Total Comments: 18
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 01:07 am Post Subject:
First, let me see if I have this correct... instead of them paying you $13,000 you want them to pay you less... around $8500. Is this correct? Can I save this post as why sometimes it does not pay to be an adjuster?
You want to know how they arrived at their amount? Have you asked them? I'd probably start there rather then asking a 3rd party who can't possibly know.
Sorry, I'm just trying to wrap my head around someone wanting to know why an insurance company is paying too much and wants to know if they can get the company to pay less.
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 01:43 am Post Subject:
You're missing the point. They want to fix the car. I was selling the car before the accident for 8500 and was having trouble at that price. They used nada pricing but didn't take into account mileage and condition. Edmund's and kbb price it a good bit lower than nada even with mileage and condition taken into account. Just wondering if if ins companies will reevaluate value. At this point I would rather have it totaled and get a realistic amount for it than have to try and sell a car that has now been wrecked when I was already having trouble selling it.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 09:49 pm Post Subject:
You're missing the point. They want to fix the car. I was selling the car before the accident for 8500 and was having trouble at that priceand
At this point I would rather have it totaled
No, you're missing the point. It is not your decision to make. If they want to repair the car, let them. It's their money.
They might just help you sell the vehicle for more than $8500. Did you give any thought to that?
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 06:26 pm Post Subject: missed point
No, I think both of you "forum experts" missed this person's point. I am also the victim of an insurance company over-estimated a car's worth to escape totalling it. That's why I now have a car that just went through $12K of repairs (and still doesn't run right), but I can only get $11K or $12K for it. They said it was worth $17,500 so they would only have to spend $12K to repair rather than pay out $15K or $16K, its actual worth.
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 11:31 pm Post Subject:
Then I think the _real_ issue is that the repair company you chose did not repair the vehicle correctly. You should be speaking to the repair company any your issues.
Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 06:57 am Post Subject:
Don't be so dismissive. The insurance company is trying to come out ahead and the original poster is just trying to figure out how to combat that.
If insurance inflates the value, they can claim the car doesn't meet the threshhold for totaling. So by using an inflated value, which they will never have to pay, they're only responsible for the repairs, which is a lower number than what the car is reasonable worth.
In the original post, the insurance company inflates the value of the car to the point that the damages don't meet the typical 70% to 80% threshold, and as a result they only have to pay 7700, instead of reasonable totaled value, 8500.
The question is what to do to fight this, because there's an inflection point. You want to have a value that causes the car to be totaled, but once you're at that number, anything lower will just get you a lower amount of money for your car.
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 07:58 am Post Subject:
If insurance inflates the value, they can claim the car doesn't meet the threshhold for totaling. So by using an inflated value, which they will never have to pay, they're only responsible for the repairs, which is a lower number than what the car is reasonable worth.and
as a result they only have to pay 7700, instead of reasonable totaled value, 8500.
Although you choose to view this from an interesting perspective, what you are suggesting is a general business practice that would be a violation of the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Act. Is an insurance company really going to risk losing its certificate of authority over $800? I don't think so.
In this case, the insurance company may simply have made a mistake as to the value of the vehicle and inadvertently made $7700 in repairs to a vehicle worth only a little more. I think the OP was upset because he was still going to have a vehicle he really didn't want, but couldn't sell.
That's not an insurance matter, but there are plenty of people who commit insurance fraud by conveniently having the the vehicle "stolen" -- sometimes even burned to a crisp somewhere -- and collecting on a claim. All because they owned a vehicle they no longer wanted.
Even assuming a legitimate claim under similar conditions, it would then be hard for the insurance company in such a case to say, "Well, we just made $7700 in repairs to a vehicle we said was valued at $13,000, and now that it's been stolen, it's only worth $8500." Would it really expose itself to the potential of a $13,000 loss if it were not so?
Your point may be well taken, but I think it's off the mark.
Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 06:35 am Post Subject: overvalued car
The dealers seem to list cars at prices that are to good to be true. Some, not all private owners, overvalue there car's. The auction houses I don't know much about there pricing and if I could trust them. If anyone has had experiences with one or all of these sources, or another source that you could suggest, I would like to hear them so I could make a decision on which one to choose. Thanks
[Links removed per TOU]
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 07:59 am Post Subject: Overvalued car
This is happening to me. By not totaling a damaged car, the insurer pays only the cost of the repair and not the (higher) lost value of the car. Decisions to total a car usually occur if the repair cost is 75-80%+ of the car's value (set by selected comps and adjustments for differences in vehicle condition, miles etc); the insurer saves 20-25% if the car is not totaled nor does it have to pay sales tax costs incurred on the purchase of a replacement car. Fewer totaled cars cuts insurer losses and I'll bet uses a Fair Claims Settlement Practices Act loophole you could drive a truck through. It is more oriented to barring low estimates of value that hurt the owner of the damaged car and not to overvaluing the damaged car to cut the overall cost of a claim by avoiding total losses. Read it and see what you think.
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 01:58 pm Post Subject:
Fewer totaled cars cuts insurer losses and I'll bet uses a Fair Claims Settlement Practices Act loophole you could drive a truck through.
What it uses is the letter of the contract between the insured and insurance company. It's called a policy. If a person would take a moment to actually _read_ what they have bought then they would not think it's some type of scam. They can read _any_ auto policy as they all have this same information and have for 200 years.