Can insurance co devalue 1st claim with a 2nd claim?

by offlite » Tue Jul 26, 2011 01:44 am

My vehicle was hit by hail in May. The insurance company had declared it a total loss. They made one offer I said no, not enough. They made a second offer and I said no, not enough. They made a 3rd offer and I accepted it. This offer was for $9000.00.

I was hit the day I accepted the offer. I still carried full coverage. Instead of waiting on the other insurance company to pay on the damages, my insurance company stepped in (full coverage) and paid me $2600.00 for the damages.

The 1st claim was then made repairable and they cheated me out of about $2000.00.

I have alleged the entire time that they should have totaled the vehicle from the hail and still paid me for the damage and then should have paid me for the collision damage. They keep saying they will issue additional payments when I send the vehicle to the shop, but I've made it clear I'm not going to pay for 110 hours of repair work on a vehicle only worth $9000.00.

So the question is, was the insurance company right to use the second claim to devalue the first? I got less money because of this.

Total Comments: 1

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 03:33 pm Post Subject:

The insurance company had declared it a total loss.

They made a 3rd offer and I accepted it.


So it was considered a total loss.

I was hit the day I accepted the offer

my insurance company stepped in (full coverage) and paid me $2600.00 for the damages


This we just skip over everything right to this

The 1st claim was then made repairable and they cheated me out of about $2000.00.


No information on what happen, how the "cheated" you out of $2000 or anything on this matter.

I have alleged the entire time that they should have totaled the vehicle from the hail and still paid me for the damage and then should have paid me for the collision damage


So if I were to _guess_ (as you leave out all of the information) I'd say that they paid for $2000 less then the cost to repair the vehicle from the second accident? If this is the case, and the question, I'd say that once the vehicle was a total loss then it's value was only it's salvage value. But this does not explain a shortage of $2000 in _repairs_. That is, in order to pay you less then the repairs on the second loss they would have needed to handled the second loss as a total loss claim.

You need to add _some_ details.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.