by whatsyurprob » Thu Mar 27, 2008 01:23 am
I'll try to make this as short as possible.
I'm the victim of a parking lot rear end accident. The guy who hit me has admitted all liability. I've gotten an estimate at a shop of my choosing. His insurance company (AAA) sent out to my house an independent appraiser. She did her report but failed to include pictures of the most expensive damage (There's a difference of $500.00 comparing her report and the body shop that I took my car to). After I received the appraisers estimate I called AAA and they said that if I wanted a cash pay-out I would be the one responsible for getting the proof that the part the appraiser 'conveniently' left out was really damaged. This would be at MY expense. AAA, says that my bumper has to be completely dismantled to prove this. I say, BULL!!!
U see, the problem is, it's my car that got hit. If the other party has admitted all liability I shouldn't have to pay a dime, not to mention that it's none of AAA's business if I get the car fixed or not. Am I right?
BTW, Totaling the car out is not an option seeing as though it's worth much more than the damage caused. This is not in dispute.
I live in California.
Thanx in advance.
I'm the victim of a parking lot rear end accident. The guy who hit me has admitted all liability. I've gotten an estimate at a shop of my choosing. His insurance company (AAA) sent out to my house an independent appraiser. She did her report but failed to include pictures of the most expensive damage (There's a difference of $500.00 comparing her report and the body shop that I took my car to). After I received the appraisers estimate I called AAA and they said that if I wanted a cash pay-out I would be the one responsible for getting the proof that the part the appraiser 'conveniently' left out was really damaged. This would be at MY expense. AAA, says that my bumper has to be completely dismantled to prove this. I say, BULL!!!
U see, the problem is, it's my car that got hit. If the other party has admitted all liability I shouldn't have to pay a dime, not to mention that it's none of AAA's business if I get the car fixed or not. Am I right?
BTW, Totaling the car out is not an option seeing as though it's worth much more than the damage caused. This is not in dispute.
I live in California.
Thanx in advance.
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 02:57 am Post Subject:
Wow get real... your so sure of yourself that you need to resort to personal attacks. This really shows your intelligence level.
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:23 pm Post Subject:
It must be assumed that you work for an insurance company
Neither one of us has hid the fact that we are adjusters, you on the other hand what do you do? hmmmmm? write dv reports for a fee maybe?and cannot or will not comprehend what is reality.
That is where you are dead wrong...when the loss is a REALITY, i think the carrier owes it...and not until it is REALITY...not someone (whos' making a buck) who comes up with some made up figure that may never come to be (selling or trading the car)..now who's lost their reality grip? you want people paid for something ''just in case'' it happens...I'm not saying it may not happen, but WHEN it happens has a direct impact on how much...or do you reallllllllly think that selling it five years post accident is the same amount of dv as the day after the repair? if the car is worth 15k now, and dv is 3k and the car is worth 6k in five years (maybe) is that dv still 5k? of course not!It is really very simple do you want a car that has enough damage to have a salvation title and fixed with your betterment parts or one that is in pristine condition or (from your twisted point of view my crappy old parts) that the factory applied under strict guidelines, supervision, QA standards, torque specifications, on and on.
Ok, Einstein jr. first off never heard of a title that provides 'salvation' what the hell are ''betterment parts'...no such thing..torque specs on hanging a fender huh? better let every shop in the world know about that one! honey clearly you have no idea at all what you're talking about...i take back that you write dv reports, CLEARLY that's not the case... :roll:It is fact that over 50 percent of the repairs are done incorrectly by nature of; it is inconceivable to expect ma and pa to replicate what?
I think I and every body shop association would LOVE to see that data...It would be simply not be possible to have all of the advantages as the original factories.
yeah you're right robots build them the factorys...It is well known the duplication of factory finish is impossible in the repair industry, I am not saying they can't blend and refinish, just that it is impossible to duplicate the factory finish.
every seen a perfect factory paint job? i can gaurantee you that i or anyone with actual experience can find flaws...what does blend have to do with it other than color match? you think they blend in the factory too?Now that we have established the inferior ness of how they rebuild your vehicle even with the exact same part
Honey, all YOU have established is your total lack of knowledge not only of the insurance industry but have single handedly insulted the collision repair industry as well, not to mention displaying a total lack of any first hand knowledge of same.It will be worse, your simple fender example although naive will require possible 3 body panels to be removed or at least loosened, splash screens and other components will have to be destructed in order to be reconstructed
depends on the vehicle and seriously now you are claiming shops distroy other parts hanging a fender? :roll:shortcuts were applied, not done correctly, either intentionally or unintentially it doesn't matter it happens.
sounds to me like you need to find a better body shop...what we have said, get that mouse out of your pocket and have gull to speak for yourself, nevermind you can have your crutch back.
huh? have another drink.. :roll:How do you know I am not JD.
:lol: :lol: THAT is easy..honey he has WAY more class, can actually spell, knows how to construct a sentence, and wouldn't say a tenth of the crap you've said...because it's just plain WRONG!No wonder you have no friends.
where did that come from?Oh honey, seriously seek help
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 03:42 pm Post Subject:
Well I didn't start it, but if she can dish it out to a ten year old paralegal then she has to be accountable and take the same diminutive type of comments as she dishes out. Now like I said probably not to much problem with a fender, my concern would be with more damage, frame involvement and more intrinsic intricate type of repair with numerous parts and like I said with all the different years, makes, models, no I do not think they could do nearly as good as a standardize robot, person at the factory and a realist would agree. I think Lori has given you some of my documentation.
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 04:26 pm Post Subject:
Well I didn't start it, but if she can dish it out to a ten year old paralegal
Sorry, now I understand.Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 05:20 pm Post Subject:
Ten-year-old paralegal her words not mine. Adjusters, now I get why I am talking to a brick wall. Yes Lori it is you that must be sad and needs help, you state it plain as day "The holidays are a very sad and lonely time for many, reach out to them during this blessed time of year" speaking from personal experience I am sure. I think this is a great and most joyous time of year. The truth be known I am a doctor, MD and my initial diagnosis for Lori is DSM-IV 301.83 Borderline Personality Disorder as it is easy to see she suffers greatly from either an overbearing father figure or a lack of being able to bond with her mother. More likely she probably had an event, which she continues to block out that has happened to her in her early childhood. I personally think Lori also suffers from DSM-IV Pervasive Developmental Disorder NOS 299.80 as well as Phase of Life Problem V62.89, as well as Factitious Disorder With Combined Psychological and Physical Signs and Symptoms 300.19 in addition to Adjustment Disorder With Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct 309.4. I have no diagnosis or condition on Axis I or Axis II at this time. I am so sorry for you Lori, major advances are currently being made and although your condition is not curable it is however treatable please dear seek help immediately. This will be the only way in which you may seek some form of solace and be able to function as a normal member of our society again. I would like to wish you best of luck in regards to this endeavor. If you need a referral by all means please let me know.
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 06:42 pm Post Subject:
Pardon me but an MD with that grammar? Not trying to pull rank but let me see if I have this correct... an MD is telling an adjuster, who has dealt with automobile claims for close to 20 years, all about DV claims? Isn't that like me telling you that MD's are quacks?
BTW - I'm hoping you don't normally diagnose people from a few paragraphs that they have written and you certainly seem to be trying very hard to convince everyone that you are an MD. All the MDs I know of would not waste their time trying to prove their medical knowledge or use it in a discussion about DV.
Can you tell if I have anything? I've not been to a doctor in about 20 years so I really need a check-up. Thanks!
(I think it's only fair that you give me an exam as well)
BTW, I missed the part were someone called you a 10 year old paralegal. What I did read was the following:
Ok, first no one ever said that that they did not understand what dv is or lacked the knowledge or intelligence of a 10 year old to understand the 'concept' of dv
andoh get this we got us a new term....''Property Damage ParaLegals" I don't remember seeing that degree program anywhere, (when I WAS in a paralegal degree program)
Somehow you put these two things together, twisted them around and came up with someone calling you a 10 year old paralegal? Did that MD degree include reading and comprehending? Sorry if that is insulting but you're an MD?????Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 07:46 pm Post Subject:
Well just leave you with oppositional defiant behavior secondary to lack of knowledge related to your own ignorance. K
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 01:40 am Post Subject:
I think Lori has given you some of my documentation.
What? What documentation of YOURS has LORI given? your plagarism of ican's web site?Sorry, now I understand.
What Todd? could you please explain it to me? :?Ten-year-old paralegal her words not mine.
WHERE did I say that? and further more I wouldn't insult a paralegal OR a ten year old like that!Yes Lori it is you that must be sad and needs help, you state it plain as day "The holidays are a very sad and lonely time for many, reach out to them during this blessed time of year" speaking from personal experience I am sure
Sure at times...like the first Christmas after my grandpa that I adored died, or two christmas's ago the first one after my brother committed suicide, or maybe the one after we lost a daughter, or this one the first one after my step daddy died...you bet I've had holidays that were truly sad, due to 'one missing' that has always been there...if you haven't experienced that, good for you, more than likely if you live long enough you will...how on earth did you get from that that I am sad or have no friends...I ask that we remember that 'many' (didn't say me) are sad and loney this time of year...ya' know it pretty much takes a sociopath to attack something like that you heartless ignorant wimp..The truth be known I am a doctor, MD
Oh my gosh nearly spit my coffee out again ... does anyone think that a medical doc could in all probablity spell, and have 'some' knowledge of grammar? I admit to being a poor spellar (that word was a joke!) and certainly no english major where grammar is concerned either (so was that)...But I've never ever in my nearly 50 years heard of a doc that couldn't spell or had bad grammar and sentence structure, but hey a few posts ago he was J.D.Listen doc thanks for the diagnosis, and yep I'd love that referal...why don't you just list your real name, address, and license number right here on the web...
Honestly and I'm not kidding...dude you are messed up. :shock:
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 09:23 pm Post Subject:
Now Lori, why would I hide behind a ficticious name regarding a discussion we have already discussed adnauseum, just to bring it up again.
Get real, You are wasting brain matter arguing whether DV is real with Lori and T. Think about it for a moment, If they promoted or agreed that DV is owed, they would be jobless tomorrow. At least no insurer would retain their services if it was known they either encouraged or admitted it is owed at any point during a collision loss; especially after they paid money to restore the vehicle to the mythical pre-loss condition as promised by the contract of insurance or as result of third party damages on behalf of their negligent insured whom they are required to legally protect.
Even though Lori and T do not agree that it is owed after a claims settlement and vehicle repair, many insurers are offering to pay what they feel is the DV even though it is an unrealistic amount based on the 17-C formula that was only to be used in absence of any other calculation of the loss that would prove otherwise.
Every DV report that I have prepared for individuals have been compensated more than allowed by the 17C formula, some even without attorneys. Most negotiate on their own at least 65 percent of the amount of loss determined. Insurers use to only pay DV if threatened with litigation and then they would agree to settement on the court house steps just to force third party claimant to expend much of what would have been their settlements on legal fees to discourage others in the future.
However it is recognized as a true loss regardless of what Lori and T believe and the courts have stated so in virtually every state when a third party claimant seeks diminishment of value on their loss. Even Missouri, where Lori, handles claims states the following.
Diminished value is the difference in fair market value of the auto immediately before the accident and the auto
immediately after the accident causing the damage. Diminished value may or may not be recoverable under an
auto accident claim depending on the relationship between the injured party and the insurance company.
If you make a claim under your own policy (e.g. your auto was damaged because you hit a tree), Missouri law does
not require insurers to pay for diminished value and there is case law that addresses this issue - Lupo v. Shelter
Mutual Insurance Company, 70 S.W.3d 16. In this case, an insured brought action against his own insurance
company to recover the diminished value of his adequately repaired car. The insured claimed that his car was
worth less than it was before the accident even though the car had been properly and adequately repaired. The
court ruled in favor of the insurance company, the insured appealed and the appeals court agreed the insured's
auto policy did not require his insurance company to pay for the diminished value of an adequately repaired
car. The law does not prohibit an insurer from offering this type of coverage, so it is always best to read your
policy or ask your agent to fi nd out whether your policy will pay you for diminished value claims.
If you make a claim under someone else's policy (e.g. your auto is damaged because someone else hit you),
Missouri courts have included diminished value as recoverable damages - Rook V. John F. Oliver Trucking
Company, 566 S.W.2d 200 (Mo. App. 1977). In this case, the court said the amount of damage should be
measured from the fair market value immediately before the collision and the fair market value immediately
after the collision. However, if repairs have been made to the auto as a result of the accident, the court said
that the dimished value should be the difference between the fair market value immediately before the collision
and the fair market value after the repairs.
Nothing in the above claims information on the Missouri State Insurance Web site, states that you must sell your vehicle before you realize your loss and specifically states that it may be calculated and recovered directly after the repairs.
Using Lori and T's logic, if you had a valueable artifact in your home or possession and it was damaged and subsequently repaired although detectible, you wouldn't have any less valuable artifact in your possession until you decided to sell it. The deflated and diminished price you might receive for the artifact would only be perceived by you as being a loss either when you sold it or the moment it was repaired. In other words you're just imagining you have a loss.
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 09:31 pm Post Subject:
Get real, You are wasting brain matter arguing whether DV is real with Lori and T.
That is the thing... the latest part of the discussion was not about DV being _real_. I think we all agree that its real. What I was saying is that it's not a physical loss to the vehicle.Only other thing I will say is that an automobile is not a "valuable artifact". That is why your example is not the same.
The deflated and diminished price you might receive for the artifact would only be perceived by you as being a loss either when you sold it or the moment it was repaired. In other words you're just imagining you have a loss.
But in recent posts, this is what I was stating. That is, that any loss is only perceived, not "real". Again, I was not saying that a loss did not exist. But getreal does not seem to understand the difference.Add your comment