Hail damage and insurance

[Price LCD]

Hi All

My car (1997, >200,000 kms) was damaged by hail last December, and I
have called NRMA. I have comprehensive insurance with them.
They looked at the car, then made an appointment with Dentoway, a
paintless dent repair shop.
I have a few questions:

1) How good is this repair technique?

If not that good, I may not fix the car. It's quite old, and after all
I'm not that worried about the cosmetic blemishes. It still drives very
well. I'd also save excess of $450.

2) If I decide not to fix it, NRMA says that I have to leave the
insurance and take Third Party insurance. They might also pay me some
money albeit I don't know how much. Anyone ever did that? Does this mean
I won't be able to re-insure the car with any insurance?

Thanks

[Forg]

Price LCD wrote:
....
> My car (1997, >200,000 kms) was damaged by hail
> last December, and I have called NRMA. I have
> comprehensive insurance
....
> Dentoway, a paintless dent repair shop.
> I have a few questions:
> 1) How good is this repair technique?
....

Very. At the very worst, they'll leave your car in a state where under
perfect lighting conditions you might just be able to see where a dent
used to be. It's most likely that you won't even be able to see the
ex-dents at all.

I've had dents fixed like that with a couple of cars, and it's
brilliant; there's not even a chance of the paint not quite matching,
because they don't even need to paint the car. Have I mentioned yet how
good I think it is? :)

....
> 2) If I decide not to fix it, NRMA says that
> I have to leave the insurance and take Third
> Party insurance. They might also pay me some
> money albeit I don't know how much. Anyone
> ever did that? Does this mean I won't be able
> to re-insure the car with any insurance?
....

The reason for that is 'cos insurance companies will often not let
someone insure a car with existing damage. You've told them about this
damage, it's officially on their books, and it seems their policy is not
to comprehensively insure you.

Other insurance companies might insure you with existing damage, and
note what the damage is. Part of the reason for NRMA's policy is
because you could insure a car worth SFA 'cos it's damaged, have a minor
bingle, claim it was all caused by the minor bingle, and get the whole
thing fixed for free. Obviously in the case of hail damage it's not
quite the same situation, which is why another insurer _might_ insure you.

I don't know whether insurers are allowed to share information (or if
they do, even if it's not legal), so I wouldn't be game to try insuring
with another company & not admitting that the damage was there -
companies can refuse claims on the basis of information that you didn't
know they have (ie. if you say you have no damage, they will happily
take your money even though they know you're lying, but then refuse to
pay out if you make a claim because the fine-print on the document you
signed says you're that you agree they're allowed to refuse you).


Hell, you're considering not fixing the car anyway, maybe you should
consider only having 3rd party property? I think someone like AAMI has
started offering Third Party, Fire & Theft again; that might be worth
looking into if you're not very worried that you'll have an at-fault claim.


--
---
Forg! -DUH#6-

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Brought to you by DUH!Inc.
DUH!Inc; Building Synergistic Wellness For All

[Scotty]

Whats the car actually worth with the dents removed (as in before the hail
damage was inflicted)? If the cars worth around the $4kor under mark (Sorry
I dont know what the car is etc) you may just want to save yourself some
dough and go the third party fire and theft insurance, you will be fully
covered for everything but your cars damage, I took out this sort of cover
once and then had soem dimwit back into the side of it (Amasingly around
where the previous damage was) and her insurance paid for it to be fixed
(freindly panel beater that loved Beer as well). It was then that I decided
to sell it cause it was in quite good nic once panel beated and buffed up.






"Price LCD" <serge@pricelcd.com.au> wrote in message
news:41e446b9$1@news.comindico.com.au...
> Hi All
>
> My car (1997, >200,000 kms) was damaged by hail last December, and I have
> called NRMA. I have comprehensive insurance with them.
> They looked at the car, then made an appointment with Dentoway, a
> paintless dent repair shop.
> I have a few questions:
>
> 1) How good is this repair technique?
>
> If not that good, I may not fix the car. It's quite old, and after all I'm
> not that worried about the cosmetic blemishes. It still drives very well.
> I'd also save excess of $450.
>
> 2) If I decide not to fix it, NRMA says that I have to leave the insurance
> and take Third Party insurance. They might also pay me some money albeit I
> don't know how much. Anyone ever did that? Does this mean I won't be able
> to re-insure the car with any insurance?
>
> Thanks

[Forg]

Scotty wrote:
....
> Whats the car actually worth with the dents removed
> (as in before the hail damage was inflicted)? If the
> cars worth around the $4kor under mark (Sorry I dont
> know what the car is etc) you may just want to save
> yourself some dough and go the third party fire and
> theft insurance
....

Be careful when getting qutoes though, some cars are no cheaper to
insure under Third Party, Fire & Theft than under Fully Comprehensive.

IOver the course of a lifetime you're actually better off without
insurance at all. However, it's the cost at the time of losing an asset
that's a killer ... however, I reckon a good rule of thumb is to see if
you can afford to replace the asset when it's lost, and don't insure it
if you can. That means you have to get 3rd Party Property, because it's
difficult to know when you'll push the car-carrier over the cliff which
is carrying 8 new $1000000 Bentleys ... but if you've got a $4k car &
$25k in the bank or in easily-accessed investments, then you would have
to seriously consider not insuring the car comprehensively or for theft etc.

There're always caveats, however. It's sometimes worth building-up your
rating or no-claim bonus when you have a really cheap car to insure, if
you have a poor rating or low NCB. And it's sometimes cheaper to insure
comprehensively than 3rd-party property (my 1982 Volvo is like this, due
to some wierd accounting anomaly at NRMA I guess).


--
---
Forg! -DUH#6-

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Brought to you by DUH!Inc.
DUH!Inc; Building Synergistic Wellness For All

[Price LCD]

Thanks for your answers.
The cars is insured for about $7k.
The repair was quoted at $2300 I think, so the residual value would be
just below $5k

I am going to enquire how much Third party would cost to see if it's
worth saving myself the $450 excess.

Forg wrote:
> Scotty wrote:
> ...
> > Whats the car actually worth with the dents removed
> > (as in before the hail damage was inflicted)? If the
> > cars worth around the $4kor under mark (Sorry I dont
> > know what the car is etc) you may just want to save
> > yourself some dough and go the third party fire and
> > theft insurance
> ...
>
> Be careful when getting qutoes though, some cars are no cheaper to
> insure under Third Party, Fire & Theft than under Fully Comprehensive.
>
> IOver the course of a lifetime you're actually better off without
> insurance at all. However, it's the cost at the time of losing an asset
> that's a killer ... however, I reckon a good rule of thumb is to see if
> you can afford to replace the asset when it's lost, and don't insure it
> if you can. That means you have to get 3rd Party Property, because it's
> difficult to know when you'll push the car-carrier over the cliff which
> is carrying 8 new $1000000 Bentleys ... but if you've got a $4k car &
> $25k in the bank or in easily-accessed investments, then you would have
> to seriously consider not insuring the car comprehensively or for theft
> etc.
>
> There're always caveats, however. It's sometimes worth building-up your
> rating or no-claim bonus when you have a really cheap car to insure, if
> you have a poor rating or low NCB. And it's sometimes cheaper to insure
> comprehensively than 3rd-party property (my 1982 Volvo is like this, due
> to some wierd accounting anomaly at NRMA I guess).
>
>

[Scotty]

Around $180 for 3rd party fire and theft.

"Price LCD" <serge@pricelcd.com.au> wrote in message
news:41e45f46$1@news.comindico.com.au...
> Thanks for your answers.
> The cars is insured for about $7k.
> The repair was quoted at $2300 I think, so the residual value would be
> just below $5k
>
> I am going to enquire how much Third party would cost to see if it's worth
> saving myself the $450 excess.
>
> Forg wrote:
>> Scotty wrote:
>> ...
>> > Whats the car actually worth with the dents removed
>> > (as in before the hail damage was inflicted)? If the
>> > cars worth around the $4kor under mark (Sorry I dont
>> > know what the car is etc) you may just want to save
>> > yourself some dough and go the third party fire and
>> > theft insurance
>> ...
>>
>> Be careful when getting qutoes though, some cars are no cheaper to insure
>> under Third Party, Fire & Theft than under Fully Comprehensive.
>>
>> IOver the course of a lifetime you're actually better off without
>> insurance at all. However, it's the cost at the time of losing an asset
>> that's a killer ... however, I reckon a good rule of thumb is to see if
>> you can afford to replace the asset when it's lost, and don't insure it
>> if you can. That means you have to get 3rd Party Property, because it's
>> difficult to know when you'll push the car-carrier over the cliff which
>> is carrying 8 new $1000000 Bentleys ... but if you've got a $4k car &
>> $25k in the bank or in easily-accessed investments, then you would have
>> to seriously consider not insuring the car comprehensively or for theft
>> etc.
>>
>> There're always caveats, however. It's sometimes worth building-up your
>> rating or no-claim bonus when you have a really cheap car to insure, if
>> you have a poor rating or low NCB. And it's sometimes cheaper to insure
>> comprehensively than 3rd-party property (my 1982 Volvo is like this, due
>> to some wierd accounting anomaly at NRMA I guess).
>>

[Forg]

Scotty wrote:
....
> Around $180 for 3rd party fire and theft.
....

That VERY much depends on where you are. My $3500 Volvo was about $400
for full comprehensive & $450 for 3rd Party, Fire & Theft. A Commodore
would be more in the same area, and if I weren't in Sydney (the
breadbasket of the insurance industry) mine'd be much cheaper.


--
---
Forg! -DUH#6-

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Brought to you by DUH!Inc.
DUH!Inc; Building Synergistic Wellness For All

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:56:01 +1100, Forg wrote:

> Hell, you're considering not fixing the car anyway, maybe you should
> consider only having 3rd party property? I think someone like AAMI has
> started offering Third Party, Fire & Theft again; that might be worth
> looking into if you're not very worried that you'll have an at-fault claim.

If TPFF is being offered, inspection of ALL the policy conditions is
invited.
Seen some that have a maximum payout. No matter what the car is
actually worth.
--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Graham W]

Price LCD wrote:
> My car (1997, >200,000 kms) was damaged by hail last December, and I
> have called NRMA. I have comprehensive insurance with them.
> They looked at the car, then made an appointment with Dentoway, a
> paintless dent repair shop.
> I have a few questions:
>
> 1) How good is this repair technique?

Certainly better than stripping, repairing and repainting.

> If not that good, I may not fix the car. It's quite old, and after all
> I'm not that worried about the cosmetic blemishes. It still drives very
> well. I'd also save excess of $450.

Do you expect to try to sell the car in the foreseeable future? It
sounds like the sort of cosmetic damage which really wouldn't affect the
value of a 10 year old 250,000km car.

> 2) If I decide not to fix it, NRMA says that I have to leave the
> insurance and take Third Party insurance. They might also pay me some
> money albeit I don't know how much. Anyone ever did that? Does this mean
> I won't be able to re-insure the car with any insurance?

Presumably the NRMA regard it as pre-existing damage and don't want to
be paying for repairing it as well in the event of a future claim. You
could contact alternative insurance companies and see what they say.

[Scotty]

Sorry I should have specified Brisbane pricing eh. Geeze pity about all you
other states eh, damn thats expensive.


"Forg" <Forg@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:41e4690d$0$27133$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Scotty wrote:
> ...
> > Around $180 for 3rd party fire and theft.
> ...
>
> That VERY much depends on where you are. My $3500 Volvo was about $400
> for full comprehensive & $450 for 3rd Party, Fire & Theft. A Commodore
> would be more in the same area, and if I weren't in Sydney (the
> breadbasket of the insurance industry) mine'd be much cheaper.
>
>
> --
> ---
> Forg! -DUH#6-
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------
> Brought to you by DUH!Inc.
> DUH!Inc; Building Synergistic Wellness For All

[Michael C]

"Price LCD" <serge@pricelcd.com.au> wrote in message
news:41e45f46$1@news.comindico.com.au...
> Thanks for your answers.
> The cars is insured for about $7k.
> The repair was quoted at $2300 I think, so the residual value would be
> just below $5k
>
> I am going to enquire how much Third party would cost to see if it's worth
> saving myself the $450 excess.

I'd get it fixed, you're getting $2300 of value for $450. You pay your
premium every year, may as well use it.

If the repair isn't that good then get it fixed again under warranty.

Michael