by syancey727 » Wed Jun 17, 2009 02:20 pm
I have a 2008 Kia optima with less than 8000 miles that was hit at a stopped light by a driver not seeing the red light and smashing me into the car in front of me. We were at a dead stop, not slowing, not moving, 4 lanes, nowhere to go to avoid oncoming fast moving car in rear view mirror. The driver and all witnesses are in agreement and the driver at fault has insurance and my vehicle has been taken to dealership body shop. My concern is, with owning the car less than a year, I believe I am going to incure a large financial loss weather the car is totaled or repaired. I put money down so gap coverage is not the issue, but if they total it, and I have to buy a new one, I pay taxes again - basically, my 10 months of paymenst have paid taxes and interest and depreciation - the car still has new car smell - perfect condition. Is there anyway to negotiate cost of having pay taxes on the new vehicle I must purchase. I should not incure expenses to replace vehicle and I will. If they fix the vehicle, the trade value will be greatly reduced and I won't be able to sell outright because of carfax and an accident with such high repairs. The body shop is disassembling now and says it is border line if it will be totalled to much damage to make quote until dissassembled. Of course, I am receiving numerous lawyer letters everyday, but I not seeking extra benifits, just wanting to come out even. Any suggestions on how not to lose thousands on this situation, that was no fault of my own
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:17 pm Post Subject:
.
.
Lori, as far as conflicting rules about Sales Tax, I guess that might depend on whether the Judicial system lets Consumer Protection Laws trump Insurer Protection Laws, or not??
Lori, tcope and others...
the person, is responsible for any and all necessary and reasonable expenses that you incur until you are back to where you where before the accident. AND that person's insurer is obligated to reimburse their insured up to his/her policy limits.
I thought this statement would be self-explanatory.... but.... I'll add clarification.
1 - surely your not implying that "necessary and reasonable expenses" could be excluded from what is owed the Victim by the _at fault_ driver.
2 - Nor am I implying that if those expenses were more than the Policy Limits of the _at fault_ driver that his insurer would automatically be required to pay more than the Policy Limits. (although I vaguely remember reading of a few court cases where the _at fault insurer_ has been forced to pay more). I'm not sure if those cases were property damage or personal injury.
3 - I think if you all re-read my original comments you will find the answers to _your_ comments.
4 - If not.... let me know and I will do my best to re-explain my thoughts. :)
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 04:42 pm Post Subject:
surely your not implying that "necessary and reasonable expenses" could be excluded from what is owed the Victim by the _at fault_ driver.
What I'm pointing out is that the policy specifically states that the insured cannot commit the carrier to paying anything. That is, the insured is prevented from making a payment that obligates anyone except himself. So according to the policy the insured cannot look for reimbursement just because he/she made a payment on the loss. Your statement implies that the insured can simply pay the claim as they see fit and then seek recovery from their insured. The amount paid and/or the amount the carrier owes is not anything I'm speaking about. I'm pointing out that the insured making _any_ payment for _any_ reason is a _very_ bad idea. Insured's don't know what laws apply to their claim (after 20 years, I probably don't know 1/2 of them). If the insured makes a payment this could obligate the insured to a much larger liability. So it's more then just seeking reimbursement from the insurer for the amount paid by the insured... it's all the liability that is attached to that payment. This could be assumed by the insured directly and not something that could be transfered to the carrier.In all, it's not a good idea (and specifically addressed by the policy) for the insurer to be making payments on a claim and then thinking that they can simply get paid back by the carrier.
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:32 am Post Subject:
.
.
(Sorry about the late reply, Its been a busy week or so.)
MY COMMENTS in BOLD Print
----------------------
Quote: FK, states...
""surely your not implying that "necessary and reasonable expenses" could be excluded from what is owed the Victim by the _at fault_ driver.""
----------------------------------
tcope states...
""What I'm pointing out is that the policy specifically states that the insured cannot commit the carrier to paying anything. That is, the insured is prevented from making a payment that obligates anyone except himself. So according to the policy the insured cannot look for reimbursement just because he/she made a payment on the loss.""
Yep..! I believe your right...! The at-fault driver can certainly get _short paid_ (reimburse) by his/her insurer... but that is the _at-fault_ drivers problem, not the Victims problem. Just because the _at-fault_ drivers insurer refuses to pay the "Necessary & Reasonable" expenses doesn't automatically mean the _at-fault_ driver somehow doesn't still owe the Victim for ALL "Necessary & Reasonable" expenses.
----------------------------------
tcope states...
"" Your statement implies that the insured can simply pay the claim as they see fit and then seek recovery from their insured. ""
Really..?? I don't see where I've implied that at all.
Unless your thinking that "Necessary & Reasonable" would include the Victim stating they feel they should also receive an extra $10,000.oo_ Just Cuz_, as being "Necessary & Reasonable"..??
------------------------
tcope states...
""The amount paid and/or the amount the carrier owes is not anything I'm speaking about. "" but.. that's all my comments have been about??
------------------------
tcope states...
""I'm pointing out that the insured making _any_ payment for _any_ reason is a _very_ bad idea.
Who said they should..????? Or even implied they should?? These Posts have been about and too the Victim, not the _at fault_ driver.
------------------------
tcope states...
""Insured's don't know what laws apply to their claim (after 20 years, I probably don't know 1/2 of them). If the insured makes a payment this could obligate the insured to a much larger liability. So it's more then just seeking reimbursement from the insurer for the amount paid by the insured... it's all the liability that is attached to that payment. This could be assumed by the insured directly and not something that could be transfered to the carrier.
In all, it's not a good idea (and specifically addressed by the policy) for the insurer to be making payments on a claim and then thinking that they can simply get paid back by the carrier. ""
Again... I don't see how a problem between the _at fault_ driver and the _at fault_ driver's insurance Co. would change the amount of the "Necessary & Reasonable" expenses that are owed by the _at fault_ driver to the Victim.
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:54 pm Post Subject:
tcope states...
Here is your post:"" Your statement implies that the insured can simply pay the claim as they see fit and then seek recovery from their insured. ""
Really..?? I don't see where I've implied that at all.
Its also my understanding that the _Person_ who damaged your auto... not his/her insurer, but the person, is responsible for any and all necessary and reasonable expenses that you incur until you are back to where you where before the accident. AND that person's insurer is obligated to reimburse their insured up to his/her policy limits.
Last word in my initial quote should be "insurer", not "insured" but that should be obvious.
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 02:18 pm Post Subject:
AND that person's insurer is obligated to reimburse their insured up to his/her policy limits.
How does that imply that the _at fault_ insured can simply pay the claim as they see fit.
And I've already stated.....
""Yep..! I believe your right...! The at-fault driver can certainly get _short paid_ (reimburse) by his/her insurer... but that is the _at-fault_ drivers problem, not the Victims""
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 03:36 pm Post Subject:
How does that imply that the _at fault_ insured can simply pay the claim as they see fit.
Only because you state that the at fault party (insured) is responsible to pay the person who suffered the loss and then the insurer is "obligated" to pay the insured back up the the insured's policy limits. It's incorrect that the carrier is obligated to pay their insured back up to the policy limits but there is no question that by stating it as such you, at least, imply that the insured can simply pay the claim and collect back from their carrier up to the policy limit. You put no limitation on what the insured is liable to pay... it's not my responsiblity to assume that you meant any.
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 05:26 pm Post Subject:
.
.
tcope,
You seem to be ignoring the one statement I've made numerous times. This statement is often used in Law & Insurance. It is the statement that Restricts both the insured & the Victim. That Statement is........:
"" "necessary and reasonable expenses" ""
Remember this thread was based on the Victim who is not bound by the other person's insurance policy. Only the other person is bound by His/Her insurance policy.
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 05:59 pm Post Subject:
The thread might have been based on that but my post commented on your statement that an insured could pay the claim and then collect from his/her insured up to the policy limits. You made no mention of "reasonable or customary" but that it moot as my post was not addressing that. My post stated that it was bad advice to imply that an insured could simply pay the claim and expect (any) payment back from his/her insured. You then asked where you implied that. I pointed that out and now your bring up "reasonable and customary".
I think I've said enough on the subject.
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 03:46 am Post Subject:
.
.
tcope,
A copy/paste of Part of my Very First Post in this thread: (underline added )
""Its also my understanding that the _Person_ who damaged your auto... not his/her insurer, but the person, is responsible for any and all necessary and reasonable expenses that you incur until you are back to where you where before the accident. AND that person's insurer is obligated to reimburse their insured up to his/her policy limits. ""
You have also taken My words.. ""is responsible for"" and stated them to mean ""could pay the claim and then collect from his/her insured??
In that first post and all but 1 (one) there after had the statement necessary and reasonable expenses.
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 05:27 am Post Subject:
although I vaguely remember reading of a few court cases where the _at fault insurer_ has been forced to pay more
I guess it should be forced otherwise it will mean, lower the policy limits, better the advantage of not paying the insured sum thus lesser the premium!!!
Add your comment