Background: As some of you know, a 3rd party smashed into my vehicle while it was unattended. Upon my arrival at the location (before the smash happened), my dashcam captured footage and the license plate of another vehicle parked right near mine, there were no other vehicles at the location either when I arrived or left. It was an incredibly remote location with no other cars as far as the eye could see. At some point, my car was smashed into by presumably the car that I captured on dashcam.

 

Now here's the question: my insurance companty is telling me two different things. Advisor A originally told me they would try to pursue the third party insurer for an admission of guilt/liability, and the advisor said that if I waited for this admission and obtained it, I would have to pay no excess upfront and the value of my claim would be 0 when buying a new policy further down the line.Having a value of 0 would mean the increase in my premiums would be much lower, compared to having a claim value equal to the value of the repairs if I opted to get it repaired straight away, and not wait for an admission of liability.

Advisor B who I spoke to today mentioned this is not true at all - the value of the claim (when declaring previous claims/incidents when buying a new policy) would always be equal to the cost of the repairs, irrespective of who's determined to be liable for the incident, or whether the third party insurer openly admitted liability.

Which advisor is correct? A or B?

I'm starting to lean with B, since what A is saying doesn't logically make sense. If B, then obviously I should proceed with the repairs, and there's no point waiting. The damage is a huge eye sore.

Ring and get a third advisors opinion