My sons 2006 Mazda Altenza was rear-ended whilst stationary at a red traffic light. Impact also pushed him into the car in front and insurance company wrote the car off. It was insured for $14,000 but the insurance company assessor valued it pre-accident at $11,000. When my son enquired why such a low valuation their reason was the car had been red-flagged when imported into NZ. So my son organised a valuation to be done by an assessor not associated with the insurance company. The new assessor was also aware of the red-flagging issue and gave a pre-accident value of $13,500. The insurance company agreed to meet halfway on a payout figure. So my son got an extra $1250, it was $90(assessor cost) well spent, and just goes to show that if unhappy with the insurance company valuation you don't necessarily have to accept it.
noswalg,
Jul 27, 8:06am
How was it valued at $14000? Agreed value insurance?
tamarillo,
Jul 27, 3:57pm
Nos asks good question. I think your use of words 'insured for' might be misplaced. If it's agreed value they would have paid you, so I'm assuming it was market value, in which case the process you describe is perfectly normal. They didn't insure it for any amount.
kazbanz,
Jul 27, 4:14pm
The point being--they were happy to take the insured persons money. The information on which they lowered the value of the car was equally available then as it is now. To re value a car on that basis is ridiculous.
skiff1,
Dec 17, 3:37am
trying to apply logic to insurance companies, is like trying to teach your goldfish to play the cello. Frustrating, and doomed to failure. They are bastards, and even the best of them would eat a newborn baby if they thought it would up their profits!
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.