Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: Can we use the Claim Check
We received the check from the insurance company and it is in our names only. We are interested in getting a new car and trading in the old, can I use this check for my own benefit, like a down payment? I know this is a little shady, but will I get caught?
I'm guessing the check is to address damages to your vehicle? You can use it for a down payment, no problem whatsoever!
Actually, you really can use the check for anything. No one is going to pursue any penalty if you did this. You were compensated for the damage done to your vehicle... if you don't have it repaired you will take a small hit (should be equal to the amount of the check) when you sell it.
I don't understand this unless there are 2 threads with this same question.I answered this question but it does not show my answer. What I said was that in my experience if you own no mortgage on this vehicle you are free to do as you will with the money. But I do believe you have to sign a release from any claims for this accident or claims on this same accident .So ,yes you may use this money how ever you choose as long as there is no mortgage on this vehicle .If there is then you are required to repair the vehicle to the state in which it was before. Does any one disagree with this?
More than likely the OP is a claimant or as an insured has no leinholder (as you said hummingbird)...and yes he is free to spend it all on pop corn if he wants! _________________ Have you been helped by a poster? Do you want to show your appreciation? YOU CAN !! Just simply click on the donate button and send them some coin!
Senior member Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:24 pm
Post subject: Can we use the Claim Check
----------------------------------------------
I'm guessing the check is to address damages to your vehicle? You can use it for a down payment, no problem whatsoever!
Actually, you really can use the check for anything. No one is going to pursue any penalty if you did this. You were compensated for the damage done to your vehicle... if you don't have it repaired you will take a small hit (should be equal to the amount of the check) when you sell it.
tcope,
I agree up to the underlined part. And think some important information is missing concerning the underlined text.
I'm in contact with many Repairers across the Nation, some are DRP some are not. I'm told by those with DRP's that most of their agreements require that the initial estimate be only "Visual damage", as in, stand by the auto and write only what they can See..!
I have no reason not to believe them,
Do you agree this is true?
Its also believed that this process is designed to "lower claims costs" (aka keep premiums down)
Do you believe this to be true?
I'll wait for your response.....
FK, _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
I have heard similar things, and for similar reasons.
Some vehicle owners opt to "cash out" when their vehicle is drivable, and by writing only the most obvious damage, the insurer is saving money if they only pay for the visible damage.
In other cases the vehicle owner may "shop" the estimate around to find a shop that will repair the damage for the amount paid by the insurer ... and I'm pretty sure you can imagine the end result of that.
I guess a carrier could justify that... if put that way. That is, a carrier could say that they can't verify the extent of the damages they cannot see so they would need to wait for the vehicle to be torn down. If it's not tore down, the rest of the loss has not been proven. But it sounds like these carriers are doing this not to be nore accurate but rather to say a buck here or there. If the process is used to try to lower claims cost and at the expense of not writing up the most accurate appraisal possible, no I don't agree with it. I think the appraisal should be written up to the highest extent and as accurate as possible. If this means writing up bumper absorbers when you know they are going to be damaged but you just can't see them, then write them up.
But there are certainly times when items cannot be written up until the vehicle is torn down. If that is the true case, then there is not much the carrier can do if the person does not want to have it repaired.
I guess a carrier could justify that... if put that way. That is, a carrier could say that they can't verify the extent of the damages they cannot see so they would need to wait for the vehicle to be torn down. If it's not tore down, the rest of the loss has not been proven. But it sounds like these carriers are doing this not to be nore accurate but rather to say a buck here or there. If the process is used to try to lower claims cost and at the expense of not writing up the most accurate appraisal possible, no I don't agree with it. I think the appraisal should be written up to the highest extent and as accurate as possible. If this means writing up bumper absorbers when you know they are going to be damaged but you just can't see them, then write them up.
But there are certainly times when items cannot be written up until the vehicle is torn down. If that is the true case, then there is not much the carrier can do if the person does not want to have it repaired.
tcope,
I do agree that often some parts & repair damage can't be seen or expected. The automobile is a tough yet delicate machine with many oddities in its design.
With that said....... Reason needs to play a factor at some point. What I've seen isn't about accuracy, its about deliberate low balling of the original estimate for what I believe is to 1) make it easier to Steer the auto to a program shop. 2) And when the un-knowing consumer cashes out....... all the better for the carrier.
This has been an old maneuver used by "shifty shops" to get a job in the Door and then add all the overlooked damage.
Its beginning to look like many insurer's are adapting this practice with an additional benefit not available to "shifty shops".
I'll explain.
The shop benefits if it gets the job.
The insurer benefits if the DRP gets the job, and the insurer benefits even more if the consumer Cashes out.
It doesn't sound very nice, but...
FK,
PS. Have you ever heard of the management consultant McKinsey & Co.?? They were once hired by Allstate.
With that said....... Reason needs to play a factor at some point. What I've seen isn't about accuracy, its about deliberate low balling of the original estimate for what I believe is to 1) make it easier to Steer the auto to a program shop. 2) And when the un-knowing consumer cashes out....... all the better for the carrier.
If the insurance company is intentionally low balling the estimate because the know it won't be repaired, I don't agree with that action at all. As an adjuster I've always paid what I thought was owed. I've worked for some shady carriers in the past (several) and while some of their practices were solely to cut costs, I've not seen on that _told_ any adjuster or appraiser to do what you mentioned.
Yes, I've heard of the Mckinsey report. I've discussed in several other threads (I think I might have started one based on that report. Mike from Ozark also recently mentioned it in another thread (Allstate banned from writing in FL temporarily and being fined by a MO judge).
Looks as if you are free to do with the money what you want to. Will you trade the vehicle or keep it? You will lose a ton on the unrepaired damage that the vehicle has sustained, you may be better off selling it outright or for parts. up to you.
Selling it outright is probably a good idea, unless you plan on fixing it yourself. Trading it in with damage is going to be a bad move for you, but I think trading any vehicle these days is not a smart move, seems the dealers always find a way to recover the trade money in the cost of the new purchase somewhere. I would try to sell it out right and use your check for the down payment as you wish too.
