amount covered which wood said was 37k

now whether they do that remains to be seen but under the policy they legally can do it and if you start talking 50k to them you will quickly see how that wording is designed to work in their favor.

if they were still selling new vf utes wood would just be given a new one because the vehicle could be found and it would roughly be the same price and not 13k more.

 

[Skylarking]

@stooge, I see your prespective but I read It differently (by choice)

If your model isn’t available new, the insurance company will provide you with a new car that is in their opinion a similar make and model to your old car. If an agreement can’t be reached as to what is a similar car they will pay out the costs of what is in their opinion a similar vehicle or the amount listed on the certificate, whichever is higher...

The insurance company can‘t justifiably say that in their opinion a similar make and model is something that is an inferior product (probably rules out all Colorado ). Their should be an element of fairness and effort to find an appropriate similar feature set vehicle by the insurance company and it shouldn’t be simply based on an old purchase price as the overriding limiting factor (as implied buy stating “whichever is the higher“ otherwise that phrase has no purpose). Picking a lowball example so as to minimise the replacement price to encourage paying out what seems the higher amount listed in the certificate is an abuse of the intent of the “new for old” policy which they sold (and the implied and stated intent to source a similar vehicle if one isn’t available).

Morally one can’t replace a sporty mid priced VF ute with a base model sh!tbox having steel wheels, fabric seats, manual aircon, no Sat Nav, etc... that’s just not fair... the replacement vehicle needs a similar feature set which may also mean that you’ll get a few extras and it may cost the insurance company more than what one paid for their old car back in 2016 (which is what’s listed in the policy)...

If Holden still existed, we don't really know what price point they’d be selling at today. Or whether Holden would or wouldn't have rationalised their range. Who knows, maybe they’d have dumped all V6 varients and only sold the v8 variants, starting at $50k, if such was the case I’d expect the insurance company wouldn’t blink at replacing the SV6 Black with an SS. But that’s not the case and as a result the insurance company needs to spend some effort to locate a comparable feature set commercial load carrying “ute”. Nothing wrong in helping them decide what is comparable and why

In any case, its not my problem as I haven’t talked with the claims clerk, so i’ve got no certainty how they would respond to my arguments. All I know is that often they are more receptive to some arguments than people think, especially when what they propose seems wrong and short changes the policy holder in ways that many would consider wrong.

For me, I choose to view it as new for old =/ agreed value and I’d move forward from that point. What’s to loose... a few hours on the phone and some research... it’s better to keep the enthusiasm up during the claims process and push as much as possible rather than accepting a lowball offer...

After all, don’t they say success is all about going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm

 

[Forg]

Why couldn't the replacement cost be the cost of replacing the lost 2016 SV6 Black with a 2016 SV6 Black in similar condition/mileage, in that case?

"No similar new car exists, we cannot provide one, therefore we pay you to replace what was lost"?
Reverts to a Market Value policy, if no new replacement exists ... ?

 

[Wood Dust]

At the moment the GIO focus is on finding an equivalent vehicle with equivalent features, in my case that would include tinted windows, paint and interior protection, tow bar and a 5 year warranty. So maybe a 4x2 Colorado with all the extras. I’ve no idea of the cost of such a vehicle, but would have thought it would be well over $37k.
It isn’t clear to me when I say no, if they will pay me the $37k plus orc or the Colorado dollars. Obviously I’ll be going Colorado dollars!

 

[Wood Dust]

Yes, one way to look at it is a two door car based ute like the SV6 Black is being is replaced with a two door truck equivalent because 2 doors = 2 doors... But looking at it this way won’t serve one well since these 2 door truck based utes, like the Colorado LS are a base model POV pack. The LS costs $31,790 + DD & ORC’s.

The other way is to look at the situation is that the SV6 Black ute is not a base model variant, rather it is the pinnacle of the V6 model range. Only the V8’s (SS, SS-V and SSVR & Magnum) we’re above it...

In that context, a Colorado LS simply won’t cut the muster as it’s a POV pack which the SV6 Black most certainly wasn’t. I wouldn’t accept such. So I’d look at the LSX which is the mid range, only comes in crew cab and starts at $46,990 (man) or $49,990 (auto) excluding DD & ORC‘s. I’d be looking at that model and see what features are missing as compared to SV6 Black (though I’d think they’d be on par). But if there are some deficiencies, sat Nav, HUD, towbar, etc, i‘d look at the options list and/or up the range until all SV6 feature bases were covered. If the consequence is there are some extra inclusions because of todays model packaging, so be it. Then, once that is agreed, if I don’t actually want that truck, I’d ask for the money they would have spent buying it.

How much an hour do you charge?
thinking of engaging you as my purchasing agent

 

[Forg]

The stuff you listed as features can be bought in a Colorado that costs less than $37k ... what costs more is a model with the climate-controlled air, more than a 2-speaker stereo, alloy wheels, SatNav (Black got that didn't it?), seats that you can sit in for more than 10 minutes without having a chiro on speed-dial, stuff like that.