Use car insurance or bear repair costs?

by ywarke » Tue Apr 14, 2009 07:28 pm
Posts: 2
Joined: 14 Apr 2009

I rear-ended someone yesterday. That person's car didn't get damaged much (although there were a few scratches), but some of my car's front part (mostly chasis) was damaged. I am pretty sure that the other person will get their car fixed through my car insurance. I was, however, wondering how I should get my car fixed, considering that I want to minimize my insurance premiums from going up because of the incident. Should I (a) use the collision coverage of my car insurance and get the repairs paid for by the insurance (less the deductible) OR should I (b) bear part or all costs of repairs myself without asking the insurance company to pay for any of my repairs.

My intent here with option (b) is that if I don't use my insurance company to pay for my repairs, that's less money spent out of their pocket for the incident, thus resulting in a lower premium increase. But on the flip side, if the other person calls up and asks for coverage to fix her car, then the insurance company knows that my car was also involved in the accident, and therefore may jack up my premium, regardless of whether I use them to pay for my repairs or not (in which case I might as well get them to cover my repair costs also), which makes the case to go with option (a).

I really don't know how this works, and so am torn between options (a) and (b).

Any advice on which route to go so as to minimize insurance premium increases in the future and repair costs would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Total Comments: 15

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:16 pm Post Subject:

Almost always adjustments to the premium are based on the fact that there was an accident and if your at fault. Usually paying a few thousand to the policy holder does not change anything.

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 02:15 am Post Subject:

Insurers normally surcharge for at fault-accidents, some will only do so if the amount paid is greater than a state-mandated "threshold." As well, certain carriers now allow accident-forgiveness if you are in a higher-tier company. If you're surcharged, it will typically stay with you for three years, and they range from 10-25% for the first wreck depending on insurer.

Since you stated that the other party is going to get their car fixed through your insurance company, there's already an at-fault accident on your "record" with the carrier. This is assuming that your company accepts liability, which seems pretty clear-cut since you rear-ended the other guy.

So, I would check with your agent to see how you're going to be surcharged (if at all) and/or if there's a threshold in place that could limit any premium surcharges. For instance, if your state's threshold is $1,000 and the damages to the other guy is less than that, your insurer might not charge you higher premiums because of the wreck. With some carriers, that doesn't matter in the least. If they pay out $25, they'll still whack ya. :evil:

So, do the math. If the damages to the other guy are over any threshold that might exist, and your damages exceed the deductible- go ahead and claim it on your insurance. They won't whack you with a higher surcharge because they paid out for property damage liability and collision as opposed to the liability alone. At-fault is at-fault, as they say...

InsTeacher 8)

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 09:03 am Post Subject:

Hi InsTeacher, you say that the damages to the other party being less than the state threshold may prevent the insurer from charging more premiums. But, what would be the outcome if it happens on more than one occasion? Steven

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:52 am Post Subject:

Hey Teacher, what is this threshold? In some states filing a police report isn't required if the volume of damage is less than the limit , are you referring to that? Or it is some other limit that applies to the insurers?

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:25 am Post Subject:

Regardless of how you go about it you still need to ring your insurers and let them know about the incident. this would be best course of action. although you feel you don't want to make claim on insurance the cost to rep your claim would probably be a lot more than any increase in your premium so would be worth claiming.


(link removed by lori-you may add a link to your signature but NOT to any thread posts--thanks)

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 09:09 am Post Subject:

Well, if you would like to save cost on this issues, first you have to do your basic calculation. How long you bought your insurance already? how many percent discount on NCD "Non Claims Discount"?

For example, if you are paying $2,000 yearly for the insurance and now is having 40 % discount on NCD, hence you only paying $1,200 now. Now you have to check your car damage, ask the workshop repairer to quote you on how much to repair your car. Lets say the repairing cost you $800, then of course it is better than you don't claims for insurance and repair yourself.

If the repairing cost is more than $2,000, then you better claims for your insurance. This all depends on how your calculates your policy premium and car damages repair cost.

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:46 pm Post Subject:

If your carrier is paying for his damage and his damage is over the threshold (usually 400-750 or so) they you already have a chargeable accident against your policy and adding your repair won't change that up or down...once the threshold is reached it's reached....unless you want to pay to fix that guys car too, I see no way you will benefit by paying your own...contact your companys policy services to make sure, find out the theshold of 'at fault' payment that generates a chargeable loss, and i think you will find that you either need to pay it all (his and your damage) to escape a rate up (and still may not)...so you're probably better off just letting your carrier handle it all, your rates will go up once they issue payment on his damage...adding yours won't make them higher..(unless of course his is under the threshold but i doubt it from your discription)

Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:37 am Post Subject: Road Rage:

When my friend suffered at the hands of a road rage incident we were both shocked that her car insurance did not cover road rage attacks. I then did some research and found that 58% of drivers have been victims of road rage in the past year.

I think it is important for insurers to start considering the option for allowing such circumstances to be covered, especially if a car is extremely damaged in the process.

Please don't put plugs in your posts

Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:12 am Post Subject:

When my friend suffered at the hands of a road rage incident we were both shocked that her car insurance did not cover road rage attacks.



Please clarify what do you mean by road rage. Almost all the accidents result from carelessness of the drivers and we all get coverage to protect us against the unexpected. If you are referring to any particular condition then please be explicit.

Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:05 pm Post Subject:

When my friend suffered at the hands of a road rage incident we were both shocked that her car insurance did not cover road rage attacks. I then did some research and found that 58% of drivers have been victims of road rage in the past year.

Chocolate, a victim of road rage, who's vehicle is damaged in the process would have coverage for the repair (or total loss) of their vehicle IF they have collision coverage on the car...If they don't have collision coverage then their carry would not cover ANY damage to their vehicle for ANY reason...on the flip side, if you are the rager, (and it was proven) then their would be no coverage, based on the "intentional act" exclusion, however I've never seen a ''RAGER'' admit this...There is no reason nor, no way HER carrier (as you stated) could've denied her claim unless she didn't have collision coverage...as Jeorge requested please explain this...also the state of occurance please.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.