Is this one excess payment or two?

bwana said:
According to the dealer there's broken glass trapped at the bottom that wasn't removed when the window was replaced. The force of opening and closing the door had caused outdentations(?) with cracks in the paint.


Rear passenger door.


The claim has already been approved. Albeit with a second excess payment.
Click to expand...
The constant rattling would have been unbearable if that was the case of pieces falling about big enough to cause such damage.

I rate your insurer as coming to the party because of poor workmanship from the glass installer by not vacuuming the glass out. And no, this is a secondary claim as it's not directly related to the first incident.


Just putting it out there ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ https://pledgetimes.com/ford-suzuki-and-tesla-suffer-from-rust/
 
A3@MBB said:
The constant rattling would have been unbearable if that was the case.
Click to expand...
Not if it's wedged in there.

An alternative theory put forward by one of the panel beaters Suzuki took the car to is that they used the wrong screws to reattach the door panel and drove them in too far. I haven't got to the stage yet where I remove the panel to see for myself.

A3@MBB said:
I rate your insurer as coming to the party because of poor workmanship from the glass installer by not vacuuming the glass out. And no, this is a secondary claim as it's not directly related to the first incident.
Click to expand...
The glass wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for the first incident so I'm not sure how you can say they're not directly related.
 
bwana said:
An alternative theory put forward by one of the panel beaters Suzuki took the car to is that they used the wrong screws to reattach the door panel and drove them in too far.
Click to expand...
This is much more plausible.

The rust & damage to the paint is not related to the incident that caused the window to shatter.
Insurance work this way, don't ask my why or the logic behind it...
 
bwana said:
According to the dealer there's broken glass trapped at the bottom that wasn't removed when the window was replaced. The force of opening and closing the door had caused outdentations(?) with cracks in the paint.


Rear passenger door.


The claim has already been approved. Albeit with a second excess payment.
Click to expand...
So it was the rear passenger window that broke? Not the rear window?
 
bwana said:
It was the rear door glass (passenger side) as opposed to the rear windscreen.

View attachment 1608514
Click to expand...

I forgot you are borderline American with your special words.

Most Everyone here understood "rear window" being a singular statement to mean the rear windscreen.

Otherwise you would have said left or right rear window for everyone to understand you meant one of the car door windows.
 
SauRoNZA said:
I forgot you are borderline American with your special words.

Most Everyone here understood "rear window" being a singular statement to mean the rear windscreen.

Otherwise you would have said left or right rear window for everyone to understand you meant one of the car door windows.
Click to expand...
As per your earlier post when I said door, I meant door.
 
bwana said:
Not if it's wedged in there.

An alternative theory put forward by one of the panel beaters Suzuki took the car to is that they used the wrong screws to reattach the door panel and drove them in too far. I haven't got to the stage yet where I remove the panel to see for myself.


The glass wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for the first incident so I'm not sure how you can say they're not directly related.
Click to expand...
The screws theory is plausible, though a bit far fetched.. I have removed a fair few door panels from a fair few different models of cars.. none of them had ever had any screws, specific to the door panel, that were long enough to cause damage if put into the wrong hole.. not to mention that there is a significant cavity for the window mechanism..

If they used the wrong screw, it would have to have been the complete and utter wrong screw and the guy installing the door panel should be demoted to sweeping the floor..
 
RedViking said:
Don't have a broker?
Click to expand...
I do, but they're the ones advising me I need to pay a second excess... which is something I'm trying to avoid.

It's R5k, so I'm willing to be a little obstinate about it.
 
bwana said:
I do, but they're the ones advising me I need to pay a second excess... which is something I'm trying to avoid.
Click to expand...
Tell them they must sort it out as you don't want to pay a second excess as it is still part of the initial claim, or your will start looking for other insurance and broker. They must at least put in the effort, it's these type of things you pay them money for.
 
It sounds like you didn't take it to an approved installer. If the installer isn't backed by the insurer they won't take responsibility.
 
Fingerlessliz said:
It sounds like you didn't take it to an approved installer. If the installer isn't backed by the insurer they won't take responsibility.
Click to expand...
We've been using the same window place for years and have yet to have any indication from the insurance company that they're not "approved" in any way.

Kosmik said:
Just a question, how is it a insurance claim? Scratch and dent?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand. Why wouldn't damage to my car be covered? Isn't that what comprehensive insurance is for?
 
bwana said:
I'm not sure I understand. Why wouldn't damage to my car be covered? Isn't that what comprehensive insurance is for?
Click to expand...
Comprehensive insurance normally means collision or vehicular accidents. What you describe sounds like "wear and tear" or factory defect.

The origional claim , yes as that's a glass claim but the bubbling of the door is not. One can argue that the bubbling is a result of a bad job of the first, in which case responsibility falls on the repairer and the onus is you to prove correlation which you have if your insurer states it.

But a second claim is odd, unless it's some form of scratch and dent.
 
Kosmik said:
Comprehensive insurance normally means collision or vehicular accidents. What you describe sounds like "wear and tear" or factory defect.

The origional claim , yes as that's a glass claim but the bubbling of the door is not. One can argue that the bubbling is a result of a bad job of the first, in which case responsibility falls on the repairer and the onus is you to prove correlation which you have if your insurer states it.

But a second claim is odd, unless it's some form of scratch and dent.
Click to expand...
The insurance company has approved the claim, so liability isn't an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X