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: Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:23 am Post Subject:
You are looking at the loss in terms of indemnification and restoration bound by contract.
Oh sorry, lost my head thought we were on an insurance forum :wink: ...Why shouldn't they do the same (in reverse [as in pay]) the loss of value an accident creates now not later
Actually Fred, as far as I know they do, if they pay DV at all. It's my opinion that the loss has not occured, until the vehicle is sold..The loss in value was instantaneous at the moment of impact.
No, in my opinion it has not...I'll ask you again...if a 10k DV claim is paid today...and they didn't sell/trade the vehicle for five years...when they did sell/trade it they had a DV of 2k...now who was compensated fairly for their actual loss? Should he be required to pay the carrier back 8k? How is that NOT betterment? Clearly in this example, the owner made 8k on this claim...I'm not so sure about that. I think five years from now the DV on new cars will still be high.
You know exactly what I meant Fred...DV on an 09 today and DV on an 09 five years from now are two totally different things.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??
No they were compensated for their loss...if they had a tire with 5/32nd's tread, are they not owed a tire with 5/32nds? of course they are...and that's what they were paid for...How are they owe an 11/32n tread (new) tire? That (5/32) was their ACTUAL loss right? IMO, same with DV...you're owed your ACTUAL loss...which has NOT occured until the vehicle is sold..That door swings both ways
Fred, the term betterment, means to make 'better'...period...you know that...
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 01:37 pm Post Subject:
.
.
No they were compensated for their loss...if they had a tire with 5/32nd's tread, are they not owed a tire with 5/32nds? of course they are..
You are exactly correct.... They are owed an identical tire with the same 5/32" tread...... no more... no less.
They don't want a new tire and they don't want a tire with more or less tread... they want what they had...... THE SAME. So give them THE SAME.
Don't come out of left field with More than they want or ask for, and then Stick them with an out-of-pocket-expense that they didn't ask for.
How is that fair? How does that make someone Whole? How is it that you are allowed to take more money from a valid claim than the amount contracted for on the Declaration page of the Policy? ( aka Deductible)
.and that's what they were paid for...How are they owe an 11/32n tread (new) tire? That (5/32) was their ACTUAL loss right? IMO, same with DV...you're owed your ACTUAL loss...which has NOT occured until the vehicle is sold..
And likewise... Betterment has NOT occurred until the vehicle is sold. So it should not be Deducted until the car is sold. To further my point.... Consider that the three other tires last as long as they owned the car (which implies the 4th tire that was damaged would have also) How did that Tire with the extra tread make them Financially Better??? The tire that was damaged was all they needed and wanted. That tire with extra tread made absolutely no improvement in the value of the car or the usefulness of the 4 original tires that were on that car. The new tire lasted till the car was sold and the old damaged tire would have done the same. Where is the gain? Where is the betterment that you speak of?
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:22 pm Post Subject: 300am + loud noise : Betterment / DV
What's up??? 12 days and no replies to my last Post?
Lore, tcope, SD Chargers fan, Mike, anyone..??
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 02:37 pm Post Subject:
Fred, I think you simply made an irrefutable, succinct, valid, and logical point that a challenge against could not be made. Point, set, match! Homerun! Score! I agree with your reasoning.
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 01:38 pm Post Subject:
Fred, I think you simply made an irrefutable, succinct, valid, and logical point that a challenge against could not be made. Point, set, match! Homerun! Score! I agree with your reasoning
WRONG...I've been fighting the worse 'spam' attack I've ever seen for the past three days...more later when I have time to post more than a sentence or two :wink:Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 03:14 pm Post Subject:
...I've been fighting the worse 'spam' attack I've ever seen for the past three days...
I've noticed! You're moderator AND you have to take out the trash? You've definately had your work cut out for you this week and it's appreciated.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:10 pm Post Subject:
What's up??? 23 days and no replies to my last Post?
Lori, tcope, SD Chargers fan, anyone..??
_________________
.
.
[quote:883bcdcd4f]
Quote:
No they were compensated for their loss...if they had a tire with 5/32nd's tread, are they not owed a tire with 5/32nds? of course they are..
You are exactly correct.... They are owed an identical tire with the same 5/32" tread...... no more... no less.
They don't want a new tire and they don't want a tire with more or less tread... they want what they had...... THE SAME. So give them THE SAME.
Don't come out of left field with More than they want or ask for, and then Stick them with an out-of-pocket-expense that they didn't ask for.
How is that fair? How does that make someone Whole? How is it that you are allowed to take more money from a valid claim than the amount contracted for on the Declaration page of the Policy? ( aka Deductible)
Quote:
.and that's what they were paid for...How are they owe an 11/32n tread (new) tire? That (5/32) was their ACTUAL loss right? IMO, same with DV...you're owed your ACTUAL loss...which has NOT occured until the vehicle is sold..
And likewise... Betterment has NOT occurred until the vehicle is sold. So it should not be Deducted until the car is sold.
To further my point.... Consider that the three other tires last as long as they owned the car (which implies the 4th tire that was replaced would have also) How did that Tire with the extra tread make them Financially Better???
The tire that was damaged was all they needed and wanted. That tire with extra tread made absolutely no improvement in the value of the car or the usefulness of the 4 original tires that were on that car. The new tire lasted till the car was sold and the old damaged tire would have done the same. Where is the gain? Where is the betterment that you speak of? [/quote:883bcdcd4f]
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 06:53 am Post Subject:
Just figured I'd give an update. I got the car back today and I have to admit, it looks great and drives like it did before, BUT they spent 7500 in repairs and 950 bucks in rental fee's
I think I convinced the wife on a G8 GT, so we will see :)
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:41 am Post Subject:
I think I convinced the wife on a G8 GT, so we will see
Good luck with that! :wink:Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:51 pm Post Subject:
???
???
Add your comment