by SaturnCat » Mon Apr 06, 2009 07:18 pm
Hello there.
First off I have a Saturn SL1 sedan of 1999. Recently I had gotten into a minor accident where the other driver accidentally backed up in front of my car. It left a dent on the center of my hood to where it not only locks completely anymore (it still latches but isn't fully shut) and it looks pushed in now that the sides are opened a tad. My headlights are ajar a bit and one has a minor crack. There was mention of another dent inside of the frame...but other than that, My car continues to work fine as it always has, the lights still work by the way.
Now everything has been running smoothly so far with my insurance company (Esurance) getting the claim in quick and getting a Appraisal guy to come down and take pictures of the damage for an estimate.
From here, things become confusing and a mess. I'm told by my insurance company that the total estimate was so high a number and apparently over or equal to the current value of my car that they have to claim it as a Total Loss. What I find hard to understand is how it came to such a redicilous amount. I may sounding to overly dramatic, but how does getting a new hood, headlights, and possibly bumper (even though that looks to be in good condition) cost up to 4000. Again, there may be more damage that the Appraisal guy found, but here's the thing:
- My Insurance Company sent me info about what happens when a car is declared Total Loss, the estimate total, and info on how my car is compared to other current value prices...but where is the info on what was damaged and its estimated prices? How much of the car are they considering damaged?
-I recall now that the Appraisal guy took more pictures than just the front (also the inside of my car and the back) Was that necessary when evaluating the damage from the accident or was that too much, because I have a feeling the estimate derived from the total need of repair on the entire car than just the accidental damage...but is that legal? How does the other things I need to take care of on my own time fit with the cost of repairs from the accident?
I've had several people and friends tell me different situations and advice about car repairs and handling insurance companies. I'm told I shouldn't try to get a second opinion by a different auto body shop I may plan to go to AT LEAST get an estimate, not start the work immediately. But I hear that if I do, it could forfeit the possibility of the driver at fault to help pay for the repairs. Is that true?
Any information will be helpful and figuring out what to do. I've read facts that if I take the settlement and still keep my call, I won't get the full value but at least I can keep my car. I know I would have to get a new certificate of salvage and have someone inspect it to make sure its safe for the road legally.
First off I have a Saturn SL1 sedan of 1999. Recently I had gotten into a minor accident where the other driver accidentally backed up in front of my car. It left a dent on the center of my hood to where it not only locks completely anymore (it still latches but isn't fully shut) and it looks pushed in now that the sides are opened a tad. My headlights are ajar a bit and one has a minor crack. There was mention of another dent inside of the frame...but other than that, My car continues to work fine as it always has, the lights still work by the way.
Now everything has been running smoothly so far with my insurance company (Esurance) getting the claim in quick and getting a Appraisal guy to come down and take pictures of the damage for an estimate.
From here, things become confusing and a mess. I'm told by my insurance company that the total estimate was so high a number and apparently over or equal to the current value of my car that they have to claim it as a Total Loss. What I find hard to understand is how it came to such a redicilous amount. I may sounding to overly dramatic, but how does getting a new hood, headlights, and possibly bumper (even though that looks to be in good condition) cost up to 4000. Again, there may be more damage that the Appraisal guy found, but here's the thing:
- My Insurance Company sent me info about what happens when a car is declared Total Loss, the estimate total, and info on how my car is compared to other current value prices...but where is the info on what was damaged and its estimated prices? How much of the car are they considering damaged?
-I recall now that the Appraisal guy took more pictures than just the front (also the inside of my car and the back) Was that necessary when evaluating the damage from the accident or was that too much, because I have a feeling the estimate derived from the total need of repair on the entire car than just the accidental damage...but is that legal? How does the other things I need to take care of on my own time fit with the cost of repairs from the accident?
I've had several people and friends tell me different situations and advice about car repairs and handling insurance companies. I'm told I shouldn't try to get a second opinion by a different auto body shop I may plan to go to AT LEAST get an estimate, not start the work immediately. But I hear that if I do, it could forfeit the possibility of the driver at fault to help pay for the repairs. Is that true?
Any information will be helpful and figuring out what to do. I've read facts that if I take the settlement and still keep my call, I won't get the full value but at least I can keep my car. I know I would have to get a new certificate of salvage and have someone inspect it to make sure its safe for the road legally.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 01:20 pm Post Subject:
Not 70% of their estimate... 70% of the value of the vehicle.
They said I could still do that but it wouldn't change their estimate on the car and be considered to take off the Total Loss declaration.
Correct... an insurance company's appraisal is not going to be excessive and it's a fair statement to say that it's going to be the least amount to repair the vehicle. You could probably find a shop that would repair the vehicle with filler and duct tape for much less but the insurance company cannot allow someone to skirt the insurance total loss laws in knowing that they wrote up the repairs correctly and allowing a vehicle to be repaired w/out a salvage title just because some shop is willing to cut corners. They would be knowingly allowing the vehicle owner to circumvent the insurance laws. The total loss laws are there to prevent vehicles from being repaired cheaply and incorrectly so that they look good and then resold to other people without them knowing their true condition.A Contract for Repair is different in that the shop agrees to make the correct and needed repairs for the amount listed on their estimate. There is an estimate with a breakdown of the repairs but basically the shop is stating, "we will repair all the damage from this accident for $xxx.xx". This transfers responsiblity from the insurance carrier over to the shop. If the vehicle is not repaired correctly and this somehow comes up later on, the insurance company has this legal document from the repair shop that shifts responsibility. Now... some insurance companies won't consider a Contract for Repair as they don't want to deal with the liability issue. That is why you will need to talk to the adjuster about it. I'd say the odds are slim that they will do it. But is they will, this would avoid a salvage title.
You could also obtain an estimate and if a repair shop is willing to perhaps find a cheaper part or perhaps cut a few bucks off their labor charge and this brings it in under 70%, then you might still be able to talk to the carrier about it not being a total loss. If the repair cost is so close to the 70% amount then it's not like the shop is cutting corners on the correct repairs to lower the cost (i.e. not making the correct repairs)... they might simply be willing to cut a few bucks off their profit for the work. In this case its better to get the estimate first so that this is no longer a variable. That is, you can tell the insurance company you have an estimate for 69% of the value and that its for the same repairs they have listed and you don't have to propose that you _might_ be able to get a lower estimate.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 02:13 pm Post Subject:
Hi,
The total loss laws are there to prevent vehicles from being repaired cheaply and incorrectly so that they look good and then resold to other people without them knowing their true condition.
Yes, just think of you buying a car and then facing the same problem down the line. There are quite a few instances wherein people have unknowingly purchased such cars only to suffer from further damages. The laws have been incorporated following a number of lawsuits.
Also, to double check, if I can do the Contract idea, that still won't affect the other guy's insurance company to help pay for the damages...does it
I simply don't get why this should affect the other guy's insurance co.
Roddick
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 06:01 pm Post Subject:
I simply don't get why this should affect the other guy's insurance co.
I was informed by a friend who had been in a similar situation before that if he had tried to get a second estimate it could cause some problems with the other guy being able to pay for the damages. Now I may not have understand him correctly since I think that would only be a problem if I got the estimate and then let them fix my car at the same time, but he seemed very sure and hellbent on making sure I didn't do it until I heard back from the other guys insurance company and make sure they claimed him as fault.
Not 70% of their estimate... 70% of the value of the vehicle.
Whoops! Sorry, that's what I meant.
So, just to clarify my options. I can either:
-Try and ask my adjuster about the Contract of Repair and see if they will go with it.
-Talk to my auto body repairman about my insurance's estimate and see if there is anything on there they could find cheaper to use but still correct to use to make my car legally safe to drive and hope that if the parts or labor is cheaper to going down to 69% or lower.
And hopefully this will get me out of Total Loss.
I still think my bumper isn't all that damaged. If the repairman agrees with me can that be taken out of the insurance's estimate? Maybe the cover needs to be replaced but the thing is still strudy and strong enough and it doesn't look pushed in...heck, maybe they can still check the frame of the bumper but the cover doesn't need to be changed (only smudges that I can clean off myself).
I'm trying not to sound like I'm cutting corners, and I definitely agree I don't want the repairman to be as cheap as using duct tape or glue or anything (LOL), but I just don't think certain parts assessed is as bad as the Appraisal guy told my insurance.
Urgh....this is just so stressful.
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:46 pm Post Subject:
.
.
Part of tcope's Post:
but the insurance company cannot allow someone to skirt the insurance total loss laws in knowing that they wrote up the repairs correctly and allowing a vehicle to be repaired w/out a salvage title just because some shop is willing to cut corners. They would be knowingly allowing the vehicle owner to circumvent the insurance laws. The total loss laws are there to prevent vehicles from being repaired cheaply and incorrectly so that they look good and then resold to other people without them knowing their true condition.
That's a very common misconception.
The 'intent' is good, but the means of determining whether to Brand or not is badly flawed because of the $$$$ system.
There are tens of thousands of autos branded as reconstructed yet have only had Cosmetic damage, such as Hail damage. Nothing dangerous about a bunch of little dents on the roof, hood, and deck lid.!
Why... because of the automobiles age and low resale value.
There are also tens of thousands of automobiles 'NOT' branded as reconstructed that have had extensive structural repairs, such as replaced Frame rails, Roof, Air bags, Steering systems, Floor, Rocker panels, Center Pillars, etc..
Why... because of an automobiles youth and high resale value.
Obviously (too me anyway) Branding Titles is more about Money than Safety.
With the current system (money based??) thousands of consumers get stuck with 'Clean Titled' reconstructed automobiles every year!
Why... because the $$$$ system is easy to implement and keeps more of the high priced autos on the road while getting the slightly damaged older ones off the road.
A system like this is:
Good for Auto Sales because it makes consumers buy automobiles.
Good for Insurance Co.'s because it Allows Undisclosed Reconstructing.! $20,000.oo worth of Structural & Mechanical repairs won't Total a $40,000.oo Automobile. Leaving a heavily damaged car with a Clean Title is cheaper than replacing that newer expensive Car.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ ) :)
FK,
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 05:00 am Post Subject:
There are tens of thousands of autos branded as reconstructed yet have only had Cosmetic damage, such as Hail damage. Nothing dangerous about a bunch of little dents on the roof, hood, and deck lid.!
Keep in mind that it's the states that make these laws.But also there are ways for these situations to be rectified. States usually allow the owner to take the repaired vehicle into a DMV, have it inspected, and have the title changed if they can show that the vehicle has been completely repaired. At least this is what I've heard... I've not done it myself nor known anyone personally who has done this.
There are also tens of thousands of automobiles 'NOT' branded as reconstructed that have had extensive structural repairs, such as replaced Frame rails, Roof, Air bags, Steering systems, Floor, Rocker panels, Center Pillars, etc..
But this says nothing about States mandating insurance companies tell them when a vehicle is considered a total loss.Obviously (too me anyway) Branding Titles is more about Money than Safety.
Then perhaps you've not seen many vehicles where it has more filler on it then metal and where there is tons of unrepaired damage under the body panels. These people tell me that they had no idea that they bought a vehicle like that (which I find hard to believe but not everyone is educated in this regard) and are very upset when they find out that their vehicle is worth next to nothing. Who is making money off the current system? Certainly not the insurance companies or the State.Why... because the $$$$ system is easy to implement and keeps more of the high priced autos on the road while getting the slightly damaged older ones off the road.
I understand what you are saying but I think it applies mainly to low value vehicles. Some state (all?) address this in that they have a lower value limit where the vehicle does not need a salvage title. For example, in FL is the vehicles value is less then $1500 then it does not need a salvage title no matter what the damage.Good for Insurance Co.'s because it Allows Undisclosed Reconstructing.! $20,000.oo worth of Structural & Mechanical repairs won't Total a $40,000.oo Automobile. Leaving a heavily damaged car with a Clean Title is cheaper than replacing that newer expensive Car.
You are incorrect that it's "good" for insurance companies. How is spending $20,000 to repair a $40,000 vehicle "good" for the insurance company? As I see it, they are out $20,000! Do you mean it's "good" for them because they don't need to pay $40,000 on a $20,000 loss? Why should they have to if the owner only suffered a $20,000 loss? As the law is written now, insurance companies are required to pay more on total loss claims most of the time. If that $40,000 vehicle has $32,000 in damages, the insurance company is going to be required to pay in excess of $40,000... on that $32,000 claim just because the State says it needs to be totaled. That certainly is not "fair" to the insurance company. So there needs to be a fair cut off point. Plus, vehicle manufactures do good job of designing vehicles so that they can be repaired. Body shops do great jobs in making these repairs. If enough money can be paid to repair a vehicle, _almost_ any vehicle _can_ be repaired and put back in the same condition.I'm not saying the system is perfect but certainly it's a good system and certain insurance companies don't benefit from it.
Add your comment