by Guest » Fri Nov 07, 2008 08:37 am
My car is a total loss according to my insurance. They say it's worth is 2700. They sent me a report of what it would cost to fix it, which is 3215. (this was just according to a visual inspection by my adjuster).
Now shouldn't the OTHER person's insurance co. be doing all this b/c I'm not at fault? (eg, inspection, estimating cost, paying for a rental...)
I told my adjuster that I wanted to have the other co. look at the car. I would also like to take it in myself to a repair shop to see what they say.
Also, my policy says I have a rental car up to 30 days, but she said I only get a rental if I give the car to them, and then I'd only get 3 days of a rental. Right now I'm using my mother's car every damn day.
Then, I got a long letter saying one of the options for the (my) insurance co. is to find me a replacement car, which the girl didn't mention to me on the phone. Then in another section, at the end of the letter, it said if I found a comparable car that costs more than they say it's worth, they'd pay me the difference! I did some searching and to find a comparable car, I'd be paying double what supposedly my car is worth (I got mine w/pretty low miles for its year, 1996).
What the hell? For one thing, I shouldn't have to pay ANYTHING b/c it WASN'T MY DAMN FAULT! And why is my insurance taking care of this, and not the other person's?
(Everyone at the scene of the accident agreed it wasn't my fault, though its not formal yet. And there were 3 cars involved, mine being the middle. The one behind me smashed into me, which made me smash into the car in front of me.)
Right now, I'm waiting for the claims girl to call the other at fault person's insurance co. to come look at my car.
Is all this normal or are they crooks?
Now shouldn't the OTHER person's insurance co. be doing all this b/c I'm not at fault? (eg, inspection, estimating cost, paying for a rental...)
I told my adjuster that I wanted to have the other co. look at the car. I would also like to take it in myself to a repair shop to see what they say.
Also, my policy says I have a rental car up to 30 days, but she said I only get a rental if I give the car to them, and then I'd only get 3 days of a rental. Right now I'm using my mother's car every damn day.
Then, I got a long letter saying one of the options for the (my) insurance co. is to find me a replacement car, which the girl didn't mention to me on the phone. Then in another section, at the end of the letter, it said if I found a comparable car that costs more than they say it's worth, they'd pay me the difference! I did some searching and to find a comparable car, I'd be paying double what supposedly my car is worth (I got mine w/pretty low miles for its year, 1996).
What the hell? For one thing, I shouldn't have to pay ANYTHING b/c it WASN'T MY DAMN FAULT! And why is my insurance taking care of this, and not the other person's?
(Everyone at the scene of the accident agreed it wasn't my fault, though its not formal yet. And there were 3 cars involved, mine being the middle. The one behind me smashed into me, which made me smash into the car in front of me.)
Right now, I'm waiting for the claims girl to call the other at fault person's insurance co. to come look at my car.
Is all this normal or are they crooks?
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 08:54 pm Post Subject:
Thank you for the info.
I have not talked to the other insurance co. (the one that hit me) as my claims person said they were going to do that. I just heard from her today and she said she cannot get a hold of them; they keep shuffling her to different people and no one there knows who's handling the claim. I also believe the car that hit me was in a rental car.
My VIN is 2HGEJ6445TH109655; it's a 96 Honda civic
I was assuming the value they came up w/for my car was for the condition it was in prior to being hit.
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 01:05 am Post Subject:
i have a similar problem where i got hit form behind hit a car in front. 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.
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 07:33 am Post Subject:
Jeremy you're confusing auto with homeowners, all comp and collision coverages are ACV, unless it's a stated amount which this one isn't.
Sorry! But its actually was the statement of the OP that has confused me.
Then, I got a long letter saying one of the options for the (my) insurance co. is to find me a replacement car, which the girl didn't mention to me on the phone.
Seems that I need to be more careful in the future :(
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:05 pm Post Subject:
Jeremy no biggie, I just didn't want any readers to think you needed something called a 'replacement claus' on their auto policy that's all...we all make mistakes...crap that's my job! :wink: :lol:
I was assuming the value they came up w/for my car was for the condition it was in prior to being hit.
of course..Phix 95, to get you a value, I need the mileage also does it have air conditioning? and automatic or manual tranny? any unrelated unrepaired prior damage?
Guest,
Should i be getting some money from the other insurance company to make up for the difference
They won't 'pay the difference'...all ANY carrier owes you is the ACV (actual cash value) of your vehicle...now they would'nt take a deductible, they would owe a rental for atleast three days after offer of settlement...their offer could be higher...but no one owes you your payoff...if you're upside down (and you are)...that is what GAP ins is for...and only GAP will pay the loan rather than the acv amount...have you not filed with the other carrier yet?Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 02:22 pm Post Subject:
Just to re-iterate...I AM Guest, now phix95...dunno why I keep showing up as guest, as I'm logged in..
Mileage is 113115; yes it has AC that works great; automatic; the unrelated damage is what she wrote up, which I don't see and the car works fine. It was in an accident w/the prior owner but he got the parts replaced and repaired so I think she's high. What is obvious is some paint missing, about 6 inches long, 1/2 inch wide, on the rear bumper. If you want the ridiculous list of what she wrote up, I can send it. I don't know how she can tell this w/out 1, being a mechanic and 2, hoisting it up to see it. But that's apparently their job, to f*** you over.
And if they only owe me the ACV, that is so unfair; I didn't do a damn thing! Someone should be paying for a comparable replacement for me, which would only be 4000 to $5000. And it says that in the letter. Why should I have to pay a damn thing when someone crashed into ME and totaled my car? Plus, of course, my rates SHOULD NOT go up. For what they're doing now, I wouldn't even need insurance...I could just sell it/trade it for the ACV...don't need insurance to do that. So basically I'm paying for insurance for nothing...for them to do what I could do my damn self. It would only be beneficial to me if they pay me the difference of what a comparable car would cost (which is a 12 yr old car..yeah that'll sure break em), which is completely fair. Actually, the other co. should be doing that.
No I have not contacted the other co; as I stated in my last post, my claims girl said she was doing that. The fact that they're dicking her around makes me think they don't want to pay it, real professional.
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:26 pm Post Subject:
It was in an accident w/the prior owner but he got the parts replaced and repaired so I think she's high
She couldn't have written anything that HAS ALREADY been repaired, unless it's reallllllly crappy repairs...all she can write is GLARING prior UNREPAIRED damage that will lower the vehicles ACV NOT normal wear and tear...What is obvious is some paint missing, about 6 inches long, 1/2 inch wide, on the rear bumper.
This would be considered prior damage, and to repair this would be about 200-350 to repair depending on the rates and only if it's paint only...If you want the ridiculous list of what she wrote up, I can send it.
That would be good, if you want me to try and help you that is... :wink:I don't know how she can tell this w/out 1, being a mechanic
Well she probably didn't write anything mechanical, it's probably all body work...and 2, hoisting it up to see it.
Well, maybe she did, and are you sure she wrote undercarriage stuff?But that's apparently their job, to f*** you over.
No it's not it's her job to come up with an acurate ACV...And if they only owe me the ACV, that is so unfair; I didn't do a damn thing!
How is that unfair? They owe you for what you had...the ACTUAL cash value of YOUR vehicle...NOT for a vehicle in better shape or worse shape rather (again) the ACTUAL value of yours...doesn't matter if you did anything wrong or right...you insured YOUR vehicle not a better one, and you also are paid under your collision coverage whether or not you are at fault...that means nothing (re: your carrier anyway, well either as it pertains to your vehicle)...
Someone should be paying for a comparable replacement for me, which would only be 4000 to $5000
Comparable, means just that comparable...not better, not worse...Why should I have to pay a damn thing when someone crashed nto ME and totaled my car?
If you use YOUR collision coverage then your deductible comes into play...(you chose that too :wink: )again it doesn't matter who's at fault...if you use the other/at fault party's policy then there is no deductible..For what they're doing now, I wouldn't even need insurance...I could just sell it/trade it for the ACV...don't need insurance to do that
Not sure I understand what you mean by that, but if you are saying you'd get 2700 selling or trading your vehicle in the condition it is now, (post accident) I seriously doubt that...It would only be beneficial to me if they pay me the difference of what a comparable car would cost (which is a 12 yr old car..yeah that'll sure break em), which is completely fair.
Well honey that's what you're paying premiums based on...not a new car...why on earth do you think that you are entitled to 'benefit' from this at all? You're not..it's an imdemnifying contact which means putting you back where you were....which is a (really) 13year old car...that's what you chose to drive...if it were a 2009 Honda they would pay you for that...I really don't understand why you are upset with your carrier?Actually, the other co. should be doing that.
You're absolutely right....No I have not contacted the other co; as I stated in my last post, my claims girl said she was doing that. The fact that they're dicking her around makes me think they don't want to pay it, real professional.
Do you know the name of the other company? Do we know they are dicking her around? If it were me I'd be on the phone myself to that other carrier, find out the adjuster and the adjusters number, and I'd be calling them every day to get them to move on this....
Phix, I'm getting an ACV of $4075.00 based on November's NADA, but that is before any deductions for prior UNREPAIRED damage...If you'll let me know what she wrote for prior I'll look it over and see if I can provide some arguments to get that lowered...Did she subtract the full amount of that prior damage or a percentage, and if a percentage, how much?
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:58 pm Post Subject:
Well my main thing is, basically, I think the other person should be paying for what they did to my car, not me.
I will PM you (Lori) the info about "prior" damage.
I don't know if it's full amount or percentage.
I've been looking around about complaints about progressive and they had the same issues as me...taking off stupid amounts for 'supposed' prior damage. They don't care about you. They do whatever is cheapest, period. I can't see why anyone would be defending a g***damn insurance co.
Oh, as a sidebar, why should I have to pay for a police report? Is this common? First the cop said they'd send it to me; I got nothing. The cop called me back a day after I left him a message and said he had had 2 days off and hadn't sent it yet! Thanks for letting me know, while I'm waiting for this report my insurance is saying I need to get to the asap! I had to go to the police station to get it, and could only get the driver's info.
Then the cop said I'd have to PAY for it. Um, huh?
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:24 pm Post Subject:
I will PM you (Lori) the info about "prior" damage
I got that but I don't think you sent me the prior damage estimate...the one you sent was for minor damage to front bumper cover, and moderate rear end damage...were you in the middle, rear ended and pushed into another vehicle? What are the facts of the accident? What happened in the accident point of impact wise...Well my main thing is, basically, I think the other person should be paying for what they did to my car, not me.
Then honey you need to get this filed with THAT carrier not your own...I've been looking around about complaints about progressive and they had the same issues as me...taking off stupid amounts for 'supposed' prior damage. They don't care about you. They do whatever is cheapest, period..
All insurance company's have the same complaints not just them...it's their job to pay to put you back into the same postion you were in, not better not worse...if your vehicle has prior unrepaired damage, then surely you would even have to admit that a vehicle setting next to it for sale (same vehicle) would be worth more than yours right? That's all....I can't see why anyone would be defending a g***damn insurance co
I don't know if you'd call it defending a particular company, more like trying to explain what YOUR policy contract calls for, and making sure you get just that...Oh, as a sidebar, why should I have to pay for a police report? Is this common? First the cop said they'd send it to me; I got nothing. The cop called me back a day after I left him a message and said he had had 2 days off and hadn't sent it yet! Thanks for letting me know, while I'm waiting for this report my insurance is saying I need to get to the asap! I had to go to the police station to get it, and could only get the driver's info.
You shouldn't and you won't it's probably just quicker for you to get it then them requesting it thru the mail, and they will pay you back for any costs you had to pay...probably the mail reason, other than the liablity stand point is to get the other partys name so they can file this claim with that carrier....you don't have to get it but it's gonna take longer, so it's up to you....where are you and where is the adjuster at?Then the cop said I'd have to PAY for it. Um, huh?
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 01:54 am Post Subject: An attempt at clarification
I'd like to attempt a clarification on what constitutes unrelated prior damage. The common term for it in the industry is UPD, and it's easier to type, so I'll be referring to it as such for the rest of this comment.
Often you'll see two types of UPD. One type is damage on the vehicle that appears on panels that are NOT going to be part of the repair (if the repair costs didn't result in a total loss). For instance, if your front end was damaged in the accident and there was a scrape on your right-rear door, this is UPD that wouldn't normally result in betterment, and wouldn't be involved in the repair if your car were to be repaired. This type of damage is usually a deduction from the ACV of your vehicle.
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. That is, the repaired part is better than the part before the accident. Insurance companies usually take a deduction for this, or ask you to pay additional out-of-pocket monies if the car were repaired. This note doesn't really apply to the case at hand, since we're dealing with a total loss.
Again, betterment doesn't come into play if the vehicle is a total loss, so that doesn't apply here. I just thought I'd comment on it for anyone browsing this post who might find this useful. Betterment usually applies to things like tires or other items that have a wear-and-tear component. If there is tire damage as a result of the accident, tires must be replaced to make the car roadworthy. If the tires were bald before, and they will be replaced with new tires, they will charge you an amount over your deductible to replace your worn tires with new ones. Again, this doesn't apply to a total loss, so it doesn't matter for this case. My next post will hit a bit closer to home...
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 02:40 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.
Add your comment