h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm always suspicious of people who say they don't want to involve their insurance company.

At least she IS insured, which is something...

> At least she IS insured, which is something.. <<


Is she? Was that ever made clear?
Or did they decide to avoid insurance claims
before producing proof of insurance?

I'm also having trouble with the logic
of paying each other half of each other's costs.

If Clive's costs 400 and hers costs 400 they give
each other 200.

But if Clive's costs 400 and hers costs 600 then
Clive gives her 300 and she gives him back 200.
So Clive pays out 700 in total and gets back
200 in cash and 400 in value rec'd while she pays
out 800, gets 200 in cash and 600 in service rendered.

In the end she gets 800 in value for an 800 investment and
he gets 600 in total value for a 700 investment. She breaks
even and Clive is down 100.

To truly share the overall costs we have to add Clive's 400
to her 600 for a total of 1000 and each pays 500.

Maths! God I hate maths.

Don't get me started on the ethics of the situation.
Or the fact that he was going forward and she was backing up.

Or why the second shop was able to quote almost half the
price of the first. There lies the real ethical problem.


~jwf~

Well I'm done speaking with my insurers.


Breaks down like this:


My repairs

Garage 1: £384
Garage 2: £240

Half of my repairs £192 or £120


Her repairs
Garage 1: £535
Garage 2: £???

Half of her repairs £265.50 or £???



Her excess £100
My excess £250


So if she makes an insurance claim it will cost her £100 only - I now see the attraction.

In that case if our 50% agreement still stood, I'd pay her £50.

And let the insurers haggle it out.

Time for methinks.....

In NZ they have a knock for knock policy for small claims, so my insurance company would pay for my repairs and the other person's would pay theirs.

(I like the sound of knock for knock )

Friendly humour alert

(Christ it is still my birthday GMT )

My recent experience of insurance companies is that unless one or other party admits liability then they just agree it is 50/50 so they don't have to bother going to court and can both rake in more money in premiums over he next five years - and even if your no claims is protected (or the other party admitted liability 100%) your renewal price will still go up because you are now known to drive in areas that have a high incidence of accidents.

For example, if you are driving round a roundabout, slowly in a line of traffic, and somebody decides to enter the roundabout and drive into the side of your car because they think you'll magically disappear out of their way, so long as the idiot denies liability the insurance company will say it is 50/50. Do I sound bitter?

If you are going through your insurers Clive, I wouldn't expect to pay anything towards her excess, or her yours.

From a game theory point of view, I think you should obtain the quotes for the repairs to her car, and she gets the quotes for repairs to yours. That way you are both incentivised to minimise what you have agreed to pay to the other.

(In paractical terms I'm not sure how that could work, though)

Now it's in the hands of the insurers, it's going to cost ya... Of course the insurance company might, if it's 50/50, allow you to NOT claim on your own insurance for your damage which could save you a whole lotta botha...