by Guest » Sat Jul 11, 2009 09:37 pm
I had my car ran into the other morning by a guy that fell asleep. He doesn't have insurance so I have to claim it on my insurance under uninsured motorists property damage. The car is a 07 Elantra and it was hit in the front driver's side. The car was struck and moved up the curb and then slid/rolled through the yard. The estimate is $6,182 for body damage and suspension repairs. There is no where in there a mention to the damage to the transmission that could have possibly occurred. The pillar that the door is mounted to is mangled and twisted. Also my airbags did not deploy.
From my understanding, the car is supposed to be able to be fixed to as it was prior to the accident. IMO, there is no way to get it that way without replacing the transmission and the frame will never be the same. How are they not totaling my car? They just come up with an arbitrary value for the car to meet this threshold? The NADA value of my car is $10,300. Which these cars are just not selling for that.
The accident was in South Carolina. So would I be entitled to a diminished value claim if the car is repaired? They came up with the estimate with the door, front fender, and front bumper removed. If there is any more damage found, and it eclipses the so important threshold, will they just stop fixing it and make the car a total loss?
Can someone please shed some light onto this, I'm at a loss. I've never had to use my insurance before out of my 8 years of driving and now that I need to use it, I get the shaft.
From my understanding, the car is supposed to be able to be fixed to as it was prior to the accident. IMO, there is no way to get it that way without replacing the transmission and the frame will never be the same. How are they not totaling my car? They just come up with an arbitrary value for the car to meet this threshold? The NADA value of my car is $10,300. Which these cars are just not selling for that.
The accident was in South Carolina. So would I be entitled to a diminished value claim if the car is repaired? They came up with the estimate with the door, front fender, and front bumper removed. If there is any more damage found, and it eclipses the so important threshold, will they just stop fixing it and make the car a total loss?
Can someone please shed some light onto this, I'm at a loss. I've never had to use my insurance before out of my 8 years of driving and now that I need to use it, I get the shaft.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:27 pm Post Subject:
Here are some pics. In the last picture, you see that black tire mark on the road? That is where my rear passenger tire was when it was parked.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:44 pm Post Subject:
Lori, what's the biggest difference between "DV" & "Betterment"?
Well there's a huge difference Fred...and I did NOT say (as you've quoted) you changed the wording in my quotem if as I suspect, you did this to try and make a point, but do me a favor, and when you change something I've written, and then ''quote'' it, note that you've changed my quote ok?I still maintain that there is NO gain until that vehicle is traded or sold, (if any)..I (personally) think that NO BETTERMENT claim should be deducted until that time
Because that doesn't make sense Fred. I said there is no LOSS, and that I think there is NO DV claim until sale/trade.Betterment refers to 'bettering' the vehicle owner by the loss. You cannot be put in a better situation/condition than you were prior to the accident. Betterment is paid by the vehicle OWNER. DV (if allowed) is paid by the CARRIER, or responsible party.
Answer....... Insurer's [Pay] DV (bad)....... Insurer's {Deduct] betterment (good).......
How is that good and bad? The insurer owes for the loss..period...the vehicle owner would owe betterment on certain wearable parts...I don't get how you can even put DV and betterment into the same equation, unless you are saying that paying DV PRIOR to the vehicle being sold/traded would (IMO) most certainly be a betterment to the vehicle owner, should they not trade that vehicle for several years, if ever!Fred, your changing my statements like this
I (personally) think that NO BETTERMENT claim should be deducted until that time.
make no sense at all..betterment is paid or charge WHEN the part is replaced, not 5 years down the road.did I have the betterment claim that was deducted when my vehicle was repaired? Of course not...That's one of my biggest problems with the validity of betterment claims ||||||||||||
Seriously Fred, these make zero sense..They kind of go together don't they?? As in direct opposites, like Yes & No, right & wrong "DV" & "Betterment" if one exist then so must the other.
No they really don't go together. Unless you are (again) saying that DV paid prior to the vehicle trade would be betterment...then it just wouldn't be paid there would be no betterment deduction. I agree that if DV is paid prior to the trade it's betterment, and therefore should not be paid UNTIL the actual loss (DV) has occured. If that is what you are trying to say, then yes, we are both in total agreement.Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 02:41 pm Post Subject:
As for the DV, my understanding is the same as yours. You shouldn't be entitled to the DV if you still have the car. It should only be when you go to sell or trade in the vehicle. For the car fax, I'm not going to try and wait around and see if they put it on or not. We are going to trade in the vehicle when we get it back from repairs.
In my non legal opinion and experience, this argument for no DV exists until it is sold, is propoganda and stalling tactics used by all insurers to stifle your legal right to collect what the courts have already determined is a loss at the moment of impact and not when you sell your car. It is also just personal opinions not based on the facts of the matter. Insurers that attempt to settle DV using this method will use the argument that you were just not qualified to get the most out of your trade in and they are not liable for you lack of negotiating skills. I would simply ask the insurer to show you the law or policy language that requires you to sell your car in order to be paid for a DV loss.
You might be ahead of the came to sell the car "as is" to the highest bidder allowing the insurer to bid while it is still your property to do so. Subtract the deductible, the highest salvage bid, and the cost to repair from the ACV and you have your immediate DV without using a DV expert to prove your loss. You have also sold your vehicle just like the insurer claims you have to do. Nothing in an insurance policy requires you to repair your car before you are indemnified. Why should DV not be collected until you sell your car. It's smoke and mirrors and tactics designed to delay and forestall what is truly your complete loss and right to indemnification when allowed by policy or restatement of torts.
As far as the Carfax, they are most likely implying that the accident report will not show up on car fax by the time you are ready to trade, so apparently they are subtlely suggesting you not disclose? My o My! What a tangled web we weave when one practices to deceive.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 05:24 pm Post Subject:
.
.
Lori,
Please accept my deepest apology, and allow me to explain as best I can.
While composing my Post I started with the Quote being a copy & paste of your earlier comment.
And then started typing my response in reference to that quote. Just like I have many, many times in the past.
I don't know why or how but in my haste, while editing I must have unknowingly Paste the re-write version that was at the bottom of my Post. (and fully explained as an re-write and included ||||||| |||||||| markers) into the upper Quote box.??
Also in my haste while speed reading the Preview before Submitting I apparently failed to notice the Quote had been changed at some point in my editing.
Again sorry.
PS,
Looking back, after starting to read your response to my Post... I thought to myself...... what the heck is Lori talking about??? that was an direct copy/paste. Sooo I scrolled up to my post and thought ............. Shoot (actually a similar spelled word) What the..??.. how did that happen??
Again Sorry,
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 07:08 pm Post Subject:
To reduce confusion I've corrected the Quote Error and re-submitted my previous post with some Minor changes underlined.
Well, that makes a little more sense, but I still maintain that there is NO loss until that vehicle is traded or sold, (if any)..I (personally) think that NO DV claim should be paid until that time. If I have a 25k one year old vehicle that suffers 10k in damages, it's repaired, but I don't trade or sell it for five or six years, did I have the DV claim that I was paid when my vehicle was repaired? Of course not...That's one of my biggest problems with the validity of DV claims....
Lori, what's the biggest difference between "DV" & "Betterment"?
Answer....... Insurer's [Pay] DV (bad) for insurer bottom line.... Insurer's {Deduct] betterment (good) for insurer bottom line.......
Replace "DV" with "betterment" replace "paid" with "deducted" and replace "loss" with "gain" as you re-read your above comment.
See Below and remember this wording is about Betterment..... Not DV
||||||||| Well, that makes a little more sense, but I still maintain that there is NO gain until that vehicle is traded or sold, (if any).(just like you say about DV).I (personally) think that NO BETTERMENT claim should be deducted until that time.(just like you say about DV). If I have a 25k one year old vehicle that suffers 10k in damages, it's repaired, but I don't trade or sell it for five or six years, did I have the betterment claim that was deducted when my vehicle was repaired? Of course ..That's one of my biggest problems with the validity of betterment claims ||||||||||||
following Bold Type added
Also the reason a consumer would Pay betterment is because the insurer _Deducts it_ from the loss payment.
Insurer's are quick to calculate this perceived gain and Deduct from a claim payment if they feel the value of the car (or part) is better... Yet when the reverse happens by a crash lowering the value of the car they don't want to calculate this perceived loss and Add to the claim payment.
They kind of go together don't they?? As in direct opposites, like Yes & No, right & wrong "DV" & "Betterment" if one exist then so must the other.
===================================
============================================
Betterment refers to 'bettering' the vehicle owner by the loss. You cannot be put in a better situation/condition than you were prior to the accident.
Actually that term was ...One cannot be put in a lesser condition. Along with the term as I remember.. must make equal or Better.
I don't get how you can even put DV and betterment into the same equation, unless you are saying that paying DV PRIOR to the vehicle being sold/traded would (IMO) most certainly be a betterment to the vehicle owner, should they not trade that vehicle for several years, if ever!
Make no sense at all Lori.?
betterment is paid or charge WHEN the part is replaced, not 5 years down the road.
Just like DV... is paid after the car is repaired, not 5 years down the road. What's your point??
==================================================
PS,
Lori it might be a good idea to Delete My erroneous
post and Your reply to it and start over with this one. It would be less confusing.
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:30 am Post Subject:
In my non legal opinion and experience, this argument for no DV exists until it is sold, is propoganda and stalling tactics used by all insurers to stifle your legal right to collect what the courts have already determined is a loss at the moment of impact and not when you sell your car
It's no propoganda on my part, it's simply my opinion, and I've never heard it from the carrier I work for or any other for that matter. The information you yourself posted Mike, clearly states the older the vehicle the less DV (if any) there is...so you are arguing with your own source! I honestly have zero problem with DV, or even paying DV from an adjusters stand point IF the loss has occured. I think it's owed. If the loss has NOT (yet) occured I (personally) do not feel it should be paid. Ins. is an indeminfying policy/contract, I know I don't have to explain that to you Mike...so (to me) it smacks in the very face of the contracts intent to pay a claim that hasn't occured.I would simply ask the insurer to show you the law or policy language that requires you to sell your car in order to be paid for a DV loss.
I agree, as I'm unaware of any state that does require this, (certainly doesn't mean it's not so)...Which is why I (also) advised the OP to make darn sure this is correct...however, (again) I personally believe this is the way ALL DV claims should be handled...my personal opinion, (just like MIke's) really doesn't mean squat :wink:Why should DV not be collected until you sell your car.
right to indemnification
Mike, how can these two statement you've made make sense??? To indeminify is to make whole. Wait lets ask webster...To make compensation to for damage, loss, or injury suffered--to compensate or reimburse for incurred hurt, loss, or damage —
If you haven't sold the car you've lost no money! Therefore, have no claim...As far as the Carfax, they are most likely implying that the accident report will not show up on car fax by the time you are ready to trade, so apparently they are subtlely suggesting you not disclose
I have no first hand knowledge about Carfax, and how or from whom they get their data? Does anyone know this (for sure not a guess)? I can't imagine that insurers volunteer this info? Are they fed info from NICB, or ISO? Anyone? I'm not being a smart a$$ I seriously don't know where their info comes from. I do KNOW that I've worked many a claim, and totaled vehicles and when I go over things, the owners said the dealership printed a carfax showing ZERO accidents, and I see ten on an ISO report...so I know they don't get all the information...just curious..Again sorry.
No problem Fred, I didn't totally freak out or get pissed, because it seemed out of character for you to do something like that...(meaning being intentionally misleading)...I figured some mix up happened....no hard feelings.. :DPS,
Looking back, after starting to read your response to my Post... I thought to myself...... what the heck is Lori talking about??? that was an direct copy/paste. Sooo I scrolled up to my post and thought ............. Shoot (actually a similar spelled word) What the..??.. how did that happen??
Again Sorry,
Just like DV... is paid after the car is repaired, not 5 years down the road. What's your point??
My point is that betterment unlike DV is paid or charged WHEN the loss occurs...You'd have a hard time coming up with a claim with betterment, that was charged to an owner when that part was not replace, (or paid to replace)...No Fred, I still don't agree, betterment is taken AT THE TIME....of loss (or gain)...I'm not flat out against DV Fred, I am however flat out against paying for a loss that has not occured. I (personally) don't see the arguement with me on that guys, I really don't....Can you not say or agree that no DV has occured until the vehicle is sold or traded? Can we not agree on that? If no claim has occured, then I don't know why anyone would think that anybody owes something that just hasn't happened. Now, once the loss has occured, ok, pay it...I have no issue with that AT ALL. I do have an issue in paying a claim or loss that hasn't happened. No question (either) that a DV claim on an 09 vehicle is greater today than it would be five years from now. Surely you both agree with that...So should an owner that is paid DV today in the amount of 10k, then doesn't trade his vehicle for five years, at which time he suffers 5k in ACTUAL DV be required to pay back that carrier 5K? maybe so. That owner has most certainly bettered himself and profitted by the loss has he not?Actually that term was ...One cannot be put in a lesser condition. Along with the term as I remember.. must make equal or Better.
Yeah, don't know where you came up with this definition of ''betterment'' Fred, most certainly not from an insurance policy..the act or process of bettering; improvement. . an improvement of property other than by mere repairs. An improvement over what has been the case: financial betterment.
Law An improvement beyond normal upkeep and repair that adds to the value of real property.
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 02:57 pm Post Subject:
Ins. is an indeminfying policy/contract, I know I don't have to explain that to you Mike...so (to me) it smacks in the very face of the contracts intent to pay a claim that hasn't occured
.Until insurers were allowed by various states to change policy language, a CASH VALUE POLICY such as auto policies, it was generally understood that when value was lost, indemnification was owed. A lot of lobbying and deep pockets of insurers through various court actions, allowed insurers to no longer have to pay for loss of value with exception of a few states. DV is written today as an exclusion in first party claims. It doesn't suggest that a loss in value does not occur. Judges and courts have determined that the loss occurs at impact and not at the magical time when a transaction occurs. Just because it is not owed under the contract on first party, it does not mean that the loss does not occur. It is just one insurers no longer have to pay for. If a tree falls in the forrest and no one sees or hears it, doesn't mean that the incident didn't occur until someone witnessed the tree down on the ground.
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:27 am Post Subject:
Judges and courts have determined that the loss occurs at impact and not at the magical time when a transaction occurs.
Do you know Mike, if this is the case in all states? I personally have no idea, but, if the OP is correct, then his state must have this on their books (DV only occurs when the sale occurs)...Just because it is not owed under the contract on first party, it does not mean that the loss does not occur.
I agree...It is just one insurers no longer have to pay for.
Agreed, just like any and all exclusions in every policy...Damaged (to an auto) caused by war is excluded too, but the damage is there none the less...If a tree falls in the forrest and no one sees or hears it, doesn't mean that the incident didn't occur until someone witnessed the tree down on the ground.
Cute, but I don't think that has a thing to do with the price of banana's in Africa... :wink: Seriously, Mike...you have to agree, that a DV loss has not occured UNTIL the vehicle is sold. We both know that what we think is of no consequence, the courts, carriers, and DOI could care less what Lori and Mike think.. :roll: but on a personal intellectual level surely you agree with that..Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 07:03 pm Post Subject:
Mike...you have to agree, that a DV loss has not occured UNTIL the vehicle is sold.
I can't agree with that. You are looking at the loss in terms of indemnification and restoration bound by contract. I am looking at a vehicle as an object which has value and loses that value when it is no longer pristene or undamaged. This is the way an actual cash Value policy was constructed from the beginning. Only until exclusions were allowed under contract terms did it change only on first party collision and I am sure that is how courts interpret losses of value with regards to chattel.
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 09:46 pm Post Subject:
Hi, Lori..
[quote:a2acaa58fa]Quote:
Just like DV... is paid after the car is repaired, not 5 years down the road. What's your point??
My point is that betterment unlike DV is paid or charged WHEN the loss occurs...[/quote:a2acaa58fa]
Lori, your kind-of making my point??
The loss of value of the car happens when the damage occurs, and since "Betterment" is calculated now at the time of the accident. The loss of value (DV) should also be calculated & included now, not 5 or 6 years later.
When insurers pay for a new Tire, they imply a perceived increase in the value of the automobile. Now when one of the 4 tires on the repaired car is new and the rest aren't, they immediately take a betterment deduction form the car owner's claim payment. Why shouldn't they do the same (in reverse [as in pay]) the loss of value an accident creates now not later?
I'm not flat out against DV Fred, I am however flat out against paying for a loss that has not occured.
What..?? How can you say ""a loss that has not occurred""?? The loss in value was instantaneous at the moment of impact.
I (personally) don't see the arguement with me on that guys, I really don't....Can you not say or agree that no DV has occured until the vehicle is sold or traded?
Can we not agree on that?
I don't see how?? :(
If no claim has occured, then I don't know why anyone would think that anybody owes something that just hasn't happened.
I agree 100%. No accident, no claim, no loss, no Betterment, no DV. :)
Now, once the loss has occured, ok, pay it...I have no issue with that AT ALL.
Again...I agree 100%. Accident, Claim, Loss, Betterment, DV. :)
No question (either) that a DV claim on an 09 vehicle is greater today than it would be five years from now.
I'm not so sure about that. I think five years from now the DV on new cars will still be high.
Surely you both agree with that...So should an owner that is paid DV today in the amount of 10k, then doesn't trade his vehicle for five years, at which time he suffers 5k in ACTUAL DV be required to pay back that carrier 5K? maybe so.
Hummm, then likewise, should the insurer that deducts 50% from the cost of a new tire because the old one was half worn out, pay back that money when the car owner sells their car 5 years later and the buyer doesn't pay more for the car because one of the four tires on the car has 2/32 tread and the rest are bald??
That door swings both ways.
[quote:a2acaa58fa]
Quote:
Actually that term was ...One cannot be put in a lesser condition. Along with the term as I remember.. must make equal or Better.
Yeah, don't know where you came up with this definition of ''betterment'' Fred, most certainly not from an insurance policy..[/quote:a2acaa58fa]
GeeezzzzzzZZZZZZ Lori.
Insurer's are constantly Preaching equal or better LKQ. Its all we hear when they/you want to substitute an A/M, Used, Reconditioned, etc. part for an OEM part.
Underline added by me fk.Quote:
the act or process of bettering; improvement. . an improvement of property other than by mere repairs. An improvement over what has been the case: financial betterment.
Law An improvement beyond normal upkeep and repair that adds to the value of real property.
Did you get that from an Automobile policy or a Homeowner's Policy??
Definition:
Real propertyis property that includes land and buildings, and anything affixed to the land.
For a business, real property would include warehouses, factories, offices, and other buildings owned by the business.
Real property only includes those structures that are affixed to the land, not those which can be removed, such as equipment.
Real property may also be determined to include:
Whatever is beneath the surface of the land, like minerals, natural gas, and oil
Rights to the use of property
Leasehold improvements (since they cannot be removed).
[b]Real property is distinguished from personal property, which is other property owned by a business or individual, including equipment, furniture and fixtures.[/b]
SOURCE:
http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossaryr/g/realproperty.htm
Add your comment