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 Jul 17, 2009 02:57 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.
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:12 am Post Subject:
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.
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.Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 02:54 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
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 02:54 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
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 03:28 am Post Subject:
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.
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.
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.. :wink:
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.
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:55 pm Post Subject:
agreed...and I have 'guaranteed' rebuilding on my HO...
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 04:32 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.
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 06:22 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.
Add your comment