Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Smart Shopper Questions About Auto Insurance & Accidents
4410 messages, Last post on Nov 29, 2009 at 5:58 AM
You are in the Smart Shopper Forum. Your Hosts are kirstie_h & tidester
|
Replying to: points2ponder (Jul 16, 2006 6:22 pm) What Bob is saying feels right ... if. IF they knew that your prior vehicle was a salvage vehicle. The unfortunate truth is, and this is REALLY state dependent, most insurance companies will not, or cannot (without incurring extensive cost) run your VIN prior to a claim being filed. In fact, when a claim is filed they often will not know that you have a salvage title unless your vehicle is deemed a total-loss. It is my guess (note "guess") that you bought your vehicle aware that it had a reconditioned title -- you got what you perceived to be a great value -- maybe 25% less than other comp vehicles were going for. See what you ultimately need to understand, whether it is ethical or not, is that your policy likely (certainly) states that they owe you "actual cash value" for your vehicle (or the least of repair, replace, etc...) If your vehicle has a salvage title the ACV is significantly less -- call around, verify this. Call every dealer in your area and ask them what they will give you for a '00 GS400 in a trade-in -- now gently add on that it has a branded title -- they'll backstep REAL quick-like at that point. That is essentially how your carrier is determining the difference between a non-branded ACV and a branded ACV. Is there a difference between reconditioned and salvage brands on a title -- I don't know, what state is your vehicle registered in? Is it a crappy thing for the insurance company to do -- maybe yes, maybe no. Would it be fair for people to buy a poorly rebuilt salvage vehicle (or not rebuilt at all) for 500.00 -- that books at 10k and then expect their insurance company to pay them full book for the same when it's in a wreck? You see, there are many unscrupulous people out there (not the least of which are the insurance companies.) The best way to protect yourself is to know what you're getting into (i.e., know your policy) or in the case of the insurance companies, have a clearly worded policy, i.e., ACV, TMV, etc... |
|
|
|
|
>. Would it be fair for people to buy a poorly rebuilt salvage vehicle (or not rebuilt at all) for 500.00 -- that books at 10k and then expect their insurance company to pay them full book for the same when it's in a wreck? If I got a lower price on a quality car that I wanted and that was because it had a salvage title, does that mean the insurance company isn't responsible to supply me with a replacement of equal _quality_ if they choose not to supply cash value based on appearance? The fact I'm a good shopper and found a reconditioned unit that was of a good enough quality I wanted to drive it shouldn't be used against me. The insurance company had the VIN and could have run it at any time. They then can choose to charge less insurance since they're going to plan to pay less. OTOH if I have a car of collectible value far beyond what I paid for it, you are saying the insurance company has to pay the higher value to replace/rebuild the car. If you're sayng they can elect to pay less because of blemished title then they have to pay more when the value of vehicle has risen quickly above the earlier market value. Insurance companies (and their agents) try to always couch things to their benefit. |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 17, 2006 4:08 am) But a vehicle of "equal quality" would have a salvage title and, therefore, command less money.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jul 17, 2006 7:10 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 17, 2006 7:31 am) In any case, when it comes to what I have in my house, the insurance has no idea what I paid for things. And, frankly, when it comes to my car, I don't believe my insurance knows what I paid for that, either. So I don't believe, if I had a salvage title, they would know it was a salvage. Again, I could be wrong, as I've never had one, but I do know I've never sent my insurance company a copy of a title on any car I've every owned. I was just answering your statement. "Equal Value" would take salvage into account, that's all. Whether they KNOW its salvage or not in order to take that into account is a different story. Let's try this a different way. How about you buy a parts car that that was involved in a fire. Its burned to a crisp. Interior is gone, paint is gone, etc. It starts up, so you throw some tires on it, put a lawnchair in it and drive it down the street where you promptly get into a major accident and the car catches fire (again). Does the insurance company owe you full value for a vehicle that WASN'T burned or damaged to begin with? I could be wrong (again), but I believe something like that would be insurance fraud. The car is worth what its worth, right? So if you buy a salvaged car for $8k, but claim to your insurance company its worth $16k ... I think you could get in some trouble. |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 17, 2006 7:31 am) When the glasstop range is not a permanent part of the dwelling and when you have purchased Replacement Cost on Contents, you get replacement cost, only when you actually and physically replace the damaged property. If you choose to cash out, depreciation takes place so as to prevent the Moral Hazard from occurring. |
|
|
but may be wrong, that the concept of getting a good deal on a salvage car is not the same as getting a discount from Lowes on a discontinued model rangetop... Cars are titled and tracked by VIN, license plate, often taxed by the states, whether by registration for the plate or ad valorem tax (GA)... There is an entire market set up for the purchase of used cars that may or may not have warranties, etc...no such network exists for used rangetops from Lowes... Hence, a salvage title has less value than a comparable vehicle, because, I am assuming, that the original vehicle was totalled and paid out by some insurance company...you bought it at a discount because it was a salvage, so it is probably not worth a comparable vehicle that was never totalled, that is just the way the market in cars seems to work... The insurance never has the responsibilty to provide you with a similar vehicle of comparable value...that died back in the stone age, simply because similar vehicles often can never be found, so they simply pay off what the value of the car is, and you go hunting for anything you want...plus, commerce progresses more rapidly if they just pay you off, as they could spend months finding a similar car, but it is white and yours was green...forget simialr vehicles that concept is from the 1960s... |
|
|
Replying to: points2ponder (Jul 16, 2006 6:22 pm) For what's it's worth, my own view is that, broadly speaking, a branded title reduces the value of a vehicle by at least one-third. I know there are some dealers on this site who claim the reduction should be about (or at least) 50%. Soooooo, the insurance company figure here is in the ballpark. It would help if you could provide more information about the vehicle. |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 17, 2006 4:08 am) I didn't exactly say it is fair, but it pretty much seems so to me. If you are indeed a good shopper and get a non-branded vehicle in good condition (to be sold at market value) for below market price then your carrier would indeed owe you market. If you decide that a good value includes a vehicle with a branded title, yes, they indeed owe you for the market value of a comparable vehicle -- one with a branded title or as others have pointed out -- 1/3 to 50% reduction in the market price of a similar non-branded vehicle. OTOH, I would read your policy carefully regarding the collectible value of a car -- you may find that they would indeed owe you for the market value of that collectible car -- or more likely, they would suggest that obtain a "stated amount" policy -- thereby establishing a ceiling on the value of your vehicle -- selected by you. For instance -- Honda Civics have recently, due mostly to gas prices and perceived quality, risen in value substantially. I know more than one person who has been paid thousands over what they paid for their now totalled out Civic -- more than a year after they purchased it. See, it can work both ways. Beyond that -- the home owners insurance example has been clearly addressed by euphonium -- Apples to Oranges my friend. |
|
|
Hi all. I need a bit more help. I'm filing an insurance claim against my auto insurance carrier through my MedPay coverage. They've sent me a Medical Authorization form to sign and return "in case" they need additional codes or records. I read in a book somewhere that I am not required to sign such an authorization to the at-fault person's insurance but that if it is my own insurance, I really don't have much choice other than to sign the authorization. But this one from MetLife says things like "may also include: data about...sexually transmitted diseases...alcohol and drug abuse...AIDS..." as well as saying they can obtain any records from doctors, dentists, rehab, etc. "about the claimants medical history and findings...both before and after the date indicated on this form and regardless of time of the accident". Now I don't have AIDS or STDs or issues with drugs and alcohol, nor will they find a single comment in my entire medical history regarding any type of prior back/neck pain or chiro care, but do I really need to give my insurance carte blanche access to my medical history? I mean, do they really have any business looking at the results of my last OBGYN visit? Other Authorization forms I have signed to obtain my own records allow you to limit the data to specific dates or the injury in question, or at least let you say you DON'T want them to have access to certain data. While I have absolutely nothing to hide, I hate the idea of having this open-ended intrusion into my life. On the other hand, they won't even begin considering my MedPay claim without it. And the adjuster "said" she would only use it for issues related to the accident. Do I have any recourse here or should I just sign the thing and be done with it? It just isn't sitting well with me for some reason (Remember me? I'm the cynic. Maybe they'll decide that the gall bladder surgery I had in 2003 contributed to my back/neck injury! Who knows!!) I would appreciate any feedback.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Smart Shopper Questions About Auto Insurance & Accidents
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
