| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:40 am Post subject: The figures in determining a total loss |
|
|
A couple things stand out to me. The first comes from your very first post. You stated that the cost to fix the damage from the estimate is $3215. The "report" you received is an insurance estimate.
There is a reason they call it an estimate. The person who inspected the damages may not have seen all the damage that needs to be repaired. If they were to get into a repair and find additional damage, there would be a supplement sent from the body shop to the insurance company for the additional damage, which the insurance company would have to pay for.
For this reason, insurance companies generally determine that the vehicle is a total loss once the cost to repair it reaches around 70% of the ACV of the car, according to the original estimate.
Keeping this in mind, with $3215 in estimated damages, the car would be a total loss if the value of the car were any less than $3215/.70=$4592.
Insurance adjustors generally know UPD when they see it. They look at cars all day, every day, and it's astonishing how many people try to pull the wool over their eyes. As a body shop estimator and former technician, I see it all the time too. If they found unrelated damage on your car, it wouldn't fit in to the Kelley Blue Book definition of "excellent condition", which is what you valued the car at. With this in mind, it's easy to see why they decided to total the car.
Without actually seeing the car, I couldn't actually determine how much the UPD is. It sounds like you love your car, and most insurance companies give you the option to keep your car and receive a reduced settlement amount. You would have to determine if the expenses to keep your car and get it fixed outweigh the cost of buying another car.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
jerarn
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:57 am Post subject: About outstanding loans |
|
|
In response to a previous poster, the question was
"My car was declared a total loss and was valued at 12600. Out of that they will take 250 for my deductible(filed the claim through my insurance company) so im getting 12350. i have a 15807 loan and need to pay the difference. Should i be getting some money from the other insurance company to make up for the difference."
Unfortunately the answer is no. The insurance company will pay you for the value of the car, NOT the amount of your loan on the car. This is a common problem for people whose car payments reduce the balance of their loan at a slower rate than the car actually depreciates.
This is something that most banks should catch. Most banks won't loan you more for the vehicle than it's actually worth. Situations like these are why "down payments" are preferable. Unfortunately, the bank may have dropped the ball on this one, but you're still on the hook for the difference of the loan.
The only caveat to this is if you have "replacement cost" provisions on your policy. Some insurance companies offer it, but most don't. It's a relatively new option. Replacement cost coverage takes into account the heavy amount of depreciation that occurs once a new car is driven off the lot and becomes a used car instantly. It will pay you the cost to buy a new car of the same make and model, not the value of your current car, if your car is 1-3 model years old (depending on the policy).
Based on the details of your question, replacement cost coverage doesn't apply here.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
jerarn
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | A quick note on betterment: It's a term that describes if you'd come out of the accident better off than you were before. This is what you might refer to as the other type of UPD. |
Sorry jerarn, but I have to disagree with you on this...Betterment most certainly is NOT another 'type' of UPD...if it were then any (standard) tire with less than 11/32nd's of tread would have that amount deducted from the ACV, it would further cause a reduction of the ACV for any vehicle that had struts that were more than three years old.
Betterment is totally different than UPD. Betterment NEVER applies to a total loss....only (as you stated) when a non-lifetime part is replaced, (ie. battery, tires, etc)...and actually prior damage to a vehicle that is a total loss is referred to as PED (pre-exisiting damage). NOT UPD or RPD
Now, I'll give you there are two kinds of prior damage, (actually three UPD, RPD, and PED) the they are UPD, and RPD (related prior damage) they are 'related' and 'unrelated' prior damage...(this is for repairable vehicles only)... UPD refers to damage on the vehicle NOT in the same area of repair. Related prior damage or RPD refers to prior damage to a panel that was damaged again by the loss at hand. An example would be that you had 3 hour dent in your right quarter prior to this impact, now this impact (in the same area) has caused another three hour dent, and one can't be repaired without fixing the other. So when the estimate is written it is written with 3.0 to repair and refinish, then 3.0 repair under RPD, the owner of the vehicle would have to pay that RPD of 3.0, (in my area that would be $138.00).
You said you are a body shop estimator, I don't know which system you write with but all of them have RPD, when you write RPD, it will kick out at the bottom of your estimate, the amount the owner must pay for this.
| Quote: | | The only caveat to this is if you have "replacement cost" provisions on your policy. |
I personally have never heard of or seen an auto policy with replacement cost...Doesn't mean that they don't exist, but apparently not in my state. I would say the caveat to being upside down on a vehicle, (which by the way about 50% or better, of the cars I total are) would be to have GAP insurance.
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 7543
Location: Missouri
172.39 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:54 am Post subject: car accident |
|
|
a police vehicle did a u turn between my car and one ahead of me. I could not stop and hit the police car
The police car was going to stop the car ahead of me for speeding. My car is totatled. I want the police who were at fault to replace my vehicle and pay me for pain and suffering, medical expenses etc
Should I be going through my insurance first
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
bonbon
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:54 am Post subject: car accident |
|
|
a police vehicle did a u turn between my car and one ahead of me. I could not stop and hit the police car
The police car was going to stop the car ahead of me for speeding. My car is totatled. I want the police who were at fault to replace my vehicle and pay me for pain and suffering, medical expenses etc
Should I be going through my insurance first
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
bonbon
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Sorry jerarn, but I have to disagree with you on this...Betterment most certainly is NOT another 'type' of UPD...if it were then any (standard) tire with less than 11/32nd's of tread would have that amount deducted from the ACV, it would further cause a reduction of the ACV for any vehicle that had struts that were more than three years old. |
Agreed.
| Quote: | | I personally have never heard of or seen an auto policy with replacement cost...Doesn't mean that they don't exist, but apparently not in my state. I would say the caveat to being upside down on a vehicle, (which by the way about 50% or better, of the cars I total are) would be to have GAP insurance. |
Missouri does infact have replacement cost insurance. If you have auto insurance with replacement cost, it doesn’t matter what the balance of the loan is, you will receive the replacement cost of the vehicle less the amount of your loan. |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 631
Location: Kansas City
109.38 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
apparently the company (s) I work for have decided to not offer this, or I've never had a claim that had it...as I said doesn't mean it doesn't exsist, I personally have not seen or had to work a policy with this endorsement. The carrier I have my vehicles with like wise hasn't offered it to me. Doubt I'd buy it.. 
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 7543
Location: Missouri
172.39 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On a vehicle IMO, it would only make sense to have it if you owned a high end vehicle. But it is very expensive, mor than GAP. Now on a house, replacement insurance makes sense and is worth the extra money. |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 631
Location: Kansas City
109.38 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
agreed...and I have 'guaranteed' rebuilding on my HO...
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 7543
Location: Missouri
172.39 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And actually carriers have offered replacement insurance for years. And as I have been told, almost every major carrier has it. It's just something that has not been "advertised" very much except within the last few years because of the high cost of vehicles and the insurance that goes along with it. I can tell you that it was offered to me as long ago as 1996 by State Farm when I purchased my first new car. |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 631
Location: Kansas City
109.38 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:22 am Post subject: Me too |
|
|
I was in an accident today like yours only I wasn't at fault and the car in the middle was. They slammed into the first car, never braked, I was 3 car lengths behind them and saw middle car hit front car, I braked, hit some ice and slammed into their car. I was not going fast but after the ice my course changed to straight forward instead of off to the shoulder and bam. Filed a claim and guess what just because I still hit the car in front of me, their fault or not I still rear ended her when she was stopped so I have to pay for any rear damage to her car, thankfully my insurance will cover mine, find out tomorrow how much damage truly occurred since my car like the first car hide internal problems well but my last fender bender was my fault and I paid out of pocket because there was NO damage to the guy in front of mines car he let it go and repairs costed me less than my deductible. Anyways... why take statements if all accounts tell the same story and not take them into account when insurance is involved... why call the cops at all if insurance disregards the fact that though you hit someone they were the idiots that caused the problem in the first place by not paying attention and braking early enough (I mean BEFORE hitting the other car)?
A little bitter.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
stupid flurries driver
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, Houston, we have a problem...
| Quote: | | only I wasn't at fault |
yeah, you were... | Quote: | | I was 3 car lengths behind them and saw middle car hit front car, I braked, hit some ice and slammed into their car |
Doesn't matter that there was ice...if you cannot stop your vehicle, and hit another you will (as you've discovered) be considered at fault. I'd bet if you were stopped in traffic and another guy hit a patch of ice and hit you, you would surely assume he would be responsible for the repairs to your vehicle right? | Quote: | | why take statements if all accounts tell the same story |
How would you KNOW all accounts were the same without taking the statements?  | Quote: | | and not take them into account when insurance is involved |
I don't understand what you mean my that statement.. | Quote: | | why call the cops at all if insurance disregards the fact that though you hit someone they were the idiots that caused the problem in the first place by not paying attention and braking early enough (I mean BEFORE hitting the other car)? |
I'm sorry but this really doesn't make any sense...it doesn't matter that the other party hit someone and stopped, the FACT of the matter is you did the exact same thing...and are equally as 'guilty' as the other guy...
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 7543
Location: Missouri
172.39 Dollars($)
|
|
Previous 1 2 3 Next 
