| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:07 pm Post subject: claimant vs. insurance |
|
|
Hello,
A tree on a neighbor's property fell on my vehicle, totaling it. It was a case of personal negligence as it was overtly rotted. At first they dishonestly denied it and I had to get the New York state department involved. Eight months later, they finally accepted responsibility and are now discussing total settlements. My question is even though I did not rent cars (because I didn't know if they would pay), will I see any compensation for the loss and inconvenience during this long period in accordance to what I would get if I had rented a car even though this is homeowner's insurance I am dealing with? I truly appreciate all your inputs. Thanks!
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
mastiez75
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are only entitled to your ACTUAL LOSS. Your vehicle will be paid for on the basis of "ACTUAL CASH VALUE" which is its replacement cost (cost new) less depreciation prior to the loss (today's market value). If you had rented a replacement vehicle, that cost would be added to your payment.
You can ask for, but will probably not receive, anything else you want. Only what you can "prove" ("inconvenience" is not provable -- life itself is often inconvenient) will be compensated. You cannot "get" something for which you had no loss (such as the rental car expense you DID NOT INCUR).
On the other hand, delaying the payment of a claim like this can be worth money in court. Punitive damages for unfair claims practices could amount to thousands of dollars in the eyes of a jury of your peers. You can attempt to obtain some of this by offering NOT to take the insurance company to court for its shoddy manner of handling your claim. A little "blackmail" so to speak -- like they've done to you. Payback is a B****!
Ask for $5000 to avoid going to court and see what they say. If they offer anything in response, take it and be satisfied. Argue too hard over this, and they will simply say, "OK, take us to court." in which case you could lose, have to pay your attorney his fees, and might even have to pay the insurance company's legal expense -- which will easily be more than what your own was.
_________________
CA-licensed P&C Broker-Agent and Life Agent. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Now investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support and expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers. |
|
MaxHerr
Moderator
Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 4629
Location: Pomona CA
210.19 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's loss of use that you are entitled to... it can be based on the expense of a rental car but it's really owed even if you don't get a rental. That is, the rental expense is not the loss (as renting a car is a separate matter anyway)... it's the fact that you don't have use of your vehicle. Call it what you want... inconvenience, etc... it's still a loss and part of the damages. It's pretty standard to be considered part of the claim.
Don't expect them to pay the LOU the entire time this was going on as, regardless of the delay, you still had a duty to mitigate your loss.
| Quote: | | Punitive damages for unfair claims practices could amount to thousands of dollars in the eyes of a jury of your peers. |
Punitive damages are almost never award and based on what the OP has mention, no attorney would take the case. It would be a waste of time. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5199
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
286.08 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:30 pm Post subject: TBcDyVqMuDeIJzHc |
|
|
If my problem was a Death Star, this article is a photon treopdo.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
Jaclyn
Guest
|
|
