Car Accident / Insurance Question

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by jeff061

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]

Originally Posted by jeff061

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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



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]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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]

Originally Posted by heybrad

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Big +1

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

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]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

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.