by Guest » Thu May 15, 2008 04:49 am
Hi!
I am hoping someone can help me on this!
I was involved in an accident on Dec. 1 07. I was rearended by a Hummer going approx 45 mph. My minivan had approx 11,500 in damage (it is a custom 07 Sienna) and I had a rental car for 12 weeks. After the accident, I had to take my 4 kids (ages 6,4, 2, 6 mths) to the er and then one to the pediatrician 4 days later. Two were treated with whiplash and had chiro for about 5 months. Medical bills totaled 2950. Lost wages to take the kids were approx 680, diminished value on my vehicle is about 4K. They also didn't pay the car rental bill for 6 weeks and it was charged to me so I paid an over the limit fee and lost my 0% promotional rate due to default (even though the charge has been reversed.) The insurance company offered me an accident settlement of 2,150 and then they were going to pay the 1500 of chiro (there is a lein and that is included in the 2950) I told them I was looking for around 16300 (four times medical bills, 4K in diminished value, lost wages and over the limit fee.) Am I asking too much? They told me I was being unreasonable and that Missouri doesn't recognize diminished value. My insurance company says they do. What is a fair accident settlement amount?
I am hoping someone can help me on this!
I was involved in an accident on Dec. 1 07. I was rearended by a Hummer going approx 45 mph. My minivan had approx 11,500 in damage (it is a custom 07 Sienna) and I had a rental car for 12 weeks. After the accident, I had to take my 4 kids (ages 6,4, 2, 6 mths) to the er and then one to the pediatrician 4 days later. Two were treated with whiplash and had chiro for about 5 months. Medical bills totaled 2950. Lost wages to take the kids were approx 680, diminished value on my vehicle is about 4K. They also didn't pay the car rental bill for 6 weeks and it was charged to me so I paid an over the limit fee and lost my 0% promotional rate due to default (even though the charge has been reversed.) The insurance company offered me an accident settlement of 2,150 and then they were going to pay the 1500 of chiro (there is a lein and that is included in the 2950) I told them I was looking for around 16300 (four times medical bills, 4K in diminished value, lost wages and over the limit fee.) Am I asking too much? They told me I was being unreasonable and that Missouri doesn't recognize diminished value. My insurance company says they do. What is a fair accident settlement amount?
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:02 pm Post Subject:
Nope. I did not copy your posts and send them to someone else who then took little parts and pieces and posted them on another website
Nor have I EVER....However, have 'seen' this done on many of your 'favorite' sites Mike... :roll: Once again...low low class :x :cry:Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 01:28 am Post Subject:
I've seen low class here at the frick and frack show. Low class is denegrating an attorney, author, and consumer advocate the stature of Ms Eversman who is on the national panel of ethics studies for the collision industry. If you think that little of her, it's obvious how you feel about the rest of my industry. When you can't silence them, just resort to namecalling.
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:27 am Post Subject:
as I had her permission to post her response there.
Telling isn't it Mike you thought it necessary, ethical, and a professional courtesy to request permission from this person, but not from Tcope....Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 02:00 pm Post Subject:
Her response was to criticism leveled at a published story to many of her peers. It would fall on deaf ears and indifference here. I don't consider forum diatribes equivalent to published articles. Equating T's commentary to that of Ms. Eversman is laughable.
Perhaps you guys should respond to her article in the magazine and see if you get any traction or agreement from others in the collision industry.
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 05:10 pm Post Subject:
Perhaps you guys should respond to her article in the magazine and see if you get any traction or agreement from others in the collision industry.
I doubt you will see anyone taking the "bait" you offered as I don't see that it's ever been anyone's intention here to want to hash things out. This forum has formed into a place where advice is given as requested and things related to insurance are discussed. The board you refers to seems to be more of people wanting to complain about things related to the body shop arena. That's fine... but it's certainly not what I'm about nor would I think it appropriate to try to interject my opinions were they are obviously not wanted. That is, I see no need to stir the pot. Lastly, I really don't have anything to add to that forum that would be helpful to the people that read/post in it. Its not like I'm selling anything and want to drum up business.Bottom line, this site is dedicated to the insurance industry. As such, I post here. I see no reason for me to go to a collision industry board and try to make posts about collision repair. If I did, I'd expect people with much more knowledge on the subject to correct all the wrong things I'd be posting. What I know is insurance and how insurance relates to the other industries it is involved with.
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 08:02 pm Post Subject:
Bottom line, this site is dedicated to the insurance industry. As such, I post here. I see no reason for me to go to a collision industry board and try to make posts about collision repair. If I did, I'd expect people with much more knowledge on the subject to correct all the wrong things I'd be posting. What I know is insurance and how insurance relates to the other industries it is involved with.
I find that there are just as many knowledgeable people there that discuss the contract of insurance that are equal to the task of debating you. You are wrong if you think you aren't selling anything here, you are selling an insurance philosophy that does not always inform your readers of all their owed losses.
You know you might man up and call into tomorrow anonymously, if you prefer, and challenge Ms. Eversman on an interview program broadcast in Seattle. She'll be rested an up from her nap to discuss the article you read and did not agree with. I spoke with the host earlier today and mentioned that there was some disagreement from some insurer perpective. He said he hoped you would listen and call in. He has inteviewed the state insurance commissioner on his program, a former Farmers adjuster, and other adjusters and agents call in from time to time to disagree. It's done amicably and they'll respect your opinion though they may disagree.
http://www.am1090seattle.com/
Listen live streamed over the internet "CrashTalk"
9 am west coast, 10 mountain, 11 central.
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 09:14 pm Post Subject:
Equating T's commentary to that of Ms. Eversman is laughable.
Commentary, content, or comments have NOTHING to do with it! What it DOES have to do with is copying someone elses printed words and posting them (mostly in part) to another forum/board without their consent, or even the common courtesy to ask permission...again, poor forum/enternet etiquette, zero professional courtesy, and just plain low class...Perhaps you guys should respond to her article in the magazine and see if you get any traction or agreement from others in the collision industry.
You bet on your ''pro-slam-a-dam-a-ding-dong board'' ...the board that attacks like hungry sharks in a feeding frenzy at pretty much any 'pro' or positive comment regarding insurance/drps/adjusters (big bad word on that board!) and they routinely eat their own for actually getting along with anyone in the insurance industry! Sure thing Mike...be right there... :roll:Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 09:22 pm Post Subject:
Its not like I'm selling anything and want to drum up business.
:wink: :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: Made me spit my coffee on key board again Tcope...and challenge Ms. Eversman on an interview program broadcast in Seattle
What does he have to challenge her about SHE AGREED with him on the main point...read it again...Her words on your site....The INSURED has a contractual obligation to allow his/her insurer to review the damage, but the body shop does not.
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:43 pm Post Subject:
You bet on your ''pro-slam-a-dam-a-ding-dong board'' ...the board that attacks like hungry sharks in a feeding frenzy at pretty much any 'pro' or positive comment regarding insurance/drps/adjusters (big bad word on that board!) and they routinely eat their own for actually getting along with anyone in the insurance industry! Sure thing Mike...be right there...
You're right, just like sharks, they'd sniff the "BS" and arrogance and be on you two, like a hobo on a baloney sandwich. You two are afraid to step out of your box and comfort zone into the real truth.
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:42 pm Post Subject:
Here's the thing MIke...I deal with the 'real truth' and 'real' shop's, owners, and techs all day long, five days a week, 40-60 hours a week..I KNOW the REAL truth...of course now you are going to say that all the shop I deal with are wrong...blah blah...that's fine, you are welcome to that opinion, and your 'version' of the truth...why are we not allowed to have our own? If it doesn't agree with yours it's arrogance? hmmmmmmm...pot/kettle, kettle/pot....We've tried this before, let's try it again...you keep your opinion and version of the 'truth' and we'll keep ours...k?
We don't come to your board in an attempt to cause disruption because we know that the ten or so regular contributors would not agree with pretty much ANYTHING we had to say, most particular coming from an adjuster....they won't even LISTEN to an opposing view from their 'own kind' why would they from their 'arch enemy' (adjusters/ins company/claims)...seriously Mike....You keep preachin' what you're preachin' we'll keep doing what we do, and leave it at that....
Add your comment