Automotive

What are my rights in Canada when I am zero at fault in a car accident?

  • Last Updated:
  • May 25th, 2018 4:21 pm
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 29, 2017
19 posts
1 upvote
psyfer wrote:
Dec 30th, 2017 4:55 pm
^Agreed
It will NEVER be fixed to what it was. Why on earth would u want that!?
DISAGREE
Obviously you have not met SamG. Cars can be restored to new condition even after accident despite what insurance tells you. Car companies do produce body parts, and publish detail instructions. No shortage of skills or support. If unsure just have a look for yourself at Sam's work (in this 15part youtube video where he repairs a salvage he purchased from auction):
www. youtube. com/watch?v=oD82FFmsc_A
Last edited by newcal on Jan 8th, 2018 8:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 29, 2017
19 posts
1 upvote
feels1 wrote:
Dec 31st, 2017 10:21 am
The main reason that you would like to repair your own car is because the total loss value that insurance paying you is the used car market price. Many of the used car involved in 1 or more accidents. Their quality of the repair is unclear, so for me, I will be more comfortable to repair my owned car, especially I maintain my car very well. If I bought another used car, and the owner didn't maintain it well, the cost will be on me. Consider a 5 year old BMW, the cost to repair it for 5 yr is $15k with 25 repairs. Japanese car certainly is lower, but still cost $1k-$7k depending on previous owner. This does not include engine or transmission failure, and a BMW 3 series engine cost $30k (new), while a Benz AMG V-8 engine cost $120k (new 2017 model). Let's say there is an issue with piston ring, which only visible by high engine oil consumption, then this is neither an issue that justify for engine redo ($2k - $3k for Honda/Toyota), and annoying to add 1L of engine oil monthly ($10/month). Repairing my existing car, however, ensure that I don't own other people's problem, as well as piece of mind. Every repair does affect your work & personal time.

I don't know how insurance's ratebook is design, so I can't comment whether it is consider in the rating, which will indirectly affect the premium for 1 or multiple years.
Agree completely. very Ture - Keeping and repairing one’s old car is better than buying another used car that one doesn’t know anything about its history. Which brings me to question - Does anyone know how salvage (writenoff or final loss value) value is determined by insurance companies?

To my best understanding so far (i could be wrong) many of the Ins adjusters use Audatex software to estimate repair work. Once they deem car write-off, then it is crap-shoot after. There should be a better way to determine retail value of used car. Any one care to elaborate?

My understanding is that... one should be able to buy a identical used car with insurance settlement period. In orther words, full retail price. Person A destroys person B'c car. Person B walks into a used car lot (or picks a car from Kijiji offerings) and Person A pays for Person B's replacement.
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 29, 2017
19 posts
1 upvote
absolut123 wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2018 8:25 pm
If it was not an intentional act, they would be required to restore you to your pre-loss condition. Technically speaking, repairing the vehicle or paying you cash for what the vehicle was worth immediately before the accident occured technically restores you to your pre-loss condition.

Since DCPD does not apply in your situation you can sue and see if a judge will agree to force them to repair the car.

Also have you had someone from a bodyshop prepare an estimate or did they just did an external visual inspection? Sometimes the decision to write off a car isn't always about cost. If the insurer does not feel they can repair the vehicle and meet appropriate safety standards, they will write off the car.
Thanks for taking the time to write - very helpful
Jr. Member
Apr 20, 2009
153 posts
33 upvotes
newcal wrote:
Jan 8th, 2018 8:27 am


To my best understanding so far (i could be wrong) many of the Ins adjusters use Audatex software to estimate repair work. Once they deem car write-off, then it is crap-shoot after. There should be a better way to determine retail value of used car. Any one care to elaborate?

My understanding is that... one should be able to buy a identical used car with insurance settlement period. In orther words, full retail price. Person A destroys person B'c car. Person B walks into a used car lot (or picks a car from Kijiji offerings) and Person A pays for Person B's replacement.
It varies by company, but generally they have software or subscribe to a service that will research the market value of your vehicle considering the age, condition, and mileage.

Once the car is a couple years old, you are unlikely to be able to buy an identical used car, even with popular car models. In addition, one of the fundamental principals of insurance is that an insured cannot profit from insurance. Therefore, you should think of the process of restoring you back to your net worth prior to the loss. If your car was worth $10,000 prior to the loss, than that's what you'll get from the insurance company and you decide what to do with it. We don't have a system where you can just pick a vehicle from a used car lot and expect the at fault insurer to pay you for it because it will either result in you being put in a better state than prior to the loss or you would be losing out because the available vehicles are not equipped the same way your previous one was.
Deal Addict
Oct 5, 2009
1000 posts
233 upvotes
Dartmouth
newcal wrote:
Jan 8th, 2018 8:27 am
Agree completely. very Ture - Keeping and repairing one’s old car is better than buying another used car that one doesn’t know anything about its history. Which brings me to question - Does anyone know how salvage (writenoff or final loss value) value is determined by insurance companies?

To my best understanding so far (i could be wrong) many of the Ins adjusters use Audatex software to estimate repair work. Once they deem car write-off, then it is crap-shoot after. There should be a better way to determine retail value of used car. Any one care to elaborate?

My understanding is that... one should be able to buy a identical used car with insurance settlement period. In orther words, full retail price. Person A destroys person B'c car. Person B walks into a used car lot (or picks a car from Kijiji offerings) and Person A pays for Person B's replacement.
Well if you would read the policy that you bought and signed you would realize that you do not understand and are wrong.

The policy does not entitle you to be able to buy an identical replacement car. It entitles you to actual cash value which is essentially the market value of your car we’re you to sell it 1 second before your accident occurred.

Under your definition if the only replacement car identical in year make model to your was half way across the county, had half as many Kim’s and had no dents or dings whole your was a POS you should get big $ to buy that car becuase it’s the only 9ne there is and the owner is asking a rediculous price.

What the policy says is that you get what the market would be willing to pay for your dents high km car right before the accident. That includes reducing the price due to the dents and high Kim’s as well as reducing the price becuase that’s what happens I. The real world...you advertise for $3500and end up taking 3k.

There are various 3rd party companies that come up with these values that get paid x$ per report whether they report says its worth 2k or 20 k. You can try to argue with their methodology but it’s like trying to argue with someone who appraises your property value. They have far more experience,many more tools and are unbiased compared to you. They could be wrong but the probability of them being right is far higher than you being right.
Banned
User avatar
Jul 31, 2016
437 posts
254 upvotes
Let them write it off. Negotiate for a higher settlement for what they offer you on the car. Request to buy back the salvage. Take the money that they give you and get your car fixed. You'll need to get the salvage titled removed from the car, that inspection costs $1000. And then whatever else your car needs to be fixed.

If your car is old and doesn't hold any value, that's why its being written off. Cheaper for the insurance company to give you money to buy a similar car than it is for them to fix yours.
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 29, 2017
19 posts
1 upvote
TicoGato wrote:
Jan 11th, 2018 12:01 pm
Let them write it off. Negotiate for a higher settlement for what they offer you on the car. Request to buy back the salvage. Take the money that they give you and get your car fixed. You'll need to get the salvage titled removed from the car, that inspection costs $1000. And then whatever else your car needs to be fixed.
Thanks - will do - Are you sure that inspection is $1000. or is it $100??
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 29, 2017
19 posts
1 upvote
absolut123 wrote:
Jan 5th, 2018 2:59 pm
I'm assuming you are referring to collision coverage? You cannot remove accident benefits.

Again the obligation under the law is to compensate you for the property damage and no more than that. To achieve that they can either to repair the vehicle back to the pre-loss state or buy the vehicle from you and provide you with a cash settlement equal to the current market value of the vehicle immediately prior to the loss. The insurance company is free to choose either option. If they refuse to repair it and that is what you want, you will need to sue and see if a judge will render a judgement in your favour.

If you feel the cash settlement they are giving you is too low, you need to give them proof as to why they are wrong. They hear the same story every day, "my vehicle is not like everyone elses". They want proof of that.
OK - Here is the proof...
An accident of zero percent (0%) at fault is unique in the sense that Accident (and All its consequences) are 100% result of actions of one party (i.e. person who caused the accident). Law asks 100%-at-fault-party to make the victim “whole” again. And that “make Whole again” business is a legalise term.
it doesn't say anything about market value. if it did they would have just used that term instead.

In a write-off scenario that was explained here, insurance company offers to pay own-determined market-value of destroyed car. Guess what… we can test proof that by answering this question – Can we take the insurance payoff and go out into the markets and purchase a similar spec car identical to one destroyed in accident??? Remember insurance say victim cannot profit… and law similarly requires that victim be put back again, So if ANSWER is NO – that is NO we cannot buy a similar identically equipped car with same millage and specs to replace destroyed car, then, it means pay off amount is not the market value of car. Because, that’s the exact *definition* of market value…..and that test is the ultimate proof test of current market value. If I go to markets and cannot replace my destroyed car with insurance money payout then that means value determined by insurance company is incorrect and I have not made “whole”.

Thank you for advice and taking the time to write - much appreciated it
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 9, 2012
2508 posts
1439 upvotes
Oakville, ON
newcal wrote:
Jan 15th, 2018 1:47 am
......In a write-off scenario that was explained here, insurance company offers to pay own-determined market-value of destroyed car. Guess what… we can test proof that by answering this question – Can we take the insurance payoff and go out into the markets and purchase a similar spec car identical to one destroyed in accident??? Remember insurance say victim cannot profit… and law similarly requires that victim be put back again, So if ANSWER is NO – that is NO we cannot buy a similar identically equipped car with same millage and specs to replace destroyed car, then, it means pay off amount is not the market value of car. Because, that’s the exact *definition* of market value…..and that test is the ultimate proof test of current market value. If I go to markets and cannot replace my destroyed car with insurance money payout then that means value determined by insurance company is incorrect and I have not made “whole”....
It’s virtually impossible to find an exact match vehicle for sale at any given time. However, the insurance company is supposed to take that into consideration when calculating a settlement offer. They should look at the general market for your vehicle in your area and then adjust up/down for options, condition, mileage, etc and then come up with a value to offer you.

Unfortunately, they are never going to pay more to repair a vehicle than what they think the vehicle is worth.

Sucks, but this is how insurance in Ontario works.
Banned
User avatar
Jul 31, 2016
437 posts
254 upvotes
newcal wrote:
Jan 15th, 2018 1:39 am
Thanks - will do - Are you sure that inspection is $1000. or is it $100??
I'm not referring to the basic safety certificate, thats $100. Its closer to $1000 because they inspect the frame for any structural damage, and they are very thorough because they don't want to put a car on the road that is bent out of allignment.
Jr. Member
Apr 20, 2009
153 posts
33 upvotes
newcal wrote:
Jan 15th, 2018 1:47 am
OK - Here is the proof...
An accident of zero percent (0%) at fault is unique in the sense that Accident (and All its consequences) are 100% result of actions of one party (i.e. person who caused the accident). Law asks 100%-at-fault-party to make the victim “whole” again. And that “make Whole again” business is a legalise term.
it doesn't say anything about market value. if it did they would have just used that term instead.

In a write-off scenario that was explained here, insurance company offers to pay own-determined market-value of destroyed car. Guess what… we can test proof that by answering this question – Can we take the insurance payoff and go out into the markets and purchase a similar spec car identical to one destroyed in accident??? Remember insurance say victim cannot profit… and law similarly requires that victim be put back again, So if ANSWER is NO – that is NO we cannot buy a similar identically equipped car with same millage and specs to replace destroyed car, then, it means pay off amount is not the market value of car. Because, that’s the exact *definition* of market value…..and that test is the ultimate proof test of current market value. If I go to markets and cannot replace my destroyed car with insurance money payout then that means value determined by insurance company is incorrect and I have not made “whole”.

Thank you for advice and taking the time to write - much appreciated it
Perhaps you should think of it this way. By paying you the market value of what your car was worth immediately before the loss the insurance company has restored you to the net worth you had prior to the loss. Therefore, you have been made whole. You are free to do as you wish with that cash. The assertion that you should be able to buy any car off the lot in the event of an at fault loss is just simply not realistic, and will lead higher incidences of fraudulent claims, more difficult claims process, and higher premiums.

Again, you do not need to accept what the insurance company offers you, it is a negotiation, but you need to come prepared with documentation.
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 29, 2017
19 posts
1 upvote
absolut123 wrote:
Jan 15th, 2018 8:54 pm
Perhaps you should think of it this way. By paying you the market value of what your car was worth immediately before the loss the insurance company has restored you to the net worth you had prior to the loss. Therefore, you have been made whole. You are free to do as you wish with that cash. The assertion that you should be able to buy any car off the lot in the event of an at fault loss is just simply not realistic, and will lead higher incidences of fraudulent claims, more difficult claims process, and higher premiums.

Again, you do not need to accept what the insurance company offers you, it is a negotiation, but you need to come prepared with documentation.
I think you are missing the point here completely! I am making an assertion here.
If The insurance companies are so generous and so accurate and have the best interest of their clients and consumers, then they should pass this simple test i mentioned with flying colors, yes? The scaremongering about abuse of system is in very bad taste. Why don't we all wake up one day and call all insurance companies a scam too. we don't.

Besides It is not my job to negotiate. they are the ones charged to compensate victim. The victim should not go hat in hand and ask to be made whole again.

You are forgetting that insurance company cannot restore to "whole" if they unilaterally determine market worth with appraiser films and Market Research firms all eat the bread from the hands of insurance companies and work for them. We should not think for a second that their views are impartial.
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 29, 2017
19 posts
1 upvote
Going back to the original topic of this thread… Does anyone know a zero-at-fault person's right with regard to obtaining a rental car? I am interested to see what goes on in different provinces in Canada BC, AB, SK etc. What has been your experience during the years? What are the best practices? What does the law says?

Generally, common sense says that if 100% faulty person takes away your transportation and means by which you make income, they (or their insurance) need to accommodate for a rental car.... they should pay (reimburse) victim party for rental car fees. Isn’t that right? What has been your experience?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 1, 2005
4359 posts
1510 upvotes
Toronto
newcal wrote:
Jan 18th, 2018 1:41 am
Going back to the original topic of this thread… Does anyone know a zero-at-fault person's right with regard to obtaining a rental car? I am interested to see what goes on in different provinces in Canada BC, AB, SK etc. What has been your experience during the years? What are the best practices? What does the law says?

Generally, common sense says that if 100% faulty person takes away your transportation and means by which you make income, they (or their insurance) need to accommodate for a rental car.... they should pay (reimburse) victim party for rental car fees. Isn’t that right? What has been your experience?
Again, why don’t you read your own policy and the rules for you province?
Email = [myusername] @ GMail.com
:arrowd: B/S/T Threads :arrowd:
[FS] N/A
[WTB] Fido LTE micro sim
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 9, 2012
2508 posts
1439 upvotes
Oakville, ON
newcal wrote:
Jan 18th, 2018 1:41 am
Going back to the original topic of this thread… Does anyone know a zero-at-fault person's right with regard to obtaining a rental car? I am interested to see what goes on in different provinces in Canada BC, AB, SK etc. What has been your experience during the years? What are the best practices? What does the law says?

Generally, common sense says that if 100% faulty person takes away your transportation and means by which you make income, they (or their insurance) need to accommodate for a rental car.... they should pay (reimburse) victim party for rental car fees. Isn’t that right? What has been your experience?
Depends on the Province you’re in and the insurance coverage that you have.

If I’m Ontario, you don’t deal with the other guy or the other guy’s insurance company - you deal with your own insurance company. So if you’re in Ontario ask your insurer what you’re covered for in your scenario.

Top