Repair vs Total Loss (2009 Mazda 3 Hatchback Sport)

Message Author
ampm-bookmark
delicious-small Add to delicious
yahoomyweb-small Add to YahooMyWeb
blinklist-small Add to BlinkList
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:16 am   Post subject: Repair vs Total Loss (2009 Mazda 3 Hatchback Sport)  

Hi all,



I recently got into a bad accident in my Mazda 3 09 Hatchback Sport. Both the other driver and I have AAA insurance. I took my car to a body shop on Monday, AAA only got to it today (after I demanded they send someone in person rather than do a "desk review") and said that they estimated the damages at around $8000.



At that point, I stated that I am concerned about the safety of the vehicle and would like to declare a total loss. The adjustor then said that he estimated the value of my vehicle at $14,600, which I am certain is way too high. I did extensive searches of my own and found the average at around $12,000. He told me he would speak with his manager and run the numbers by him to see what they should do.



I would appreciate any suggestions regarding what I should do. Can I have my car evaluated by someone else and fight their estimate? Should I just do the repairs and move on? I am having serious doubts about the quality of the car post repairs.



Thank you.

mazda309
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Posts: 6


2.07 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:07 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
I would appreciate any suggestions regarding what I should do
Wait to hear back from the adjuster and go from there. If they consider it a total loss (you've now stated you will get paid $12,000 less your deductible) then this is a non-issue.



Quote:
Can I have my car evaluated by someone else and fight their estimate?
In the hopes of increasing the repair cost? Yes you can... it's your car. You will probably need to pay for that expense out of your pocket.

Quote:
Should I just do the repairs and move on?
Your choice.
tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:17 pm   Post subject:   

@tcope - thank you for the quick reply.



I spoke with my adjuster today and he said that they are now doing frame measurements at the shop to see if there was frame damage. Why did they wait until I pushed for a total loss to do that? Am I entitled to complain about this?



Re the ACV - I never specifically quoted $12,000 to him, however, I did say that I found a lower figure. Does that mean they will try to lower the ACV? I am very confused as to why they are taking so long.

mazda309
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Posts: 6


2.07 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:15 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
I took my car to a body shop on Monday, AAA only got to it today
and
Quote:
Why did they wait until I pushed for a total loss to do that? Am I entitled to complain about this?
and
Quote:
I am very confused as to why they are taking so long.


Well, let's see. Car goes to body shop on Monday, adjuster sees it on Wednesday, the insurance company decides to reexamine the car on Wednesday or Thursday. And you want to know why this is "taking so long."



Do you work? No? Well, then I guess you have a right to demand that other people work faster than the speed of light.



Try calling your doctor at 3:00 in the afternoon and see if you can get in at 3:30.



Your demands as to time are unreasonable. The adjuster is not only handling your claim. He/she could have 100 other cases open at the moment. But you want him/her to drop everyone else's claim and give immediate attention to yours.



Unfortunately the real world does not revolve around you -- Galileo and a few other astronomers proved that about 600 years ago. Feel free to complain about that, but unreasonable complaints such as yours are tossed into the trash and not investigated. But you will cause the state to have to expend money to send you an answer.



Your claim is being handled appropriately and in a timely manner. You need to act accordingly. If the damage to your vehicle is still $8000 and the value is $12,000, it will still not rise to the level of a total loss -- the damage would have to be at least $1000 more to get to the 75% threshold.


_________________

CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers.
MaxHerr
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 7888

Location: Pomona CA
107.50 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:48 pm   Post subject:   

@tcope - I should have added that I was told that the car would be appraised by Tuesday. Putting time aside, I am shocked that they only decided to do an inspection of the frame after their initial estimate because I demanded it. Mind you, one of the adjusters told me that he could tell if I had frame damage just by looking at photos because today's cars are no longer built with unibodies. Guess what, the shop informed me that my car indeed has a unibody frame.



With damages totaling to 50% or more of the vehicle, I have a genuine concern over the safety of the car as I should. Let's throw out the timing issue, which is not of concern to me. My concern is regarding the inaccurate information that is being provided to me and the lack of comprehensive inspection up front. It is not unreasonable to demand that my frame be inspected after a serious accident.

mazda309
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Posts: 6


2.07 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:52 pm   Post subject:   

@tcope - One more thing, the only reason my car was even looked at in person was because I demanded it. These guys try to get away with whatever they can unless you fight back - that is just the nature of the insurance industry. I have friends who work as adjusters (unfortunately not AAA) and they all concur.

mazda309
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Posts: 6


2.07 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:00 am   Post subject:   

I get the impression that you agreed to take it to an insurance preferred repair shop? If so, the shop is charged with inspecting the vehicle and sending that information to the insurance company. If the vehicle is repairable, the shop makes a profit off the repairs. If the vehicle is not repairable then the shop makes $0. Could be why this happened. Shop could give s figure that makes the vehicle repairable. Then once the repairs have started they go back to the carrier with a bent frame and get more time. By then the carrier has already paid for the repairs so they are kind of stuck. Just a guess, though.



So far, what are they "getting away" with?

tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:20 am   Post subject:   

Quote:
I have friends who work as adjusters (unfortunately not AAA) and they all concur.
So your "friends" are busy ripping off other people like you? Or are they the only honest adjusters in the business? LOL.


_________________

CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers.
MaxHerr
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 7888

Location: Pomona CA
107.50 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:01 pm   Post subject: Advocating for blueprinting of damages  

The collision industry would like to gravitate to a partial disassembly and blueprinting of repairs to expose all the damage so that a decision can be made to repair or total at the outset. As a collision shop owner, I work for the vehicle owner and not the insurer, so I create my own estimate and blueprint for repair. It is often sometimes twice as much as the insurer estimate as their initial estimate is visible damage only quotations. Insurers would prefer you use their network of shops as they work for the insurers primarily and not the vehicle owner. They report their findings and ask permission from the insurer while being graded against other network shops for saving the insurer money first by using salvage parts and generic parts.



I on the other hand, generally make my own determination whether a vehicle is a total loss or repairable based on my blueprinting and disassembly authorized by the vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may authorize the shop to perform these tasks as part of the repair process. The insurer has the contractual right to examine the damaged property and determine what they believe the amount of loss to be as they have the right to determine at the outset of the claim to 1. Pay for the loss in money (owner authorizes the repairs), 2. Take control of the vehicle assign the repair to a shop and assume all liability, or 3.Replace the damaged property with like, kind, and quality, or pay the actual cash value of the loss. Most insurers use cost containment strategies and interfere with body shops once they have decided to pay for the loss in money. Court cases routinely reveal that unless the insurer takes control of the repair and assigns the repair bearing all liability, they do not have the right to determine how the vehicle is repaired and with which kind of parts. It’s all about the risk. You can not pay for the loss in money and control the repair as that would be co-mingling of the insurance options which is what they have done by co-opting slave shops to repair based on the insurer preferences with the promise of steering more work to them for complying with the insurer’s wishes.



The courts say that the insurer must pay all reasonable costs or prove that the repairs are unnecessary or unreasonable (see Progressive vs Coccaro). It is not uncommon for insurers to total vehicles that do not meet the legal definition of a total loss when it beneifits them. Oftentimes, they may incur less severity or expenses by totaling the damaged property, and saving rental reimbursements and from the sell of lucrative salvage. Example: a vehicle value may be worth 20,000 and the repairs 10,000. The salvage may bring 12,000 at auction and the rental could be another 1000. If they totaled that vehicle, they would save 3000 on that claim less auction expenses. It is not uncommon to incur 20 to 30 percent more in supplemental damages on newer vehicles. The insurer has the fiduciary duty to make that decision which is best for their company, but once they make it, they should stay out of the repair process unless they wish to assume the risk in the repair.



_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:27 pm   Post subject:   

Excellent post, Mike!

Quote:
The insurer has the fiduciary duty to make that decision which is best for their company, but once they make it, they should stay out of the repair process unless they wish to assume the risk in the repair.
The insurer also has contractual and legal responsibilities per state law, which supersede fiduciary responsibility to a certain extent.



Mostly, however, the OP was complaining that the insurer's taking three days was too long to have to wait for his claim to be acted on. That stance is completely unreasonable. His is not the only claim the insurance company has to handle this week.


_________________

CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers.
MaxHerr
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 7888

Location: Pomona CA
107.50 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:59 pm   Post subject:   

Unless the vehicle is a train wreck and or a questionable borderline total, the insurer should at the outset say which option they are taking and if they are not taking control themselves and authorizing the repairs, all they need to do is confirm coverage and let the owner authorize repairs to their selected shop and get out of the way so shops can do what they are licensed to legally do. I know the pattern that has existed in the past thirty years, but it is legally changing and many collision business owners are discovering what they are legally entitled to do.



How long is a reasonable time for an insurer to come to that decision. 99 percent of the time on first party claims they are not authorizing the repairs, the owners are. Seventyfive percent of the vehicles I repair, the insurer never physically inspects them even though they have the contractual right to do so. They take my estimates and audit them and propose a settlement or ask for an agreed price. If they are asking for an agreed price, I then ask are they taking the option to assume all risk and liability with your specified procedures and your sourced parts? Are you Mr or Ms Insurer going to authorize the repairs? They never will answer, so we proceed with repairs as we, who the courts have deemed to be the repair experts, and the insurer has the choice to pay or not. The shop can bill the vehicle owner and if they pay, then the insurer has a potential breach of contract issue in their laps if the shop repaired based on an estimate agreed to by the vehicle owner.



Many shops across the country including myself are taking assignments of proceeds or claims which are legal to do post loss. Court after court after court are awarding the shops with legal fees and underpayments that the insurer could not prove was unreasonable. Insurers do not want to open their books to discovery in most of these cases which would reveal possible price fixing and allocation of market share by coerced steering abuse. The tide is changing. Insurers are attempting in some states to change the law to their benefit so they can continue to cost contain and control an industry that they are not a party to simply because they indemnify policy holders and pay for third party losses. Today they bank on uninformed policyholder and third party claimants and steer them to shops that collude with them to possibly underpay many claims by ommitted repairs that are required by the manufacturer of the vehicle or procedures specifed by them as necessary to return a vehicle to the engineered pre-accident condition. Bout time! Why should the collision industry continue to subsidize insurers with discounted repairs to enable them to spend the ridiculous amounts they do on advertising to win new customers. Vehicle owners should have to pay the reasonable increases in premiums that are a reflection of the changing crude oil prices which affect refinish materials and steel which affects auto parts pricing. Or insurers should be happy with taking some of the invested money they make on using premium dollars to pay for their losses in their claims side of the ledger.



Okay, I'll get off my soap box for a few more months.



_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 1:01 am   Post subject:   

Update - The insurance company declared my vehicle a total loss after further inspection. Actually, I did not use a AAA preferred repair shop because every shop they suggested to me had horrible customer reviews. The shop I took my car to had 5 stars on Yelp with 150 reviews. In fact, AAA seemed very annoyed that I used a non-preferred shop even though it is my right to do so.



After speaking with a couple of body shop owners, I learned that insurance companies are accepting fewer shops onto their preferred list because of "the economy", and as a result, they are paying lower rates to those who are on their list in return for an increased volume of business. This translates into preferred shops "cutting corners" in order to guarantee the lowest cost of repair as MikeoftheOzarks stated above in different language.



"Mostly, however, the OP was complaining that the insurer's taking three days was too long to have to wait for his claim to be acted on. That stance is completely unreasonable. His is not the only claim the insurance company has to handle this week."



@MaxHerr - it seems like you are a contentious one, as you are trying to belabor a point that I admitted was not of major concern in a follow up post. It also seems like you never read that post. You are the unreasonable one who has continuously attacked me throughout numerous posts.



Oh, and yes my friends who work for insurance companies are not dishonest, however, they play the game required to be an adjuster. Why don't you go tell your employer to rewrite their rules and let me know how that goes. Your intellectual capacity is quite alarming. Get a life.



Here is my reply - " Let's throw out the timing issue, which is not of concern to me. My concern is regarding the inaccurate information that is being provided to me and the lack of comprehensive inspection up front. It is not unreasonable to demand that my frame be inspected after a serious accident."



@tcope - I apologize for directing my follow up posts towards you. I now noticed that it was MaxHerr, "The Kind One", who was attempting to belittle me.



@Mike - Thank you for your informative post. I took it to a shop owner like yourself who has the vehicle owner's best interest in mind and not the insurance company's.



"Today they bank on uninformed policyholder and third party claimants and steer them to shops that collude with them to possibly underpay many claims by ommitted repairs that are required by the manufacturer of the vehicle or procedures specifed by them as necessary to return a vehicle to the engineered pre-accident condition"



^^ Spot on Mike, spot on!

mazda309
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Posts: 6


2.07 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:42 am   Post subject:   

Quote:
Oh, and yes my friends who work for insurance companies are not dishonest, however, they play the game required to be an adjuster.
That certainly is an ethical dilemma, isn't it? Do I lie to collect a paycheck, or do I do the right thing?



I worked more than five years for an employer who told me on different occasions concerning incidents that involved employees who were, ultimately, under my supervision, not to tell anyone outside the company what really happened. On one occasion a VP came to me and said, "I have to 'kill' someone over this incident. Who do I kill?" On another occasion, the President and the VP of Operations came to me and said, with a straight face, if anyone asks me about the problem my employee created, which involved an advertisement for Microsoft Corporation that aired on national TV, to tell them "we did everything right."



In the first instance, I told my VP, "Kill me. I'm the guy who trained all these people. It's my responsibility." No one died and we did not lose the account. I implemented some additional QC procedures and the error was not repeated while I was there. As for the second incident, about three years later, fortunately, for the company, no one ever asked me the question. If they had, they would have received the correct answer: "Yes, my guy screwed up." Why? Because my integrity means more to me than any paycheck. I left the company less than 18 months after that (about 15 years ago).



Besides, it's easier to tell the truth all the time because you don't have to try to remember which lie you told to which person on which occasion.

Quote:
they are paying lower rates to those who are on their list in return for an increased volume of business. This translates into preferred shops "cutting corners"
I'm not going to dispute this because in some cases, it's absolutely true. But that's the same kind of integrity issue.



You can see the difference in Mike of the Ozarks comments. That's a man of integrity. He's not going to be bullied in doing anything less than the right thing for his customer. As I tell my students when we discuss ethics in the insurance industry, the point I try to hammer home is that it's all about the customer, not me and certainly not the insurance company.



If I do the right thing for the customer, the company will do just fine, and I get paid, too, even if I get paid less than another agent who puts his own interests ahead of both the customer and the company. Most of those agents don't last too long. Some get a clue and change their attitude. Others go for a change of scenery, get sued, or get fired. A few just quietly disappear.



Your experience with AAA is not an isolated incident. And you would be within your rights to pursue a bad faith complaint with your state's department of insurance. Unfortunately, it doesn't rise to the level of litigation between you and AAA now that they have totaled your vehicle. But the incident should surely be reported to the state. Without your complaint, the Dept of Insurance might never learn about such incidents.



If you reread your initial post, I think you'll agree that the tone of that was different than your most recent comments. If you felt "attacked", I apologize. It was not my intent. I never said you didn't have the right to be more demanding about the handling of your claim, only that you were upset that things were not happening fast enough to suit you. That's kind of a petty issue.



As I've said numerous times before, insurance companies are in business to make money -- that's no surprise, because almost every legitimate business has the same objective. Insurance companies stay in business by paying claims. If they stop paying claims, or they force vendors to short cut repairs, they won't stay in business too long.



Make a complaint to your DOI. This was a form of "market conduct" violation that needs to be known. Posting it here is helpful, but cannot trigger any investigation because there is no specificity other than the name of the insurance company.


_________________

CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers.
MaxHerr
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 7888

Location: Pomona CA
107.50 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:30 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
If you reread your initial post, I think you'll agree that the tone of that was different than your most recent comments. If you felt "attacked", I apologize. It was not my intent.




Excuse me, you imbecile, not your intent? Let's rehash your first post:



Quote:
Do you work? No? Well, then I guess you have a right to demand that other people work faster than the speed of light.





So it appears that your pathetic excuse of a life lacks the thrills you wish it had, and as a result, you ask people snarky questions and answer for them in order to demonstrate a point based upon a figment of your imagination? Well played Mr. Insurance, let me guess who taught you that form of argument? Perhaps it was the same VP you stood up too once upon a time at the height of your heroic insurance career?



Quote:
Unfortunately the real world does not revolve around you -- Galileo and a few other astronomers proved that about 600 years ago. Feel free to complain about that, but unreasonable complaints such as yours are tossed into the trash and not investigated. But you will cause the state to have to expend money to send you an answer.




Galileo and "a few other astronomers" - no comment - championed heliocentrism over geocentrism. In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is a description of the cosmos where Earth is at the orbital center of all celestial bodies. Maybe your 6th grade science teacher taught you otherwise, who knows.



But wait, my unreasonable claim surely should have been tossed to the trash, correct? According to you:



Quote:
Your claim is being handled appropriately and in a timely manner. You need to act accordingly. If the damage to your vehicle is still $8000 and the value is $12,000, it will still not rise to the level of a total loss -- the damage would have to be at least $1000 more to get to the 75% threshold.




You are the reason why forums have an impeccable reputation. I suggest you print out a screenshot of your profile showing 4000+ posts and frame it on your wall. In the meantime, I will anticipate receiving a check in the mail for my totaled vehicle.
mazda309
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Posts: 6


2.07 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:08 am   Post subject:   

Hi Mazda, you taught a good lesson this Maximum guy. He is such a proud fellow that he always boasts of his insurance license as if he has the ticket to Air Force 1. Rather than helping people in the forums, he seems always in a mood to spanking other forum members who are relatively new. He thinks he can say anything to anybody. Yes, I should say here that sometimes his answers are good and helpful. It is because of this guy that I have stopped posting in the forums.



_________________

Owning a home is a keystone of wealth - both financial affluence and emotional security. ~ Suze Orman
MangoQurious
Senior member
Leave a quick message

MangoQurious

Joined: 12 Mar 2013
Posts: 270

Location: Sacramento, CA
61.19 Dollars($)

All times are GMT
1, 2  Next  
Page 1 of 2


Get free auto insurance quote
State Auto Insurance Laws in USA

USA Auto Insurance laws
Ask Community Experts

flash plugin

Quick Links

Must See

Community

Hot topics in forums

Latest in blogs

AmPmInsure on Facebook



Page loaded in 0.328 seconds.