Autosure - unfair

[mercedes 0]

A mate got into trouble with the insurer. Insurer is being unfair in my opinion what do the rest think? Other than the Insurance Ombudsman I can't think of a better suggestion. I personally think all Mechanical Insurance are a bloody waste of money unless your engine suddenly blow up into pieces

1. Car was diagnosed with a control unit fault by Insurance company's authorised repairer

2. Repairer suggested replacing it with a new unit costing $1500

3. Insurer rejected the claim and asked for the car to be sent to another authorised repairer

4. 2nd repairer took the faulty unit out of the car and sent unit for electrical repair

5. fitted unit back to the car. After a week problem re-occur again

6. Bought car back to 2nd repairer and they took the faulty unit out of the car and sent for repair again (for the 2nd time)

7. fitted unit back to the car. After another week, problem re-occur again

8. Car was again sent back to 2nd repairer. This time the repairer conducted more test and confirmed the unit could not be repaired and has to be replaced

9. Insurer refused to authorised the replacement, instead asked the repairer to conduct a series of further test again

10. Repairer did further test instructed by insurer and reported back to insurer that all test completed suggest a faulty control unit and recommended for unit to be replaced

11. Insurer refused to authorised the replacement and instead came up with a dodgy idea. The car owner has to authorised the work. The insurer will foot the $1500 bill however after replacing control unit if it doesn't solve the problem, the car owner has to pay for it.

Edited January 25, 2009 by mercedes

[E30BMA 0]

Thats pretty poor on their part, I deal with many insurance companies in my day to day job (managing an automotive workshop), Autosure included, IMO, they shouldnt be expecting you to foot the bill if they authorise the part to be replaced.

I would have thought that the cost of the faulty unit would be an issue that should be solved between Autosure and the company who diagnosed the fault ??

Its really the repairer who has advised/ decided that the part requires replacement, not the client.

Insurance companies usually try to minimise their costs by (in my experience) trying to source second hand/used parts to achieve this. Yet Ive never heard of them suggesting their client should pay for the repairs if unsuccessful.

It really sucks that their expecting you to foot the cost, Id be spewing if they suggested that to me.

Anything in the Consumer Guarantees Act that might help you out? Just a thought, someone else may have had a similar experience to you and can shed some light on how they solved it?