What is this man an expert in and why............

[mint]

Friends and wellwishers on the Forum who have sometimes kindly shown an interest in my affairs might remember that back in June I damaged a door pretty comprehensively whilst driving my car.

Today, I have had a letter from an Expert IARD, specialising in "Analyses de Risques, Economiste Construction" and who has apparently been appointed by the people whose door I damaged, requesting a meeting with me at the site of the accident.

Now, as far as I am aware, my insurance company knows about the claim and has been presented with the bill for the necessary repairs.

Why has the insurance company from the "other side" asked this expert to set up a meeting with me?

Is this normal and, if so, what is the purpose of the meeting?

It could hardly be to tell me what a lousy female driver I am, so can anyone shed some light on this?

Do I need to "prepare" for the meeting in anyway, bearing in mind that I have already sent to my insurers, a report, photos, sketch map, etc?

[Pierre ZFP]

I believe this chap is the equivalent of an insurance assessor or a loss adjuster.

I've never heard of the'other side's ' insurance co. setting up a meeting like this but perhaps others know better.  I think I would just refer the 'expert' to your insurance co, after all, that's what you pay them for.

[Sunday Driver]

An Expert IARD acting for the Institute for Action against Rotton Drivers?.........[;-)]

No, he's an independent Expert Incidendie, Accidents et Risques Divers, probably appointed by the other party because they're not satisfied with their own insurance assessor's handling of the claim.  As per Pierre, I'd be inclined to pass his letter on to your own insurer.

 

 

[mint]

Pierre, on reading the letter again, I have noticed the following sentence:

Nous avons également convoqué votre assureur à cette réunion

So, it looks like my insurer has also been invited to attend.

What is also curious is that the date has been set for 1 October which is rather a long way away and I had subconsciously pushed the whole ghastly incident to the back of my mind and had hoped that all had been settled, monies paid over and it only remains for me to see what excess I would be expected to pay.

[allanb]

[quote user="sweet 17"]So, it looks like my insurer has also been invited to attend.[/quote]I think in your position I would rather not attend such a meeting unless my insurer was there.  It might be an idea to ask your insurer whether he is actually going to attend.

[Kitty]

And take someone with you, as a witness, who speaks good French.  If I lived closer to you, I would offer.

[dragonrouge]

Sweet 17 seemingly you damaged a door of someone who was not responsible for your actions. Thus you caused the damage. No one else? It was not raining there was no frost and no snow?

Hands up?

I would just pass it to your insurers you do not need to be there. At least in the UK you do not but in France.

It happens

[mint]

Thank you, everyone, for your input and a special thank you to Cathy for thinking that kind thought.

I will definitely contact my insurer and see whether they will be attending.

Seeing that the accident happened in June, it seems rather a long time for them to be faffing about.

Fortunately, the door doesn't belong to a private individual (so no poor person has been left without a functional door all these months) but to a public building owned by the commune.

[Chancer]

[quote user="sweet 17"]

Seeing that the accident happened in June, it seems rather a long time for them to be faffing about.

[/quote]

Unless you are talking about June 2007 which still would not be slow in the scheme of things they have acted remarkably quickly, dont they know about les vacances? Perhaps it is a wind up [6]

Dont go unless you are convoqued.

[P-D de Rouffignac]

I am told by my motor insurers GAN that contested claims can routinely take up to 9 months. I ran over a water filled (therefore, invisible) pot-hole outside my local Mairie at the start of April, and correspondence is still going backwards and forwards between my insurers and there's at the end of August, re 700 euros damage to my car, which I have had to pay for, replacing all four wheels (by the way, not the snazzy alloy ones I used to have but horrible steel ones, whose hub caps were pinched within a week).

P-D de R.  

[gosub]

"What is also curious is that the date has been set for 1 October which

is rather a long way away and I had subconsciously pushed the whole

ghastly incident to the back of my mind and had hoped that all had been

settled, monies paid over and it only remains for me to see what excess

I would be expected to pay."

Your Franchise, should be as set down in your insurance policy.

[mint]

But, what is the POINT of the meeting?

As far as I know, my insurers have received the bill sent to them and are dealing with it.  Neither I nor my insurers are contesting the claim.

Despite what SD says, I don't understand why the commune's insurers should bring in this expert.  And, even if they have elected to bring in this "second opinion", why am I or my insurers asked to attend?

Presumably, if the mairie (commune property that has been damaged) is dissatisfied with the way their claim is being handled, then it's between them and their insurers.  Where does poor little me (who only happened to have caused the damage) come into all this?

PS, sorry, SD, for not acknowledging your post earlier.  I was myself in the process of posting in response to Pierre and didn't see your post until this evening.

[allanb]

[quote user="sweet 17"]But, what is the POINT of the meeting?  As far as I know, my insurers have received the bill sent to them and are dealing with it.[/quote]If the owner of the door isn't happy with the amount of the  settlement, that could be the reason for a meeting with an expert, as SD says.  But it doesn't explain why you should be there.

In fact, if your insurer has paid something on the claim, or agreed to do so, it is probably wrong for you to be in any discussion with the other side.  I think it's a general principle that in this situation the insurer assumes the right to manage the claim.  You might even damage your own interest by - as they might see it - "interfering", even though you're only responding to an invitation. 

I think it's clear that you should ask for your insurer's advice.

[mint]

Thank you for your post, allanb.  Your advice is clear and to the point.

I will scan the letter and email it to the insurer and I will await their response.  Although, as stated earlier, my insurer has also been invited to attend; I only have this expert's word for it and I have heard nothing from my own insurer.

Yes, this is definitely the smart way forward.  Got to look after my own interests first and limit the amount of hassle that I have to face.

Bad enough that my car hasn't yet been repaired and I have even thought of dumping it and buying another.  Bad enough that my car only has third party insurance.  Bad enough that I can now only drive the OH's car when it isn't needed for anything else. THIS, I do NOT need..........

[Chancer]

Just a hypothesis as to why this may perhaps have happened.

Just suppose the policyholder (unlikeley if it is the Mairie) or the company who has done the devi for the repairs or replacement decided to profit from the situation and include some adjacent menuiserie, glazing or whatever that was in need of replacement in what was damaged by the situation.

In this scenario the insurers "expert" (how I loathe that phrase) would rightly flag up that in his opinion the damage was not caused by the accident or was already there, to verify this I assume would involve yourself.

Regarding your franchise, I think that if you have tiers assurance you will not have anything to pay, it would only be invoked if you claimed for a windscreen, fire or theft loss.

[mint]

For all my kind sympathisers and advisors, an update:

My insurance people have now told me that they have already commissioned their own expert to inspect the damage.

They have said that I could attend or not as I pleased.  They seem non-commital, don't say I should or I shouldn't; their tone doesn't even permit me to guess their preference.

I have written back to say that I feel I have nothing further to add other than the information I provided in the Constat, the photos I took and the sketch map that I produced.

As I had no more contribution to make, I didn't think my presence would be useful.

So, allanb et al, I hope you agree with the stance I have adopted?

[allanb]

[quote user="sweet 17"]So, allanb et al, I hope you agree with the stance I have adopted?[/quote]I still don't pretend to understand why you were invited to a meeting, but what you've done seems right to me. 

[mint]

Yes, allanb, can't imagine why they want me to be present.  It's up to them to slug it out, surely?

If I ever get to hear what happened at the meeting, I'll let you know.  Presumably, as neither my insurer nor I will be there, the meeting will just be between someone from the mairie (the maire, I suppose) and their insurer.