Write off or Repair??

[Skylarking]

The salvage value has everything to do with it. If they can't sell the car to recover costs it can effect if the underwriter wants it to be written off or go for the repair.

AIUI, a statutory write off can (but doesn’t have to) be declared if certain structural parts are damaged. If structural parts are available for repair, and it’s economic to repair, then it won’t be a structural write off.... But a structural write off must be declared if fresh water immersion (dunked for a specific time) or any salt water immersion occurs, where such isn’t really based on cost of repair per se ... AIUI such statutory write off rules are defined by the road registration authorities.

A repairable (economic) write off is a much simple case and it occurs if repair costs are a % (80%) of the vehicle’s pre accident value... the wreck is also a much lower % (10%) of pre accident value....

From my experience with one claim in particular, I know that the estimated wreck value is directly proportional to the estimated market value, around 10% (or around $1k per every $10k of pre accident value).

Underwriters would have access much better estimates for vehicle and wreck values but normally any claim is a loss whichever way it’s cut and diced..

Obviously an insurance company will try to minimise their claim costs, usually by doing the cheapest repair as well as selling the wreck.... but a lot it is... Such is as obvious and as certain as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

But for an insurance company to directly make a profit on a claim isn't how the game should be played. For them to pay you out an amount and then sell the wreck for more than the payout is inherently immoral.

As I said, in my case, they paid me out and I kept the wreck as the assessor and claim manager came to agree that it was immoral for them to profit in such a way... back office processes can and do get overridden when it is prudent for all to do so (and that’s usually where the risk of them looking like heartless pricks overrides their greed).

But such logic and reason is never freely offered by an insurance company, only rules are freely offered. Unless you put in an effort to argue convincingly you may not get the best outcome. If you don’t even check their offers are reasonable, you may as well bend over and take what they give...

It’s can be a cruel world at times so best to rely on your own checks and don’t put up with their BS...

 

[vc commodore]

... But a structural write off must be declared if fresh water immersion (dunked for a specific time) or any salt water immersion occurs, where such isn’t really based on cost of repair per se ... AIUI such statutory write off rules are defined by the road registration authorities.

I did a report for a economic write off car that was dunked in water...Not sure what sort of water, but the car came from the auctions. It was a Mitsubishi 380

The person that bought the car replaced all fluids, the battery and I think the starter, did the necessary paper work required to re-register it and on sold it...So this part of your statement doesn't ring true

 

[shane_3800]

AIUI, a statutory write off can (but doesn’t have to) be declared if certain structural parts are damaged. If structural parts are available for repair, and it’s economic to repair, then it won’t be a structural write off.... But a structural write off must be declared if fresh water immersion (dunked for a specific time) or any salt water immersion occurs, where such isn’t really based on cost of repair per se ... AIUI such statutory write off rules are defined by the road registration authorities.

A repairable (economic) write off is a much simple case and it occurs if repair costs are a % (80%) of the vehicle’s pre accident value... the wreck is also a much lower % (10%) of pre accident value....

From my experience with one claim in particular, I know that the estimated wreck value is directly proportional to the estimated market value, around 10% (or around $1k per every $10k of pre accident value).

Underwriters would have access much better estimates for vehicle and wreck values but normally any claim is a loss whichever way it’s cut and diced..

Obviously an insurance company will try to minimise their claim costs, usually by doing the cheapest repair as well as selling the wreck.... but a lot it is... Such is as obvious and as certain as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

But for an insurance company to directly make a profit on a claim isn't how the game should be played. For them to pay you out an amount and then sell the wreck for more than the payout is inherently immoral.

As I said, in my case, they paid me out and I kept the wreck as the assessor and claim manager came to agree that it was immoral for them to profit in such a way... back office processes can and do get overridden when it is prudent for all to do so (and that’s usually where the risk of them looking like heartless pricks overrides their greed).

But such logic and reason is never freely offered by an insurance company, only rules are freely offered. Unless you put in an effort to argue convincingly you may not get the best outcome. If you don’t even check their offers are reasonable, you may as well

It’s can be a cruel world at times so best to rely on your own checks and don’t put up with their BS...

No that is incorrect. Wreck value is what people are willing to pay at auction. If a certain car moves parts fast and with good money for the wrecker they will all bid high on those models. Insurance companies reasearch which vehicles get more at auction.

I'll give you an example.
A corolla with front end damage got writen off then a mazda two with the same damage got repaired.
The corlla had a higher market value and a higher insurance value.
It was the case the mazda is worthless at auction and the corolla will get thousands.

One of my old bosses set up a wrecking buisness when I was with him. So we were watching auctions. Over a year we bought about 40 cars.

Atm I fix cars so I'm always on the phone to the wreckers.

The 10% of market value is never correct. For example parts for 4x4 utes are expensive as the owners are more likely to repair so engines and gear boxes move. Little hatch backs with 200k rarely get repaired so you likely can get a mazda 2 engine second hand for $500 compare that to a hilux and the hilux engine at like $5-8k (yes diesel is more exy).

I'm also not talking about wreking yards were they do pick a part I'm talking about places like ACM that only stock parts for cars 10 years old. Yes ACM will have older parts but they sell it all off and don't buy more.

 

[Skylarking]

I did a report for a economic write off car that was dunked in water...Not sure what sort of water, but the car came from the auctions. It was a Mitsubishi 380

The person that bought the car replaced all fluids, the battery and I think the starter, did the necessary paper work required to re-register it and on sold it...So this part of your statement doesn't ring true

As I said, a fresh water dunking has a time limit element before it’s classified as a statutory write off. If it didn’t meet that threshold it would become a repairable write off which as you stated can be repaired...

A quick Google pointed to this SA doc “Written-Off Vehicles: What You Need to Know
Vehicle Inspection Fact Sheet MR925 01/19l“ which states the following within

Can I use front/rear cuts from statutory written-off vehicles?​

It is possible to use these components if the statutory written-off vehicle is a result of impact damage and subject to the condition of the components. If the vehicle is a statutory written-off vehicle due to fire damage or water damage components may not be acceptable. If there is any doubt do not hesitate to contact a Tier 3​

So from the SA fact sheet itself, it seems logical to conclude that if a statutory write off water dunked car can’t be used for spare parts, then the car as a whole can’t be put back on the road.

There are other state and fed references (associated with WOVR classifications) which state the duration of fresh water immersion before statutory write off is required. I’ll leave that up to you to find as I can’t be bothered.

What I wrote rings true unless you again just want to pick on me without comprehending what I write... .

 

[Skylarking]

No that is incorrect. Wreck value is what people are willing to pay at auction. If a certain car moves parts fast and with good money for the wrecker they will all bid high on those models. Insurance companies reasearch which vehicles get more at auction.

FFS Shane, the wreck value is an estimation made by the insurance company at the time of settlement since they don’t have legal possession so haven’t sold the vehicle... The insurance industry will have all sorts of historical data so their estimations can be rather accurate which is why I said:

Underwriters would have access much better estimates for vehicle and wreck values but normally any claim is a loss whichever way it’s cut and diced..

Since many things are statistically analysed up the wazzoo, especially by insurance companies, i‘d not be surprised if vehicle values (be they used cars or wrecks) follow a normal distribution (bell) curve and a 10% mean/average figure (as relayed to me by senior claims manager) for wreck isn’t outrageous when looking across the whole dataset.

Somehow I’d thing that even if I used the word “usually” or “mean” or even specified the standard deviation, you’d still focus on edge cases which will by definition not be the average.

I’m well aware of variations based on the vehicle make/model/variant but the estimated wreck value is only relevant when the owner wants the old vehicle back. If you get a fair price so you can replace your damaged car with something similar, it just isn’t relevant. But if your low balled on payout, and the insurance company sell the wreck for more than the payout, then that’s wrong and you just skirt around this implying it’s ok.

I think we’ll have to leave it as is since the OP will be confused by this.

Anyone who makes a claim from any insurance company needs to be on their toes and research as much as they can on replacement costs. And since OP is on a agreed value policy, which may be lower than actual replacement costs since used car market has gone nuts, they should consider what the wreck will achieve when sold. Again, if it looks like the wreck may achieve more than the payout, it’s wrong for the insurance company to profit on this one claim and as such OP may have a leaver to use to get a better settlement.

As I said, I have first hand experience in two somewhat related claims (out of less than a handful of claims in my driving life). What’s always certain is that if one acts their first offer is they’ve left food on the table

 

[shane_3800]

FFS Shane, the wreck value is an estimation made by the insurance company at the time of settlement since they don’t have legal possession so haven’t sold the vehicle... The insurance industry will have all sorts of historical data so their estimations can be rather accurate which is why I said:Since many things are statistically analysed up the wazzoo, especially by insurance companies, i‘d not be surprised if vehicle values (be they used cars or wrecks) follow a normal distribution (bell) curve and a 10% mean/average figure (as relayed to me by senior claims manager) for wreck isn’t outrageous when looking across the whole dataset.

Somehow I’d thing that even if I used the word “usually” or “mean” or even specified the standard deviation, you’d still focus on edge cases which will by definition not be the average.

I’m well aware of variations based on the vehicle make/model/variant but the estimated wreck value is only relevant when the owner wants the old vehicle back. If you get a fair price so you can replace your damaged car with something similar, it just isn’t relevant. But if your low balled on payout, and the insurance company sell the wreck for more than the payout, then that’s wrong and you just skirt around this implying it’s ok.

I think we’ll have to leave it as is since the OP will be confused by this.

Anyone who makes a claim from any insurance company needs to be on their toes and research as much as they can on replacement costs. And since OP is on a agreed value policy, which may be lower than actual replacement costs since used car market has gone nuts, they should consider what the wreck will achieve when sold. Again, if it looks like the wreck may achieve more than the payout, it’s wrong for the insurance company to profit on this one claim and as such OP may have a leaver to use to get a better settlement.

As I said, I have first hand experience in two somewhat related claims (out of less than a handful of claims in my driving life). What’s always certain is that if one acts their first offer is they’ve left food on the table

Fair enough.

 

[vc commodore]

As I said, a fresh water dunking has a time limit element before it’s classified as a statutory write off. If it didn’t meet that threshold it would become a repairable write off which as you stated can be repaired...

A quick Google pointed to this SA doc “Written-Off Vehicles: What You Need to Know
Vehicle Inspection Fact Sheet MR925 01/19l“ which states the following within

Can I use front/rear cuts from statutory written-off vehicles?​

It is possible to use these components if the statutory written-off vehicle is a result of impact damage and subject to the condition of the components. If the vehicle is a statutory written-off vehicle due to fire damage or water damage components may not be acceptable. If there is any doubt do not hesitate to contact a Tier 3​

So from the SA fact sheet itself, it seems logical to conclude that if a statutory write off water dunked car can’t be used for spare parts, then the car as a whole can’t be put back on the road.

There are other state and fed references (associated with WOVR classifications) which state the duration of fresh water immersion before statutory write off is required. I’ll leave that up to you to find as I can’t be bothered.

What I wrote rings true unless you again just want to pick on me without comprehending what I write... .

The car in question came from an auction and no one knew how long or what sort of water the vehicle was in.....However it is clear, the vehicle was obviously in water long enough to be classified as a economic write off, having a starter cactus because water got into it....A 5 minute dunk in fresh water don't stuff them up....Maybe a 5 minute dunk in salt water would

Then I'll mention about my brothers 2000 model 4 pot Camry...He went through a flooded road in surburban Brissy...Yeah, he was an idiot...The car stalled because it went in to the flooded road....That car would have been in rain water for 10 minutes and they wrote that off as a statutory write off, yet the Mitsubishi 380 I'm referring to wasn't....

So what you wrote doesn't ring true....I have just mentioned about 2 different cars, that have been subjected to 2 different write off statuses, with one not ringing true to what you wrote due to the unknown circumstances behind the write off...The other does, but if we believe what you wrote, the Camry shouldn't have been a stat write off...

 

[Natbart23]

UPDATE - assessor reviewed the quote (it came in at $7500) and then called me to ask what I wanted to do. He recommended write off as he said there was evidence that the timing chain was on the fritz and that would just cost me more money in the end. Thanks for all your helpful advice.

 

[shane_3800]

UPDATE - assessor reviewed the quote (it came in at $7500) and then called me to ask what I wanted to do. He recommended write off as he said there was evidence that the timing chain was on the fritz and that would just cost me more money in the end. Thanks for all your helpful advice.

How KM's is on the car?

 

[Natbart23]

How KM's is on the car?

No idea. I haven’t gone back to see the car and I don’t drive it (hubby does). The assessor said it had relatively low kms for its age but didn’t say how much sorry.