Interesting situation. On the 15th of this month I was run into from the rear by a dumper truck. The driver admitted fault and stated that he just did not see my car over his load. We exchanged details and I reported the matter to my insurance company (Hastings Direct).
Everything going through smoothly and then I get a telephone call today from Norwich Union who are the insurers for the third party (Wrekin Construction). They tell me that there is no dispute over blame and, rather than me have my car repaired via Hastings, pay my excess, and then claim the excess back from Norwich Union - they offer to arrange with my designated repairer to pay the full bill direct in which case I have no need to pay the excess. They also say that they will arrange for a courtesy-hire car while mine is being repaired.
This seems fine and so I provisionally agree on the understanding that I will first contact Hastings and obtain their agreement to this. I contact Hastings and they say that if Norwich Union are accepting blame then they (Hastings) will simply contact Norwich Union and claim the excess direct from them. I can then continue to have my car repaired under my own insurance with no excess to pay. I have now agreed to this course of action.
What puzzles me is why both insurance companies seem anxious to pay the (almost) full cost of the repair. Norwich Union will have known that all they would have had to pay was the excess - so why offer to pay my repair bill in full? Similarly, after Norwich Union having made that offer, why does Hastings suggest that they just claim the excess from NU and continue to pay my repair bill themselves?
It doesn't make sense to me! Does it to anyone else?
Uno-Hoo!
