not at fault

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 04:21

my wife got t boned by someone that ran a stop sign. their insurance payed to repair our car and they payed 811.00 dollars of a 930.00 dollar bill on a rental car and said they were not paying the rest and that they had been more then generous. can they do this and get by with it? should we get a lawyer?

post shifted to the right forum

Posted: 07 May 2007 06:30 Post Subject:

May I know from which country and state you are ? I think you should consult with your insurance agent and then lawyer.

Posted: 07 May 2007 05:07 Post Subject: not at fault state


Posted: 07 May 2007 07:49 Post Subject:

Sounds to me like they only paid for the repair time and the rental was used for longer. Was the vehicle driveable after the accident? If not, was the rental obtained before the shop started work on the vehicle and was their some delay in them starting work on the vehicle?

Take a look at the estimate or apprasial and count up the hours to repair the vehicle. Divide this number by 4 and then also divide the number by 6 (as some carriers consider 4 hours/day and others consider 6) For each 5 days, add in 2 more days for the week end. This is the repair time. If the vehicle was driveable after the accident, this is the number of days the carrier should pay on the rental.

There is also the possiblity that there was some sort of extra charge on the rental (such as additional insurance) that the carrier won't pay or they carrier would only consider paying for a certain level of vehicle and a more expensive vehicle was obtained. If this were true, I'd think they'd have mentioned it and you would have mentioned it here. So I'm guess the difference is the repair time and the time the rental was actually had.

Mentioning the _reason why_ the carrier won't pay more would help.

Posted: 07 May 2007 11:55 Post Subject: not at fault

i believe that is what the insurance is saying or claiming but this is not true. and no the car was not driveable. i called my agent today and he said this is not right and he has a call into them. maybe he can resove this. my other concern is if their being this hard on these issues how hard is it going to be to get the medical out of them?

Posted: 08 May 2007 12:06 Post Subject:

I mentioned a few different possibilities but I'm assuming they are claiming the repair time should have been less then you had the rental.

As laid out, what was the repair time on the appraisal? How long did you have the rental? Did the shop start work on your vehicle as soon as the appraiser inspected it? Where there any known delays (there must have been something somewhere as I'm betting the actual repair time was longer then what the appraisal allowed for.

Getting your agent involved probably won't help as your agent probably cannot address what the other adjuster will state. That is, your agent probably can only relay the information into you. I'd recommend that you call the adjuster and find out directly from him/her what the situation is and _exactly_ why they won't consider the entire rental time.

One thing that comes to mind is if their was a supplement on the repairs. If so, is the adjuster considering that time also? Was there a delays in the shop completing the repairs due to any supplement? I could go on and on with possibilities but it would be much easier to address knowing what the carrier's reasoning is.

Add new comment

Restricted HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.