Car Accident / Insurance Question

[heybrad]

Looking for some advice based on the thread title. Here's the backstory.

Last week, my son and I were in a head on car crash. A 17 year old girl wasn't paying the attention she should be and came into our lane right in front of us and we hit pretty much at full speed head on. It was pretty violent and the airbags deployed. My son and I were both transported from the scene in an ambulance to the hospital. The concern with my son was he was having pretty bad stomach pains so they wanted to check for any internal bleeding. For me, I had a golf sized protrusion on my wrist which they though I might have broken. We both were feeling more and more general pain as the night went on as the adrenaline wore off. Thankfully x-rays were negative and my son checked out OK. We were left with a few days of pain killers and muscle relaxers as we tightened up pretty good for a few days.

The other driver was charged at the scene and its already been confirmed that their insurance is taking full responsibility for the bills. They've confirmed they paying all things medical related. My car has already been deemed totaled. I had a loan still out on the car and when the payment is done, I won't owe anything, but I wont' have any extra either. That leaves us with medical costs covered and no car loan. It also leaves me with no car.

Here's where I need some guidance or any info from similar experiences. I'll start by saying I'm truly thankful that my son is ok. It was a violent accident and we were lucky to come out of it with a few days of pain, bumps and bruises. The drivers insurance already offered us a settlement. Again, medical bills and ambulance will be covered. The part that doesn't feel right is that they made us an offer (and these were their words) "for our troubles." I asked to tell me what they meant by "our troubles." Was that pain and suffering? She said, "yea, pain and suffering and the hassles you're having to go through." She then offered $100 to my son and $200 to me. My intention is not to milk them for anything that is not fair. But not having a ton of experience of what is fair in this case, I'm curious of others who have had similar experiences.

What is typical over and above medical and taking car of the car? What is considered fair?

[cartman]

That is extremely low. Usually I hear of things like that being at least $10K per person.

[Izulde]

Yeah, this doesn't sound right at all in terms of the amount of compensation. Feels like they're trying to settle this quickly and cheaply.

[heybrad]

My sister in law was recently in an accident with no injuries. She was given $500. I knew it was low but not at all sure what I should be countering with.

[PilotMan]

I'd be calling a lawyer. You have to protect yourself in case of complications or long term issues for yourself or your son. They aren't going to go out of their way to mention this at all. A lawyer will at least be someone on your side who will represent you in the way that you deserve. Until you do, the insurance company won't take you seriously at all.

[Izulde]

I'd be calling a lawyer. You have to protect yourself in case of complications or long term issues for yourself or your son. They aren't going to go out of their way to mention this at all. A lawyer will at least be someone on your side who will represent you in the way that you deserve. Until you do, the insurance company won't take you seriously at all.

This.

[PilotMan]

Those numbers are insanely low.

Think about it. You would've gotten more for being bumped off of a plane.

[Izulde]

From my own experience, when I was hit by a car as a kid, the driver's insurance tried shady games even worse than that, in that they were trying to say it was my fault even though the police report clearly indicated it was their client's fault.

We got a lawyer and the end story was, we reached a settlement of medical bills, court costs and legal fees, plus lost wages for my parents and sister for a couple days, and a pain and suffering $12,000 payment I think it was. And this was back in the early '90s.

[heybrad]

From my own experience, when I was hit by a car as a kid, the driver's insurance tried shady games even worse than that, in that they were trying to say it was my fault even though the police report clearly indicated it was their client's fault.

We got a lawyer and the end story was, we reached a settlement of medical bills, court costs and legal fees, plus lost wages for my parents and sister for a couple days, and a pain and suffering $12,000 payment I think it was. And this was back in the early '90s.
The highlighted part is exactly how my initial phone call with her insurance felt. They asked for my side of the story and throughout they kept asking questions that would imply that I was at least partially at fault. The one that pissed me off the most was "Why didn't you react when she moved into your lane?" The police actually had to come to the hospital to talk to us and they stressed to us to make sure we communicated that the other driver was charged at the scene and that all witness accounts were that they were at fault. Even with that I still was questioned as to whether I played some role in the accident. Most of my answers ended with, "That's why your driver was charged."

[sabotai]

Third PilotMan's suggestion on getting a lawyer.

[Lathum]

PM me the names of both insurance companies and I may be able to assist.

As many know I work for one of the biggest companies out there. That being said I am on the property damage side, not injuries, liability decisions, etc...thankfully, because that can be soul crushing.

First and foremost, thank God you are OK, I have looked at many cars involved in similar accidents with much worse outcomes, including death.

2 things I will mention based off comments here.

1. A lawyer won't hurt, but there is no guarantee it will help either, and the suggestion that an insurance company won't take you seriously without one is laughable. They have no fear of lawyers and in fact in many cases prefer to deal with them for reasons I can't mention.

2.The other persons insurance company in ALWAYS going to look out for their insured, it is what they are paid to do. States obviously have different laws, etc...but in many cases you do have a duty to attempt evasive action but it sounds like they could be more tactful.

also, my wifes cousin in an attorney in VA who handles a lot of auto claims. I could ask him assuming my company has no involvement.

[Lathum]

dola- I am in London right now and heading to bed, flying out tomorrow, so it may be a bit before you get a response.

[NobodyHere]

PM me the names of both insurance companies and I may be able to assist.

I read this sentence and have come to the conclusion that Lathum is some sort of hit man.

[rowech]

I was in an accident several years ago. Don't settle quickly as things might develop later -- especially back issues from whiplash and things like that. If you settle and something comes up you're screwed. I would wait at least a month and I would ask for 50 dollars per hour of time it took in terms of waiting, hospital stays, doctor appt, etc. The insurance company that was for the driver who caused our accident settled with those conditions very quickly when I asked for that several years ago and I had no lawyer.

[EagleFan]

The only advice I can give is make sure you have a lawyer handle the discussions for you. I was rear ended at a stop light several years back (almost 20 years ago now, wow time flies) and settled too quickly because 'things weren't too bad' but then had back issues afterwards which by settling early left me to deal with them on my own.

I wish you and your son the best and that neither of you have any residual issues after this.

[miked]

I have a friend who is a lawyer and he says this is insanely low. But he also says everyone thinks they are going to get a payday and when things actually go to trial, the insurance companies almost always win. That is most people overestimate their "pain and suffering" damages. That's not to say you have one, or are looking for one, but it pays to get legal opinions and be realistic.

[DaddyTorgo]

Looking for some advice based on the thread title. Here's the backstory.

Last week, my son and I were in a head on car crash. A 17 year old girl wasn't paying the attention she should be and came into our lane right in front of us and we hit pretty much at full speed head on. It was pretty violent and the airbags deployed. My son and I were both transported from the scene in an ambulance to the hospital. The concern with my son was he was having pretty bad stomach pains so they wanted to check for any internal bleeding. For me, I had a golf sized protrusion on my wrist which they though I might have broken. We both were feeling more and more general pain as the night went on as the adrenaline wore off. Thankfully x-rays were negative and my son checked out OK. We were left with a few days of pain killers and muscle relaxers as we tightened up pretty good for a few days.

The other driver was charged at the scene and its already been confirmed that their insurance is taking full responsibility for the bills. They've confirmed they paying all things medical related. My car has already been deemed totaled. I had a loan still out on the car and when the payment is done, I won't owe anything, but I wont' have any extra either. That leaves us with medical costs covered and no car loan. It also leaves me with no car.

Here's where I need some guidance or any info from similar experiences. I'll start by saying I'm truly thankful that my son is ok. It was a violent accident and we were lucky to come out of it with a few days of pain, bumps and bruises. The drivers insurance already offered us a settlement. Again, medical bills and ambulance will be covered. The part that doesn't feel right is that they made us an offer (and these were their words) "for our troubles." I asked to tell me what they meant by "our troubles." Was that pain and suffering? She said, "yea, pain and suffering and the hassles you're having to go through." She then offered $100 to my son and $200 to me. My intention is not to milk them for anything that is not fair. But not having a ton of experience of what is fair in this case, I'm curious of others who have had similar experiences.

What is typical over and above medical and taking car of the car? What is considered fair?

$300?

LOL

IMO - and this is where I find insurance pretty much a shitty bargin (no offense to the auto insurance guys on the board), it's a fucking JOKE if you don't get at least the value that you had put into the old car already "for your troubles" so that you can go out and put yourself in a similar situation in a new car.

I mean - if you had put say...10k in payments into the car that was totaled, I'd say "MY TROUBLES ARE $10K IN SUNK CAR PAYMENTS" plus some amount for the inconveniences + pain+suffering.

Anything less than that I'd say "see you in court biatches." Especially if the 17 year old has already been charged by the cops.

[JPhillips]

One thing I'd recommend is looking around at local pricing for your vehicle/mileage. Several years ago I was in a similar situation and the other insurance company offered what they said was fair value, but I couldn't buy my car for that amount in the city where I lived.

I got so pissed during that episode that I was ready to hire a lawyer and get 1/2 as much as long as the insurance company had to spend twice as much. I felt like it was next to impossible to negotiate when my position was pay for car, missed work and medical bills and their position was as little as possible.

[mauchow]

A shitty lawyer will win ypu a good sum a decent lawyer will get you all you need.

Get a lawyer. Fast. Before the girl gets one and her lawyer says it was your fault.

These are the types of cases that get settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars if not million or two. If there is any sort of injury lawyer up.

[CraigSca]

My wife and daughter were in an accident last year. Someone attempted to make a left turn in front of them while the light was green. My daughter was unscathed, and my wife broke her thumb. The medical bills were handled by the other person's insurance company, and they offered us $22k. $100 and $200 is unconscionable.

[RainMaker]

I also think you should not be talking to her insurance company at all. They clearly want you to say something they can use against you if you take them to court. The less you say the better.

[DaddyTorgo]

I also think you should not be talking to her insurance company at all. They clearly want you to say something they can use against you if you take them to court. The less you say the better.

Yeah - this is true. Get a lawyer. Have the lawyer be the one talking to her insurance company, not you from now on.

[claphamsa]

I was in a wreck a few years ago, my insurance company offered them 2X damages (medical, car, lost wages) they said no, and sued... 3 years later they got... 2X damages.

[heybrad]

My wife and daughter were in an accident last year. Someone attempted to make a left turn in front of them while the light was green. My daughter was unscathed, and my wife broke her thumb. The medical bills were handled by the other person's insurance company, and they offered us $22k. $100 and $200 is unconscionable.
Are you saying they offered you $22K above your medical bills? Just to be clear they are offering to pay all medical costs including ambulance, hospital and doctor visits. I don't know exactly yet what that amount is. The $300 was combined for pain and suffering.

[tarcone]

Here is my experience. It is a little different, as it involved a semi truck.

My wife and her sister got hit by a semi that plowed through a stop sign coming off an off ramp of an interstate. Totaled out van. Injuries, nothing serious.

I concur with the others that said get a lawyer. And do not say another word tot he insurance company or any of their representatives. The guy we ralked to was very sleazy and an asshole. I kept my wife from saying too much to him. As our conversation was recorded. And he was looking to screw us.

The insurance company will use anything you say against you. And if you dont have a lawyer, that $100 and $200 will be what you owe the insurance company.

EDIT: My wife got about $50k if I remember correctly. Remember, this gets the insurance company out of any future claims. So ten years down the road, if your wrist has horrible arthritis and you cant use it, you cant go after the insurance company again for medical. So they are giving you extra money to cover future needs.

Again, GET A LAWYER.

[Blackadar]

These are the types of cases that get settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars if not million or two. If there is any sort of injury lawyer up.

Absolute horseshit. Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about and should not post again.

One of my sisters has been setting car insurance claims for two different insurance companies for 15 years. This is what she does. So I ran this by her.

A few things:

1. It depends on the state where the accident took place exactly what laws will apply and what settlement you'll get. In VA, the minimum coverage is:

- $25,000 for the injury or death of a single person
- $50,000 total for the injury or death of multiple people in a single accident
- $20,000 for property damage

That's it. The other driver may not have any more coverage than this, in which case that's all the insurance company is going to pay.

2. Their offer is laughable. She said that's probably a cut-rate insurance company due to the size of the offer. If it's a mainstream company and they offered that, she said to be very firm (though do NOT threaten to get a lawyer - see below) and say that is not a good faith offer. My sister mentioned that with such a low offer, the adjuster may think you went to the hospital in an ambulance on purpose to try to get a bigger settlement. They like to fuck around with people like that because they despise them. Note that your insurance claim processor is judged on not only how much they pay out, but how fast they settle the claim. Therefore...

3. It is best if you wait to settle the claim for a couple of weeks. Their offer will go up in that time frame. It also gives you time to assess any lingering pain or issues. In the meanwhile, they should be supplying you with a rental, which also gives them incentive to settle.

4. The *minute* you retain council or even threaten to, your settlement options are narrowed. Once you have a lawyer, the insurance company passes off internal handling of the claim to a special department. The more hardball your attorney plays, the more hardball they play back. Often you can get a larger settlement with an attorney, but your attorney will eat into the fees. Some insurance companies shut the process down until the attorney actually has to file a suit in court (which costs money) and then waits until the case is almost ready to go to court before they even try to make a decent offer to settle. They're judging your intentions *and* making sure you and your attorney are accumulating costs too. Note if you hire an ambulance chaser rather than a respectable attorney, the insurance companies love to drag things out because they hate those guys. They also know that most of those guys cut-and-run before the case goes to court unless there's evidence of major injury because those guys' clients don't have the money to pay them and their chances of winning are pretty damn slim for the costs/time it takes to go to trial.

5. In an accident where there is no apparent trauma (negative x-rays, no broken bones, nada), it often better to settle this yourself because you are not likely to score a large settlement due to nebulous "soft tissue damage" or things like that. Big settlements for stuff like that just doesn't happen very often.

6. The financial damage is much easier to quantify. Replacement value for the car in your area (find one at Carmax and use that as the measuring stick for the value rather than KBB). All medical expenses. Missed work. Make them pick up the rental car. Ruined clothing. Broken items inside the car. Etc. Get all that together and have that number. When you can itemize your costs and substantiate them the insurance adjuster tends to get much more attentive.

Long story short, she told me that their offer was absurd and if they continue down that path you may have to get an attorney just to get to a different claims department who will offer something reasonable. At the same time, you are not likely to score any kind of significant medical/pain and suffering settlement unless you have something more than being stiff for a couple of days. Usually in cases like that it's better to handle the settlement yourself.

I have a friend who is a lawyer and he says this is insanely low. But he also says everyone thinks they are going to get a payday and when things actually go to trial, the insurance companies almost always win. That is most people overestimate their "pain and suffering" damages. That's not to say you have one, or are looking for one, but it pays to get legal opinions and be realistic.

Good advice and really it's the same thing my sis is saying. In the event of soft tissue trauma, your chances of winning a big suit against an insurance company is pretty slim. It's fine to retain council to help negotiate the process, but they are going to take a chunk out of the settlement and it's likely you can do just about well on your own.

[Blackadar]

I was in a wreck a few years ago, my insurance company offered them 2X damages (medical, car, lost wages) they said no, and sued... 3 years later they got... 2X damages.

This is pretty standard. Judges and even most juries tend to frown on gold-digging lawsuits when something reasonable has been offered. And when you figure the person had to wait for 3 years to get their money, that's a pretty epic fail. Which tends to happen in cases like that.

$300 combined for pain and suffering isn't reasonable and an offer like that could actually work against them in court because it's clearly not in good faith. If there's no evidence of major trauma (no blood, no broken bones, no surgery), my sis said she'd probably offer a couple of grand in pain and suffering to start with a $5-$7k soft cap before she started to take a harder look at things (and possibly a harder line).

[heybrad]

Good advice and really it's the same thing my sis is saying. In the event of soft tissue trauma, your chances of winning a big suit against an insurance company is pretty slim. It's fine to retain council to help negotiate the process, but they are going to take a chunk out of the settlement and it's likely you can do just about well on your own.
Thanks for the entire post. I cut the quote down based on my response. Honestly... I'm not looking for some large payday. The way this is trending right now is that I'm going to have no car and will have to start with a new loan dependent on my down payment. I'm mainly hoping to get the down payment covered. Everyone is saying the initial offer is insanely low which I agree with. What is reasonable? $1K? $2K? $5K. Also, I'm assuming it's reasonable that the amount is separate and will be the similar for my son. The reason mine was higher than my son was basically based on the medical report from the hospital. I had more injuries listed.

I appreciate everyone's responses in this.

Edit... looks like your post above answered the amount question. Thanks!

[CU Tiger]

Every state is different, but in SC (for example) if it goes to lawyers and you win the insurance company has to pay all court costs and attorney fees and this value can not count towards payout limits. But SC is a very insurance company unfriendly state and our rates reflect accordingly.

[CraigSca]

Are you saying they offered you $22K above your medical bills? Just to be clear they are offering to pay all medical costs including ambulance, hospital and doctor visits. I don't know exactly yet what that amount is. The $300 was combined for pain and suffering.

Yes, 22k + medical bills.

[Lathum]

$300?

LOL

IMO - and this is where I find insurance pretty much a shitty bargin (no offense to the auto insurance guys on the board), it's a fucking JOKE if you don't get at least the value that you had put into the old car already "for your troubles" so that you can go out and put yourself in a similar situation in a new car.

I mean - if you had put say...10k in payments into the car that was totaled, I'd say "MY TROUBLES ARE $10K IN SUNK CAR PAYMENTS" plus some amount for the inconveniences + pain+suffering.

Anything less than that I'd say "see you in court biatches." Especially if the 17 year old has already been charged by the cops.

So are you going to bitch when your rates multiply by about ten times?

[Lathum]

Yes, 22k + medical bills.

Does this include the cost to total or repair your vehicle because it seems insanely high.

[stevew]

e totaled 3 cars now and I feel like I was treated fairly every time. Hopefully you get at or above private party sale kbb value

Glad you're okay, and the thought of 17 year old kids driving is scary.

[sooner333]

Before you do anything you need to be sure you have all the information you can. What the other driver may have in insurance may be a secret, but you need to have a good handle on your insurance coverage. You may have medical payments coverage which can reimburse you for your medical bills (but not be counted against the amount recovered from the at fault driver). You may also have UM coverage, you can submit your own claim to your insurance and they are going to have to be fair to you and may. Be able to find out the opponent's coverage limits. And of course you need to know your own damages.

Of course, this is all generic because each state has it's own insurance laws

[Chief Rum]

Were you under water on your car loan? I am guessing it would be a recent buy? I am surprised you wouldn't get more than your loan paid off for your totaled car.

When I got into an accident with my old Saturn, my insurance determined that the body damage was too expensive to repair next to the value of the car (a 2000 SR1 with over $200K miles on it), so they "totaled" it and cut me a check for its value (by whatever standard they used). Pre-accident, I couldn't have sold that thing for $1500 even if I prettied it up. They cut me a check for $3500--and let me keep the car! (The engine was untouched by the accident)

[stevew]

yeah, i just had a similar experience to Rum(f'n deer killed my car). They wanted too much for me to keep it though, I think the price of scrap and salvage is now pretty huge.

[Lathum]

I feel the need to respond to a few comments. I realize its going to be impossible for me to not sound defensive but whatever. I will preface this by saying I don't handle injuries.

I try to treat everyone fairly, and everyone I have ever encountered at my company does as well. I can assure you no one wakes up in the morning trying to find new ways to screw people or use their own words against them.

I mentioned it earlier, the other persons insurance company is paid to protect their client, it is what they are paid to do. They have a duty to believe their insured unless the facts prove otherwise.

Don't ever forget an insurance company is a for profit business, one of the most heavily regulated there is. So unless it is a really small time shady outfit they are operating within the confines of the laws for that state. You want to say they lack moral compass, fine, but look around at all the other products you use and don't throw stones in your glass houses. Never forget it is a business.

I honestly hate the perception that insurance companies are out to screw people left and right. I'll tell you something, its the other way around. I deal with people on a daily basis trying to scam me or slip one by me. Staging accidents, lying about damages, trying to claim damages are related that aren't, purchasing policies AFTER an accident, vandalizing their own cars, stealing their own stereos, trying to get paid out on inflated body shop estimates, etc...I could go on for a long time. Any time there is an accident we have to due our due diligence, there are just to many people out there looking to try and scam the system. I catch people EVERYDAY.

Regarding some of the other comments.



$300?

LOL

IMO - and this is where I find insurance pretty much a shitty bargin (no offense to the auto insurance guys on the board), it's a fucking JOKE if you don't get at least the value that you had put into the old car already "for your troubles" so that you can go out and put yourself in a similar situation in a new car.

I mean - if you had put say...10k in payments into the car that was totaled, I'd say "MY TROUBLES ARE $10K IN SUNK CAR PAYMENTS" plus some amount for the inconveniences + pain+suffering.

Anything less than that I'd say "see you in court biatches." Especially if the 17 year old has already been charged by the cops.

I still never got an answer, but I have to say this is one of the least intelligent things you have ever posted, no offense. Everyone except Latrell Sprewell realize a car loses its value the second it drives off the show room floor. so why should someone whose car is a total loss be compensated for the original sale price when the car is worth far less?

There are several reasons why you are so wrong.

1. There would be RAMPANT fraud. Tell me whats to stop me and a friend from getting together, totaling my 2004 Ford Explorer that I originally paid 26K for, getting my check, buying another one used for 6K, and me and my buddy split the difference using one of our policies and the other one being at fault?

2. There is a reason why states have liability limits, it is so rates aren't through the roof, what you are proposing would make rates so insanely high no one would ever have insurance. The insurance company will only pay out what their policy holders max is, don't like it, get mad at the person who bought the policy, not the company.

I could go on all day about how terrible your comment is, feel free to let me know if you want to discuss further.

A shitty lawyer will win ypu a good sum a decent lawyer will get you all you need.

Get a lawyer. Fast. Before the girl gets one and her lawyer says it was your fault.

These are the types of cases that get settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars if not million or two. If there is any sort of injury lawyer up.

Lots of wrong in here.

First off, and I want to be very clear, I would NEVER try and talk anyone out of getting a lawyer.

So...

From the sound the other company has already accepted liability, its done. They can't change it now, the girl getting a lawyer has no bearing unless she was being targeted personally. I don't know about VA, but many states have laws that you can't sue your own insurance company, so to say she is going to get a lawyer to say it was your fault makes zero sense, the insurance company pays out, they have already said sheis at fault, case closed.

As for the dollar amounts you throw out for the accident Brad described they are laughable. Not to minimize his accident, but we total 10-15 cars A DAY with similar accidents. The kind of numbers you are mentioning are for major loss of life incidents.

I also think you should not be talking to her insurance company at all. They clearly want you to say something they can use against you if you take them to court. The less you say the better.

meh, they just want to close the claim and move on, trust me, they don't spend time weaving some intricate web to try and catch you in lies.

I was in a wreck a few years ago, my insurance company offered them 2X damages (medical, car, lost wages) they said no, and sued... 3 years later they got... 2X damages.

Because insurance companies are VERY heavily regulated and know the laws well. As someone mentioned earlier, a large majority of people involved in an accident try to get WAY more then what is deserved and look at it as an opportunity.

Were you under water on your car loan? I am guessing it would be a recent buy? I am surprised you wouldn't get more than your loan paid off for your totaled car.



Why do you think that? The insurance company is obligated to pay out on the value of the vehicle using whatever criteria the state allows them to. Why should they pay a cent above that? People make poor financial decisions all the time, so an insurance company should shoulder that responsibility?

Anyway, these are my thoughts. I realize there is an inherent bias. Anytime you are dealing with human trauma while trying to make a profit there is going to be conflict. Just trying to gt people to see it from both sides.

[Desnudo]

Maybe the other replies cover this, but someone offering me a $100 bucks would infuriate me and have me calling a lawyer. Better to offer nothing.

[DaddyTorgo]

I feel the need to respond to a few comments. I realize its going to be impossible for me to not sound defensive but whatever. I will preface this by saying I don't handle injuries.


I don't want to discuss this with you. I prefaced my comment by saying "no offense to the insurance company folks on the board." I didn't know you were going to take it personally and jump to the defense of the insurance industry.

FWIW though - I wasn't saying he should get the purchase price of his car from the other person's insurance company, but he ought to get some sort of value for it that recognizes its current market value and will enable him to get into a replacement car if his is totaled.

I get that you're defensive about your industry, so I'm not going to rag on you for that.

[Lathum]

It' fine if you dont want to discuss, but I don't see how what you said can be interpreted as anything other than purchase price

$300?

LOL

IMO - and this is where I find insurance pretty much a shitty bargin (no offense to the auto insurance guys on the board), it's a fucking JOKE if you don't get at least the value that you had put into the old car already "for your troubles" so that you can go out and put yourself in a similar situation in a new car.

I mean - if you had put say...10k in payments into the car that was totaled, I'd say "MY TROUBLES ARE $10K IN SUNK CAR PAYMENTS" plus some amount for the inconveniences + pain+suffering.

Anything less than that I'd say "see you in court biatches." Especially if the 17 year old has already been charged by the cops.

[DaddyTorgo]

It' fine if you dont want to discuss, but I don't see how what you said can be interpreted as anything other than purchase price

Well maybe I wasn't precise enough in my wording then. My bad.

Not saying he ought to get "purchase price" but say he put $5k down and had paid $10k towards the total $40k value of the car already. I'm not arguing he ought to get $40k, but assuming the car is reasonably new (aka has a decent current market value) I'd assume he'd get at least $15k from the insurance company for it.

[Blackadar]

Maybe the other replies cover this, but someone offering me a $100 bucks would infuriate me and have me calling a lawyer. Better to offer nothing.

I think this is a good point. That offer was insulting. I explained the mentality earlier (and I'd love to know which insurance company this is), but it doesn't excuse the absurdity of it all and would make any normal person far more combative in dealing with the claim.

Also, what Lathum said was spot-on. I find it curious how some people want to see this as a get-rich quick scheme and don't seem to think there is anything wrong with that.

[Subby]

Brad - so glad you and your son are okay. I can't imagine going through that experience.

Good luck dealing with insurance. You're smart and I'm sure it will all work out.

[PilotMan]

I really don't see anyone posting that this is a get rich quick scheme here. I think the people who have posted by and large are mostly concerned about Brad being able to get the protection that he needs for his family moving forward.

We all know that there are a number of injuries or complications from that don't show up until a little later. The purpose of getting a lawyer isn't to nail the insurance company to the wall for millions it's to make sure that any inconvenience that the accident caused is covered. That is what insurance is for. They shouldn't be making you pull their teeth to get to that though. They should be more forthcoming with what you can get from them. It's good business. They should be treating you like a potential customer.

That means lost wages, transportation, increased medical costs and so on. It's not pain and suffering and the big payday, it's about the care and well being of two people who's injuries and loss was caused by another person who is already at fault.

There is a reasonable number here. The car sucks. I've lost a car and the financial loss wasn't anywhere near what the value (use) of what I'd lost.

Short answer, the insurance company insulted you with that offer. Plain and simple. The best you can do is to think of it as an opening salvo in the negotiation period.

[Lathum]

Well maybe I wasn't precise enough in my wording then. My bad.

Not saying he ought to get "purchase price" but say he put $5k down and had paid $10k towards the total $40k value of the car already. I'm not arguing he ought to get $40k, but assuming the car is reasonably new (aka has a decent current market value) I'd assume he'd get at least $15k from the insurance company for it.

why?

You get what the car is worth on the open market. Why shold someone profit from it?

The point of insurance is to compensate people for damaged/ destroyed property, not for people to make money.

I'll repeat, it it worked the way you thought it should fraud would be more rampant than it currently is and the cost would fall to you, the consumer.

[jeff061]

Were you under water on your car loan? I am guessing it would be a recent buy? I am surprised you wouldn't get more than your loan paid off for your totaled car.


Why do you think that? The insurance company is obligated to pay out on the value of the vehicle using whatever criteria the state allows them to. Why should they pay a cent above that? People make poor financial decisions all the time, so an insurance company should shoulder that responsibility?



Paying off the remainder of the loan and paying off the value of the car are two different things. If I got paid the remainder of my loan and not the value of the car I'd be in the hole 10k.

Edit: I'm defining the "value" as the KBB(or whatever) value of the car at time of incident.

[Lathum]

I really don't see anyone posting that this is a get rich quick scheme here. I think the people who have posted by and large are mostly concerned about Brad being able to get the protection that he needs for his family moving forward.

We all know that there are a number of injuries or complications from that don't show up until a little later. The purpose of getting a lawyer isn't to nail the insurance company to the wall for millions it's to make sure that any inconvenience that the accident caused is covered. That is what insurance is for. They shouldn't be making you pull their teeth to get to that though. They should be more forthcoming with what you can get from them. It's good business. They should be treating you like a potential customer.

That means lost wages, transportation, increased medical costs and so on. It's not pain and suffering and the big payday, it's about the care and well being of two people who's injuries and loss was caused by another person who is already at fault.

There is a reasonable number here. The car sucks. I've lost a car and the financial loss wasn't anywhere near what the value (use) of what I'd lost.

Short answer, the insurance company insulted you with that offer. Plain and simple. The best you can do is to think of it as an opening salvo in the negotiation period.

First off. I agree the opening offer was crap.

I don't think for one second Brad is trying to get rich or exploit the system

The bolded part you are dead wrong on. The insurance company will pay for reasonable treatment for a reasonable amount of time. The majority of people who get lawyers/ look for large settlements are looking for a payday, plain and simple. In some cases it is warranted, in most it is not.

I really can't stress enough how may people I have seen looking for a payday or requesting unreasonable amounts, and that is just by proxy. It is well over 70%.

[jeff061]

First off. I agree the opening offer was crap.

I don't think for one second Brad is trying to get rich or exploit the system

The bolded part you are dead wrong on. The insurance company will pay for reasonable treatment for a reasonable amount of time. The majority of people who get lawyers/ look for large settlements are looking for a payday, plain and simple. In some cases it is warranted, in most it is not.

I really can't stress enough how may people I have seen looking for a payday or requesting unreasonable amounts, and that is just by proxy. It is well over 70%.

This just comes across as a bitter insurance employee, with shades of DMV desk jockey. If you view someone getting a lawyer as equal to someone trying to scam you, then that's a problem with both you and the organization you work for.

[Lathum]

Paying off the remainder of the loan and paying off the value of the car are two different things. If I got paid the remainder of my loan and not the value of the car I'd be in the hole 10k.

Edit: I'm defining the "value" as the KBB(or whatever) value of the car at time of incident.

States vary, but in general they pay the value of the vehicle, so the lien holder gets paid off first and then you get what is left over if any. If you are upside down sucks for you, the law dictates only the value is owed, again, the insurance company isn't responsible for your poor financial decisions.

I have never heard of a situation where JUST the loan is paid off and not the full value, makes no sense.

[mauchow]

I may have had a few too many drinks when I posted what I did.

Don't under-estimate the costs of the possible post-medical payments if it is a lingering issue for you guys. Get lots of proffessional opinion about what the injury is and get EVERYTHING you can get in the event that a worse-case scenario happens medically. That's the extra $$ that is to be had. I'm not talking about get-rich schemes, and I may have sounded like it. But my brain wasn't operating at 100% to expand what I meant to say during the Badgers game Saturday night.

Anyhoo, best of luck and I hope it all goes smoothly with insurance/lawyer, whatever it is.

[DaddyTorgo]

why?

You get what the car is worth on the open market. Why shold someone profit from it?

The point of insurance is to compensate people for damaged/ destroyed property, not for people to make money.

I'll repeat, it it worked the way you thought it should fraud would be more rampant than it currently is and the cost would fall to you, the consumer.

Who's profiting? THE INSURANCE COMPANY (by definition). The consumer is being given this money to go back out and purchase a new vehicle, which they'll need. The money is going in one pocket and out the other.

I happen to think that's a shitty system in some circumstances.

My father for example - was rear-ended while driving a fully paid off, rather old car. The KBB value of the car was basically next to nothing. But the car was in good condition and was driveable by him for many years yet.

The car was totaled. So he got something like...miniscule for the car (I don't remember the amount), and then was forced through necessity to go out and assume a bunch more debt to get into a newer (note I didn't say new, just newER) car.

There should be some adjustment for circumstances in a case like that I happen to think.

Now given, I don't think he handled it well with the insurance company, but I happen to think that in a case like that (not just his) that the settlement from the insurance company should reflect the fact that the person was driving a fully paid-off car that was in good condition even if it was older.

Otherwise it's just a perverse incentive to get people to buy newer cars (which, not coincidentally are subject to higher insurance premiums) because you're going to end up getting screwed if you're driving an older car when it gets totaled in an accident.

[Lathum]

This just comes across as a bitter insurance employee, with shades of DMV desk jockey. If you view someone getting a lawyer as equal to someone trying to scam you, then that's a problem with both you and the organization you work for.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I didn't say anything of the sort. I am assuming you missed my earlier post in bold where I said I would never talk anyone out of getting a lawyer, but you are fooling yourself if you don't think majority of people are looking for a payday.

I have nothing to be bitter about , as I also said earlier I don't even handle injuries and in my role I, as well as everyone in my company, treat people fairly.

[Blackadar]

This just comes across as a bitter insurance employee, with shades of DMV desk jockey. If you view someone getting a lawyer as equal to someone trying to scam you, then that's a problem with both you and the organization you work for.

To be fair to Lathum, my sister (who worked her way to to now handle the largest claims - claims well over $100k and some well into the millions) once said that roughly half of the people she dealt with on day-to-day claims were looking to use the accident to make some extra spending money. One of the reasons she was moved up was because she delighted in catching the worst offenders and rubbing their nose in it after she caught them.

So Lathum's 70% figure sounds somewhat plausible. Most everyone I've ever spoken to on the subject thinks that every little fender-bender should come with a 5-figure payout because "that's what everyone gets".

[Lathum]

Who's profiting? THE INSURANCE COMPANY (by definition). The consumer is being given this money to go back out and purchase a new vehicle, which they'll need. The money is going in one pocket and out the other.

I happen to think that's a shitty system in some circumstances.

My father for example - was rear-ended while driving a fully paid off, rather old car. The KBB value of the car was basically next to nothing. But the car was in good condition and was driveable by him for many years yet.



There should be some adjustment for circumstances in a case like that I happen to think.

Now given, I don't think he handled it well with the insurance company, but I happen to think that in a case like that (not just his) that the settlement from the insurance company should reflect the fact that the person was driving a fully paid-off car that was in good condition even if it was older.

.


The money isn't being given to purchase a new vehicle. It is given to compensate for the damaged or destroyed property. In most cases the person is using that for a replacement vehicle but I feel it's an important distinction.

I agree there are times people get screwed but the insurance companies operate within the confines of the law. So direct your anger at the legislatures.

Ad again ill ask, are you ok with your rates increasing significantly ? Everything you have proposed will force that to happen.

Also you say there should be an adjustment for circumstances. Who determines the amount of that adjustment?

[heybrad]

Most everyone I've ever spoken to on the subject thinks that every little fender-bender should come with a 5-figure payout because "that's what everyone gets".
This was the exact reason I reached out. My experience was with one other accident and I know a couple of other people who had similar experiences. Many years ago I was hit from behind. I had one doctor visit to declare I was fine. I was offered $500. Again, a couple of other people I know had exactly that experience. Minor fender bender resulted in a $500 offer. That's why $100 for my son and $200 for me was surprising.

I would imagine there's just a calculator in play here (that's what all of my online research suggests). Medical bills times a multiplier. Multiplier is decided upon by circumstances. I at least want them to show their math. I haven't even seen the bills yet so I don't know what they are which tells me that the initial was a "Let's see if this guy will just go away" offer.

[TroyF]

Who's profiting? THE INSURANCE COMPANY (by definition). The consumer is being given this money to go back out and purchase a new vehicle, which they'll need. The money is going in one pocket and out the other.

I happen to think that's a shitty system in some circumstances.

My father for example - was rear-ended while driving a fully paid off, rather old car. The KBB value of the car was basically next to nothing. But the car was in good condition and was driveable by him for many years yet.

The car was totaled. So he got something like...miniscule for the car (I don't remember the amount), and then was forced through necessity to go out and assume a bunch more debt to get into a newer (note I didn't say new, just newER) car.

There should be some adjustment for circumstances in a case like that I happen to think.

Now given, I don't think he handled it well with the insurance company, but I happen to think that in a case like that (not just his) that the settlement from the insurance company should reflect the fact that the person was driving a fully paid-off car that was in good condition even if it was older.

Otherwise it's just a perverse incentive to get people to buy newer cars (which, not coincidentally are subject to higher insurance premiums) because you're going to end up getting screwed if you're driving an older car when it gets totaled in an accident.

As Latham said, they are insuring the replacement value of the car itself, not the costs to purchase a new one. This can bite people in the ass when it comes to fire insurance for your house. Here is an article that talks about that fairly well:

Why Your House May Be Underinsured (http://www.cnbc.com/id/48863062)



I deal with insurance companies a lot in my job. I think the biggest problem is that most people do not understand insurance very well. If your sprinkler system breaks and floods your basement, are you covered? (hint: probably not) How about mold? Are your contents insured and have you updated your list with recent purchases? (If you have a contents policy and purchase a $3,000 television, you want to get that added on sooner than later)

I know your frustration. My wife had a Mustang she loved. The car wasn't old enough to be a classic and not new enough to be a big ticket item. She got very little for it and was crushed. It sucks, but I'm not sure of a more viable system unless you want rates to go through the roof.

[molson]

To be fair to Lathum, my sister (who worked her way to to now handle the largest claims - claims well over $100k and some well into the millions) once said that roughly half of the people she dealt with on day-to-day claims were looking to use the accident to make some extra spending money. One of the reasons she was moved up was because she delighted in catching the worst offenders and rubbing their nose in it after she caught them.

So Lathum's 70% figure sounds somewhat plausible. Most everyone I've ever spoken to on the subject thinks that every little fender-bender should come with a 5-figure payout because "that's what everyone gets".

Those are the people that are actually dealing in some significant capacity with a insurance company employee, as in the squeaky wheels. But more typically, aren't most of us just kind waiting for the insurance check and that's the end of it? (I don't have a lot of experience with this and have ever been in an injury accident.)

At the end of the day it's just a contract between parties. I don't think it's about "fairness" - except in terms of how that contract is interpreted, if its vague. And I think some people maybe do carry too much insurance for their situation. If you have a junker, you should probably get only the minimum liability insurance required by law.

My one anecdotal story - A semi almost ran me off the road once (it merged into the lain I was in), I slammed on the breaks, got around it, and got hit by someone else on the other side of the road. The truck insurance investigator found me the next day at a hotel, I'm still not really sure how. He was polite, but forceful and aggressive. I could see how it would feel to some that he was trying to "screw" me, I felt more like he was more trying to make sure I wasn't trying to screw them - like he wanted to get to me before I could lock in some kind of shady plan myself. When that kind of dynamic in place, personality goes a long way. I can definitely see how some insurance people might come off terribly.

[Blackadar]

This was the exact reason I reached out. My experience was with one other accident and I know a couple of other people who had similar experiences. Many years ago I was hit from behind. I had one doctor visit to declare I was fine. I was offered $500. Again, a couple of other people I know had exactly that experience. Minor fender bender resulted in a $500 offer. That's why $100 for my son and $200 for me was surprising.

I would imagine there's just a calculator in play here (that's what all of my online research suggests). Medical bills times a multiplier. Multiplier is decided upon by circumstances. I at least want them to show their math. I haven't even seen the bills yet so I don't know what they are which tells me that the initial was a "Let's see if this guy will just go away" offer.

Everyone agrees their offer was insulting. As I said before, I would respond to them that their offer can not be considered a good faith offer. Don't make a counteroffer either. Just leave that steaming turd of an offer on their desk and let them figure it out.

[Chief Rum]

States vary, but in general they pay the value of the vehicle, so the lien holder gets paid off first and then you get what is left over if any. If you are upside down sucks for you, the law dictates only the value is owed, again, the insurance company isn't responsible for your poor financial decisions.

I have never heard of a situation where JUST the loan is paid off and not the full value, makes no sense.

Okay so then why did you respond to my post the way you did? This is the exact scenario I played out for brad, asking him about why only his loan was paid off. I was asking him why he wouldn't full market value for his car. To which I wondered if maybe it was a new car and he is underwater on his loan because cars depreciate so fast after they're bought.

Somehow, you construed this as an attack on the insurance industry and a "get rich quick" scheme? :confused:

[Lathum]

Okay so then why did you respond to my post the way you did? This is the exact scenario I played out for brad, asking him about why only his loan was paid off. I was asking him why he wouldn't full market value for his car. To which I wondered if maybe it was a new car and he is underwater on his loan because cars depreciate so fast after they're bought.

Somehow, you construed this as an attack on the insurance industry and a "get rich quick" scheme? :confused:

I never once construed Brads post as anything of the sort.

My interpretation of his post was that he got enough to pay it off but not much extra. I think there was some misinterpretation of your post. I think I read it as you asking why he didn't get above market value, etc... My bad.

[heybrad]

I never once construed Brads post as anything of the sort.

My interpretation of his post was that he got enough to pay it off but not much extra. I think there was some misinterpretation of your post. I think I read it as you asking why he didn't get above market value, etc... My bad.
Just to clarify on the car and put that portion to bed. The car was a fairly new purchase. I expected the value of the car to be a bit below what I still owed. Turns out it was right about the same (about a couple hundred lower). We did a call with the lien holder and they requested a guaranteed loss letter which at the end of the day means I won't owe a dime. I have no problem with how the car settlement has gone down.

[DaddyTorgo]

The money isn't being given to purchase a new vehicle. It is given to compensate for the damaged or destroyed property. In most cases the person is using that for a replacement vehicle but I feel it's an important distinction.

I agree there are times people get screwed but the insurance companies operate within the confines of the law. So direct your anger at the legislatures.

Ad again ill ask, are you ok with your rates increasing significantly ? Everything you have proposed will force that to happen.

Also you say there should be an adjustment for circumstances. Who determines the amount of that adjustment?

The money is being given to purchase a new vehicle in 99.9% of circumstances. Or at least, some % of it is (obviously if there's injury that's being compensated for that % isn't). Most people need cars. Those that don't already don't have them and thus aren't driving and getting in accidents.

Ohhh...I dunno who should make the adjustment for circumstances. I suppose...adjustors?

I'm cool with taking it out on the legislators.

I'm less cool with your boogeyman of "RATES WILL INCREASE DRAMATICALLY!" How about instead we take it out of ya know...the profits of the insurance company?

[Lathum]

The money is being given to purchase a new vehicle in 99.9% of circumstances. Or at least, some % of it is (obviously if there's injury that's being compensated for that % isn't). Most people need cars. Those that don't already don't have them and thus aren't driving and getting in accidents.

Ohhh...I dunno who should make the adjustment for circumstances. I suppose...adjustors?

I'm cool with taking it out on the legislators.

I'm less cool with your boogeyman of "RATES WILL INCREASE DRAMATICALLY!" How about instead we take it out of ya know...the profits of the insurance company?

I agree most people use the money for a replacement, but that isn't what it is for.

So what you are saying is you are OK with the very people you are vilifying, the adjusters ( which I am not), being the ones to determine how much should be adjusted for circumstances? People would just bitch amount that number not being enough then.

Why should a company that is operating under the law make less of a profit? Should your iphone be cheaper? Internet? Cable? #3 at McDonalds, Viagra prescription? etc...

[sooner333]

I think there's a fundamental problem with the way this is being analyzed--the contract is between the at-fault driver and their insurance company. The insurance company is stepping of the shoes of the insured to pay you (the injured party) up to the amount of the insurance contract. How much you receive from the insurance company should be the value of your claim. This is an inherently difficult amount to determine because ultimately it depends on a variety of factors, including the hypothetical determination of 12 random people. This isn't black-and-white stuff, but the most of this post seems to think it is.

[PilotMan]

I think there's a fundamental problem with the way this is being analyzed--the contract is between the at-fault driver and their insurance company. The insurance company is stepping of the shoes of the insured to pay you (the injured party) up to the amount of the insurance contract. How much you receive from the insurance company should be the value of your claim. This is an inherently difficult amount to determine because ultimately it depends on a variety of factors, including the hypothetical determination of 12 random people. This isn't black-and-white stuff, but the most of this post seems to think it is.


Well I think that's why of us are suggesting that he get proper representation to make sure his best interests are taken care of during that determination.

[AlexB]

I agree most people use the money for a replacement, but that isn't what it is for.

So what you are saying is you are OK with the very people you are vilifying, the adjusters ( which I am not), being the ones to determine how much should be adjusted for circumstances? People would just bitch amount that number not being enough then.

Why should a company that is operating under the law make less of a profit? Should your iphone be cheaper? Internet? Cable? #3 at McDonalds, Viagra prescription? etc...

Please stop using blatantly underhand tactics like logic and reason while debating on the internet. It's not how it's supposed to work.

[stevew]

I think about 2 weeks before Christmas I noticed a ton of smoke coming from my radiator. I realized it was cracked, looked online and found a new one. It was really easy to install. Then like 2 days after I get that thing in the car, my wife is driving to work and one of the ball joints snaps and luckily nobody was hurt but I had to pay like 190$ to get it towed home like 30 miles(I now have AAA). Anyways, the car sat in my driveway about 2.5 months as winter happened. I was finally able to get it all put back together. I find myself becoming a decent mechanic out of necessity and tbh it's actually easy.

So I finally get it out on the road around the first week of march. The first night out I realize I have a burnt out rear marker light and get pulled over, apparently my registration had expired at the end of February and I didn't notice. $127.50 down on that ticket. Car's running great, it's a beast in the snow. 2 weeks later I come around a turn going 45-50 and 5 deer peel out in front of me. I can't stop in time and end up plowing the last one in the pack as i try to avoid them. Car donezo. F all deer. Worth way more to me than I'm getting back from the insurance company, but I guess I would struggle to sell it for half of what they're giving me. I just want my car back :(

[CU Tiger]

I agree most people use the money for a replacement, but that isn't what it is for.

So what you are saying is you are OK with the very people you are vilifying, the adjusters ( which I am not), being the ones to determine how much should be adjusted for circumstances? People would just bitch amount that number not being enough then.

Why should a company that is operating under the law make less of a profit? Should your iphone be cheaper? Internet? Cable? #3 at McDonalds, Viagra prescription? etc...

Lathum,
I agree with your premise, but here is a question I would like your opinion on if you will.

On the day of this accident heyBrad was driving a vehicle that he liked with a payment amount he agreed to. Based on the negligent act of another person his car was destroyed and he was (slightly) injured.

Why should he be any less whole than he was at the moment of the accident.

I am not suggesting he should get a new car, but the settlement (on the vehicle portion alone) should be sufficient to put him back whole, that is in the same vehicle with the same amount owed. I think that is a reasonable standard whether it is paid for or 50% under water. His status changed due to the (criminally) negligent act of another. It is that person's responsibility to pay up for their actions.

I personally have a completely different take if his hardship was caused by his own negligence.

[bhlloy]

The honest answer is he probably should, but if you are expecting the insurance company to just payout whatever people want and feel they are entitled to, you are holding them to a standard you would never hold any other industry to.

I'd love for Vons to charge me 4x less for my groceries every week, it would be great if clothing cost the 25 cents it costs to make it somewhere in a sweatshop halfway across the world rather than 30 or 50x that and I'd love to get my gas and electricity at cost as well, but nobody seems to care about those companies making whatever profit regulations will allow them to and the competition will support.

[HeavyReign]

Lathum,
On the day of this accident heyBrad was driving a vehicle that he liked with a payment amount he agreed to. Based on the negligent act of another person his car was destroyed and he was (slightly) injured.

Why should he be any less whole than he was at the moment of the accident.


The overall result of the situation should make him whole. People just seem to have different perspectives about what whole means. If he owed 10k on a vehicle that could be replaced at a cost of 5k, the insurance company is going to pay that 5k amount. He would then have the option of obtaining a loan for a similar vehicle that costs 5k leaving him again with a 5k vehicle and 10k in obligations. Obviously this would result in a situation where he has two car payments with loans of 5k each. Legally he would be whole but would be worse off for sure in this case with the extra payment.

The bigger issue with property damage is in perceived value. Many people have a natural tendency to overvalue their own property. My neighbor tried for a couple years to sell his house. His price was probably 20% over market and he wouldn't consider less. He didn't come close to selling.

[CU Tiger]

The honest answer is he probably should, but if you are expecting the insurance company to just payout whatever people want and feel they are entitled to, you are holding them to a standard you would never hold any other industry to.

I'd love for Vons to charge me 4x less for my groceries every week, it would be great if clothing cost the 25 cents it costs to make it somewhere in a sweatshop halfway across the world rather than 30 or 50x that and I'd love to get my gas and electricity at cost as well, but nobody seems to care about those companies making whatever profit regulations will allow them to and the competition will support.


I get that totally.
But what about a civil suit against the other driver for "damages". I am not attackign the insurane companies they are for profit entities (99% of the time) and as such should make a profit. They should set their premiums accordingly. But if you injur me (physically or financially) you PERSONALLY have a responsibility and (IMHO) moral obligation to make reparations to me for your caused injury.

I am not talking about getting rich. I am not talking about scams. Frankly, I am not talking about me as I have not financed a car in a decade. I just dont believe in debt on depreciating assests. However I have seen situations where friends/contacts/etc. have been in a 2-3 year old car, they new they were negative equity and were fine with that choice as they had stretched out the car payments to make the monthly affordable. They had taken excellent care of their car, and it was totalld by another's negligent act. However they now found themselves in a situation where they could not get back to that same vehicle (because a bank will not loan more than a used car is worth). I think in this case the other driver should be held responsible (civily) for this shortfall.

And there is a reason I carry an umbrella rider above and beyond my coverage limits for just those situations...knowing my luck if I ever have an at fault accident Ill hit a Bently not a Kia...

[Lathum]

CUTiger- I'll address your question at some point. Its my first day back at work in almost 2 weeks so I'm a bit swamped.

[digamma]

1. You can buy gap insurance.

2. Not to take the side of Big Insurance, but why is it their fault if you've made a poor financial decision? (I'm not saying that is the case here.)

[digamma]

Brad - so glad you and your son are okay. I can't imagine going through that experience.

Good luck dealing with insurance. You're smart and I'm sure it will all work out.

Big +1

[bhlloy]

I get that totally.
But what about a civil suit against the other driver for "damages". I am not attackign the insurane companies they are for profit entities (99% of the time) and as such should make a profit. They should set their premiums accordingly. But if you injur me (physically or financially) you PERSONALLY have a responsibility and (IMHO) moral obligation to make reparations to me for your caused injury.

I am not talking about getting rich. I am not talking about scams. Frankly, I am not talking about me as I have not financed a car in a decade. I just dont believe in debt on depreciating assests. However I have seen situations where friends/contacts/etc. have been in a 2-3 year old car, they new they were negative equity and were fine with that choice as they had stretched out the car payments to make the monthly affordable. They had taken excellent care of their car, and it was totalld by another's negligent act. However they now found themselves in a situation where they could not get back to that same vehicle (because a bank will not loan more than a used car is worth). I think in this case the other driver should be held responsible (civily) for this shortfall.

And there is a reason I carry an umbrella rider above and beyond my coverage limits for just those situations...knowing my luck if I ever have an at fault accident Ill hit a Bently not a Kia...

FWIW, I tend to agree with this, and I would never begrudge someone getting a lawyer for the reasons above. It's the dollar signs in the eyes and the big payday off someone else's misfortune that gets my blood boiling

[Blackadar]

FWIW, I tend to agree with this, and I would never begrudge someone getting a lawyer for the reasons above. It's the dollar signs in the eyes and the big payday off someone else's misfortune that gets my blood boiling

The problem is unless you buy a very fancy car, you won't be upside-down in a loan for THAT much money. At most it'll be just a few grand and that amount isn't worth retaining an attorney to file suit.

I'd assume that you could just recover that leftover amount in small claims where you wouldn't need an attorney, but I dunno.

[Lathum]

Lathum,
I agree with your premise, but here is a question I would like your opinion on if you will.

On the day of this accident heyBrad was driving a vehicle that he liked with a payment amount he agreed to. Based on the negligent act of another person his car was destroyed and he was (slightly) injured.

Why should he be any less whole than he was at the moment of the accident.

I am not suggesting he should get a new car, but the settlement (on the vehicle portion alone) should be sufficient to put him back whole, that is in the same vehicle with the same amount owed. I think that is a reasonable standard whether it is paid for or 50% under water. His status changed due to the (criminally) negligent act of another. It is that person's responsibility to pay up for their actions.

I personally have a completely different take if his hardship was caused by his own negligence.

I don't disagree that there are times people get screwed regarding the value of the vehicle, but that is the way the laws are written. Digamma basically said it best when he echoed what I said earlier that the insurance company shouldnt be responsible for someones poor financial decisions.

You say he should be given enough to put him in the same vehicle with ame amount owed, etc...and that is basically the way the system does work. The total loss settlement is based off the value of the vehicle, that at least in my companies case comes from a third party, so that they can, in theory be compensated for the damaged/ destroyed property. Is the system perfect,of course not, but I think it is fair in general.

IMO, and the eyes of the law, if you have bad credit or overpayed for a car it shouldn't be the responsibility of the insurance company to take on.

One o the main reasons why is fraud. What is to stop you and I from making an agreement that I sell you a car for 3X what it is worth, you then stage an accident and total it, collect the 3X worth because as you say I should be made whole, you and I split the difference, rinse and repeat.

[CU Tiger]

I don't disagree that there are times people get screwed regarding the value of the vehicle, but that is the way the laws are written. Digamma basically said it best when he echoed what I said earlier that the insurance company shouldnt be responsible for someones poor financial decisions.

You say he should be given enough to put him in the same vehicle with ame amount owed, etc...and that is basically the way the system does work. The total loss settlement is based off the value of the vehicle, that at least in my companies case comes from a third party, so that they can, in theory be compensated for the damaged/ destroyed property. Is the system perfect,of course not, but I think it is fair in general.

IMO, and the eyes of the law, if you have bad credit or overpayed for a car it shouldn't be the responsibility of the insurance company to take on.

One o the main reasons why is fraud. What is to stop you and I from making an agreement that I sell you a car for 3X what it is worth, you then stage an accident and total it, collect the 3X worth because as you say I should be made whole, you and I split the difference, rinse and repeat.

I get the fraud piece. Heck I "get" the entire argument. I guess I draw a mental line between the driver and the insurance company. The insurance company should "replace his car" IMHO with like kind and condition. The driver should be liable to make him whole...again in my world. I understand the law doesn't follow my whims...I was just looking at it from a person v person scenario versus an insurance company scenario.

[Lathum]

I get the fraud piece. Heck I "get" the entire argument. I guess I draw a mental line between the driver and the insurance company. The insurance company should "replace his car" IMHO with like kind and condition. The driver should be liable to make him whole...again in my world. I understand the law doesn't follow my whims...I was just looking at it from a person v person scenario versus an insurance company scenario.

I agree, but that is where the disconnect is for most people. The insurance company doesn't in any way have to replace your car, they are only required to compensate you for your damaged property up to the policy limits.

It always a fun conversation when someones car has 15K in damage or is totaled and the at fault party only has $7500 liability.

[JediKooter]

I agree, but that is where the disconnect is for most people. The insurance company doesn't in any way have to replace your car, they are only required to compensate you for your damaged property up to the policy limits.

It always a fun conversation when someones car has 15K in damage or is totaled and the at fault party only has $7500 liability.

I always had that disconnect as well. You are pretty much on your own to go after (sue) the person that is liable for the loss of your property in order to try and get compensation to replace your property, from my understanding. I'm sure a lawyer who specializes in these kinds of things could explain it much better than I could though.

[sooner333]

The other person is liable but usually people would turn to their own insurance company and pay the deductible. Your insurance company might then send to a collection attorney to sue the underinsured driver. If they are lucky enough to collect you'd get your deductible back.

[Blackadar]

Ok, inquiring minds want to know how it's going....did they improve on their first offer? Where's your rental car?

[Lathum]

Ok, inquiring minds want to know how it's going....did they improve on their first offer? Where's your rental car?

I wouldnt count on a rental car for very long. Once the total loss settlement is offered you would be lucky to get 5 additional days.

[MacroGuru]

I wouldnt count on a rental car for very long. Once the total loss settlement is offered you would be lucky to get 5 additional days.

We were t-boned by a "supposed" drunk driver, just barely bought our car, they refused to total my car.

It took close to 6 months to get a new rear axle, heck an entire rear end for the car...we had a rental the entire time and his insurance company paid for it.

We did end up in court over the future damages part for my ex, a lot of shenanigans were played by all the lawyers and we grew tired of it, finally settled out of court.

[Lathum]

We were t-boned by a "supposed" drunk driver, just barely bought our car, they refused to total my car.

It took close to 6 months to get a new rear axle, heck an entire rear end for the car...we had a rental the entire time and his insurance company paid for it.

We did end up in court over the future damages part for my ex, a lot of shenanigans were played by all the lawyers and we grew tired of it, finally settled out of court.

That is because your car was being repaired the whole time. Once it is totalled the insurance companies are done for all intents and purposes and aren't going to pay for a rental for very long. I personally think people get a shit deal on that one pretty often and I'll authorize the rental for longer based off circumstances.

It sounds to me like the part(s) needed on your car were likely on backorder. That is pretty common with new vehicles since all the parts are being used to build the cars. If it is a foreign make that complicates things further. There isn't anything anyone can do about it at that point, no shop in the world is getting it, there is basically a wait list. I had a guy a while back who was out of his 2013 because of an air resonator that was on backorder. $100 part cost us $1200 in rental, trust me, the insurance company doesnt want that.