It's not an arguement, it's just saying how it works. Life sucks sometimes, and can bring little hassles (like buying a new car) but at least nobody was hurt.

You are getting a fair outcome, as someone destroyed your car, and now you'll get the cash to replace it. No lawyer will get you any fairer than that, or be able to turn back time so the accident didnt happen, so I would just relax and enjoy getting a new car.

BTW, You won't get the cash to repair it. Normally the keep the wreck unless you ask for the wreck back as part settlement.

All fully comprehensive insurance in Switzerland is based on the list price of the car when new. This means that if you want to insure a 5-year-old car, your premium will be calculated on the full new car value, even though you will have paid much, much less than full new list price for the car! (That's why it's generally not worthwhile to insure cars over 8 years old on "voll Kasko".) Look around and you can find plenty of top-of-the-range 4-year-old cars (especially in the EU) for CHF 40,000 or less that cost CHF 200,000+ new (e.g. this one) -- so your insurance premium may be in the multiple thousands per annum.

However, here's what happens if your car is written off (and you have fully comprehensive insurance). The payout from an insurance company for a write-off is determined according to a fixed table of values. If the car is less than a year old (I think that's the cut-off -- needs confirmation), you will normally receive a replacement car. After that, a sliding scale operates -- I can't remember the exact values, but if the car is 2 years old, you might receive 70% of the new car list price; at 3 years of age, 60%; at 4 years, 50%, etc. For most cars, it's pretty easy to find a 4-year-old used car for a lot less than half the new car price, so I'd be fairly happy with receiving half the Swiss new car list price (dealer discounts are ignored) for a written-off semi-new car.

Sorry- I meant 'to replace it'

And that has what to do with a third-party claim??

It also fails to take account of cars whose value doesn't go down? For example - if I was to crash the Enzo which is now worth twice what I paid for it - I'd be pretty pissed off if they only offered the value based on that sliding scale.

Granted, it was a long story, but all insurance companies use the same scale -- whether own risk or 3rd party.

As for your Enzo, unless you arranged cover through a specialist broker (as for my E-Type), yep, you're stuck with what they give you.

A vintage car needs to have special insurance cover indeed, which will of course be a LOT more expensive.

From a previous thread on EF:

http://www.zurich.ch/site/en/priv/mo...lassiccar.html

...... if you want the 'vintage' cost of the car to be covered...

Actually, they only NEED 3rd party, which will not be expensive.

Tom

True indeed, but I think the last line of Odile's post explains the "needs" bit.

ETA: which, I've just seen, she added after your comment...

What utter nonsense, a vintage car will be very cheap to insure on the assumption you drive a low milage.

I have a friend who uses a '34 Brough SS110 as his daily ride (yes, I know that it doesn't exist, rather it's an SS100 with a factory certificate for 110, one of 7 made), he only has 3rd party as anything else would cost absurd amounts (bike is worth 500k+)

Tom

We have a friend who has a fabulous collection of very expensive vintage cars, and he does believe they should be used regularly and not kept in a hangar. He travels all over Europe for vintage rallies. He has a team that constantly maintains them- but he only insures 3rd party- as he is rich enough to bear any problems or accidents out of his own pocket. Few can afford this though.

Taken from the SVV

The first highlighted section is what is important for anyone with a car whose value can be difficult to value or may have risen - like my Enzo.

The second part basically deals with a leased car - where the fixed value is the outstanding leasing amount.

That is exactly what I meant...thank you for "translating" this for those who didn't understand me. What is more, the car was really in excellent condition, would have kept it a few more years even if it was several years old.
In the end we consulted a lawyer and they said not to bother going for the transport company, not worth it, to just take what the insurance gives us. Sigh.
The amount the insurance offered is less than half the price of what we paid for the car, and whereas I know my car does not have the same value as when bought (obviously), I wouldn't have replaced it at this point in time.
We had bought it new, and now we can't buy a new car with that money....why do I have to settle for a second-hand car? (anyway, rhetorical question....)
Thanks to everyone for the responses.

Your car was in old, you can't expect to be given a brand new car to replace an old car . With the insurance money you can get a perfectly usable car, probably even newer than the one you had!

Because your car, which has now been totalled, is second-hand.

Which is the point of what I wrote, above.

Wrong. My car was first-hand to me. I don't want to buy a car that I don't know who owned it, where it's been, etc.

Out of interest when was the car first registered

I find that a little unsympathetic.

Like a lot of people, I hate buying cars. I bought my current car new, and have had it nearly 10 years -- and will continue to drive it as long as I can. If it was written off tomorrow by a bus, and if I was simply offered some theoretical 'market value', I'd feel that to be an injustice. It's not as if it was an 'act of god' -- it was incompetence and negligence by the bus driver.

I wouldn't expect a new car but I'd expect the market value plus a hire car for as long as it took me (within reason) to find the right replacement, plus some cash compensation for the sheer hassle. The last thing I want to do is spend my weekends trailing round looking for a similar car to my current one, with no true idea of the history of the cars I'm looking at.

And I've had a lot of adventures with my car. What about sentimentality value? That's not replaceable.

Do you understand how insurance works??? The basic model will insure the article (whatever that it is) and then you can pay for supplementary insurance to cover hire car, legal assistance, fixed value etc etc.

If your car has a high sentimental value (a 250 GTO owned by Sinatra for example) then pay the premium to have insurance cover that higher amount.

In the case of the OP, and yourself, if your car gets wiped out tomorrow then the basic insurance is there to put you back in the situation you were prior to the accident - IE having a car of similar age, condition and specification.

What the OP should be doing is now asking the forum "experts" whethere the amount she got for the car was fair by providing details of the car being written off and the amount offered - and ideally their location.

For example if a bus took out my Disco tomorrow I'd expect a fair market offer of 26,000chf for it - and not say 18,000chf

__________________
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" Abraham Lincoln