After a not-at-fault accident, being told where your vehicle must be repaired can feel like a second collision. So, can insurers choose repairers? Sometimes they can nominate or require a repairer under the terms of their own policy. But that does not automatically mean an at-fault insurer can dictate where you repair your vehicle or refuse every cost charged by your chosen repairer.
The answer depends on who is making the claim, the insurance cover in place, the policy wording, and whether you are pursuing the at-fault driver or their insurer for your loss. The distinction matters because it can affect the repair outcome, how long you are without your vehicle and whether you are left out of pocket.
Can insurers choose repairers under your own policy?
If you make a claim through your own comprehensive motor insurance policy, your insurer may have a network of authorised repairers. Some policies provide a choice of repairer option, while others give the insurer the right to select, approve or direct the repairer. The answer is in the Product Disclosure Statement and policy schedule, not simply in what a claims handler says over the phone.
An insurer may prefer its approved repairer because it has agreed rates, turnaround expectations and warranty arrangements. That can be convenient, particularly where the vehicle is straightforward to repair and the network repairer can start promptly. It can also give the insurer clearer oversight of the work.
However, convenience is not the only consideration. You may have a longstanding relationship with a local repairer, own a prestige, modified or commercial vehicle, or need a business vehicle repaired by someone who understands its particular fit-out. An approved repairer may not always be the best-equipped workshop for that job.
Before authorising repairs, ask whether your policy includes choice of repairer, whether your preferred repairer needs insurer approval, and what happens if the insurer declines that approval. Get the insurer’s position in writing. This avoids an argument later about whether work was authorised or whether a policy benefit is available.
What changes when you were not at fault?
Where another driver caused the collision, you may decide not to claim under your own policy. Instead, you can seek to recover your reasonable losses from the at-fault driver, often through their insurer. In that situation, the at-fault insurer is not your insurer and generally does not get to rewrite your repair decision merely because it would prefer a cheaper workshop.
Your claim is against the person responsible for the damage. The insurer may manage the claim for its insured, but its commercial preference for a particular repair network is not, by itself, the legal test.
The central question is usually whether the repairs and associated losses are reasonable consequences of the accident. Reasonable does not always mean the lowest quote available. A proper repair may require manufacturer-approved procedures, genuine or suitable parts, recalibration of safety systems, specialist paint work, chassis measurement, or repair by a workshop familiar with the vehicle.
That said, a not-at-fault claimant cannot simply choose any price without scrutiny. An insurer can reasonably question excessive labour rates, unnecessary replacement work, unrelated pre-existing damage, duplicated items or repairs that go beyond restoring the vehicle to its pre-accident condition. It may arrange an assessment, request photographs and estimates, or put forward a competing repair scope.
A disagreement is not proof that your chosen repairer is wrong. It means the repair scope and cost need to be supported with evidence.
Your repairer cannot be substituted without consequences
Changing repairers after dismantling has started can create real problems. The first workshop may have identified hidden damage, ordered parts or spent time preparing a detailed estimate. Moving the vehicle can delay repairs, create extra towing costs and risk losing valuable evidence about the extent of damage.
For businesses, the cost is often wider than the panel invoice. A van, ute, taxi, rental vehicle or fleet asset sitting idle can affect bookings, staff productivity and customer service. The sensible repair option is therefore not always the one with the lowest initial figure. It is the option that reasonably returns the vehicle to service, with work completed to an appropriate standard.
What an insurer can reasonably ask for
Even where you have selected the repairer, cooperation remains important. The at-fault insurer is entitled to investigate the claim and should be given a fair opportunity to assess the damage before repairs remove the evidence. Do not confuse that right to assess with an unrestricted right to control every decision.
In practice, an insurer may ask for the vehicle location, photographs, a detailed repair estimate, invoices, proof of ownership and information about the accident. It may also seek to inspect the vehicle or appoint an assessor. Prompt, organised information helps prevent avoidable delays and puts you in a stronger position if a cost is later challenged.
If repairs are urgent because of safety, storage charges or business use, tell the insurer clearly and give a reasonable deadline for inspection. Keep a written record of the notice, including emails, claim references and the name of the person spoken to. Where possible, retain photographs of the damage before and during repairs, particularly where panels or mechanical components will be removed.
When repair costs are disputed
Repair cost disputes often arise over labour rates, repair versus replacement, parts pricing, paint and materials, calibration, or hidden damage found after the initial estimate. Insurers may offer a lower figure based on their assessor’s report or network rates. Your repairer may maintain that the proposed scope will not properly restore the vehicle.
Neither position should be accepted without examining the detail. A line-by-line comparison of the quotes can reveal whether the disagreement concerns genuine repair methodology, an omitted operation, an incorrect labour allowance or simply a rate the insurer does not wish to pay.
It is particularly important not to authorise a reduced repair just to end the argument if it compromises safety, quality or resale value. Equally, repairers should ensure their invoices are clear, supported and connected to accident damage. Transparent documentation makes a recovery demand harder to dismiss.
Where the vehicle is a total loss, the argument changes. The issue may become the vehicle’s pre-accident market value, salvage, registration-related costs and replacement transport, rather than which repairer performs the work. The same principle remains: the aim is to put the innocent party back in the position they would have been in had the accident not occurred, so far as money can do that.
Practical steps before agreeing to a repair direction
If an insurer says you must use its repairer, pause before moving the vehicle or signing an authority. Four questions can quickly clarify your position:
- Are you claiming under your own policy, or recovering directly from the at-fault driver?
- What does the relevant policy actually say about repairer choice and approval?
- Has the insurer identified a specific concern with your repairer’s scope, rate or qualifications?
- Have you provided enough information for the insurer to assess the damage fairly?
Ask for any refusal or repair direction in writing, including the reasons. If the insurer relies on a policy term, request the precise clause. If it disputes an invoice, ask which items it disputes and why. Broad statements that a quote is “too expensive” are not a useful basis for resolving a technical repair issue.
For repair businesses, early communication with the vehicle owner is critical. Confirm who authorised the work, provide itemised estimates, document supplementary damage and obtain approval where required. A well-prepared file supports both the customer relationship and any later recovery action.
Protecting your recovery after a not-at-fault accident
Choosing the right repairer is only one part of the claim. You may also have a claim for reasonable towing, storage, assessment costs, hire car expenses and other losses flowing from the collision. Each item needs to be necessary, proportionate and properly documented.
Do not let an insurer’s preference for its own repair network turn into pressure to accept a loss you did not cause. At the same time, approach the claim commercially. Provide evidence, allow a reasonable inspection opportunity and be prepared to explain why the chosen repair method and cost are justified.
Where an insurer continues to reject a properly supported repair claim, delays without a clear reason or insists on an outcome that leaves you out of pocket, specialist recovery advice can help focus the dispute. Titan Legal assists not-at-fault vehicle owners, repairers and businesses to pursue repair-related losses directly and fight for a fair outcome.
A repair decision made early can affect the whole claim. Keep control of the paperwork, protect the evidence and insist on clear reasons before accepting that someone else gets to decide how your vehicle is restored.
