Ask the Car People.SM


Questions About Auto Insurance & Accidents

5324 messages,  Last post on May 09, 2013 at 1:37 PM

You are in the Smart Shopper Forum.

What is this discussion about? Buying Insurance

Messages Page 512 of 533

#5108 of 5324 Re: Totalled a brand new loaner...dealership profits [manku] by euphonium

Oct 10, 2012 (2:00 pm)

Replying to: manku (Oct 09, 2012 3:09 pm)
That your renewal increased 60% indicates the crash was your fault. What the amount the dealer recovered from your company is none of your business. Had they collected less than the value of the destroyed, the dealer could come after you. That the dealer collected more than what you think they should have, doesn't excuse you from paying your deductible. Remembering you were the cause of the crash.

#5109 of 5324 Insurance by igozoomzoom

Oct 10, 2012 (5:54 pm)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Oct 10, 2012 6:37 am)
Most insurance contracts have language that will extend coverage to a rented or borrowed vehicle if it is temporarily replacing your covered vehicle. My auto policy reads as follows-
 
Under the heading of 'Other Automobiles Covered'- "Your coverage also applies to certain other automobiles. It applies to an automobile you do not own which is a temporary substitute for your automobile. Your automobile must be out of use because of breakdown, repair, servicing, loss or destruction."
 
Technically, if a dealership allowed me an extended test drive (be it hours or days) but my car wasn't out of service, my insurance might not cover it. The key factor is that my car is "out of service" and the loaner/rental is a temporary replacement.
 
Earlier this year, I was car shopping and the Volvo dealer let me take a car for the weekend. I called my insurance company to let them know and they just asked for the make/model and how long I would be driving it. But there is no guarantee that they would have covered it if I hadn't called in advance and ended up having an accident!
 
In reality, most people wouldn't even think to call the insurance company in a that kind of situation. But I'm an Insurance Agent, so my first thought in any situation is "am I covered?"!!!
 
As to whether the OP has any claim on any perceived 'surplus' payment to the dealer, the answer is NO. Your negligence resulted in the destruction of the dealer's asset (car). The settlement between your insurer and the dealer probably consisted of more than just the price of the car. It is likely that they were compensated for "loss of use" or something similar as well as payment for their time and effort dealing with the claim.
 
But the main factor is that you didn't suffer any sort of financial loss, therefore you are NOT entitled to any compensation from your insurer.'
 
As for the 60% increase in premium, that's quite steep! If this is the only accident you've had in the past three years and you have no violations for at least three years, you should consider shopping for new coverage!

#5110 of 5324 Re: Insurance [igozoomzoom] by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Oct 10, 2012 (6:08 pm)

Replying to: igozoomzoom (Oct 10, 2012 5:54 pm)
yeah that's the part that was tricky for me---the dealer basically SOLICITED the driver to take the car--it wasn't a substitute for a vehicle being repaired. This is why I thought the wreck might be on the dealer's dime.

#5111 of 5324 Re: Insurance [igozoomzoom] by manku

Oct 11, 2012 (11:21 am)

Replying to: igozoomzoom (Oct 10, 2012 5:54 pm)
Thanks for the response...
 
1. There really was no "loss" for the dealer...this was a brand new car they were going to sell me...basically they got full sticker and then more because I totalled the car! Yes, they had to tow the car back to the dealer (5 miles away)...that couldn't cost them more than a couple hundred at most, if not zero. I saw the settlement...it was based on sticker...somehow, the dealership convinced the insurance company that my car was worth 4K more than sticker!
 
2. My premium increase was steep, but at least it's only for a year! And I was paying very little. Also, since it was my fault (70/30), the other driver (20 year old Honda) not only got full replacement but 50K in personal injury...there was no ambulance, fyi...just soft tissue damage is my guess.
 
3. My feeling about this is that if I'm on the hook if the dealer gets underpaid, shouldn't I share in the profits if they are overpaid? That would seem fair, but then again, life isn't fair, is it?
 
4. The deductible was to be paid directly to the dealer...however, when I said they had been paid more than enough, they dropped the issue. This, to me at least, is a sign that they were overpaid and they know it.
 
I know I should just forget about it, but I just want to exhaust my options beforehand.
 
Thanks.

#5112 of 5324 Re: Insurance [manku] by lilyowen

Oct 11, 2012 (6:24 pm)

Replying to: manku (Oct 11, 2012 11:21 am)
I'm not a fan of this mindset to be honest, because I think that no-one involved gets the idea of indemnity; however, you have some pretty valid concerns.
 
The dealership was not owed sticker price in my opinion. Replacement cost of that vehicle... that they had not sold yet ... is essentially dealer cost ... what it will cost the dealer to replace that vehicle. Sticker is the same as if they had "sold" the vehicle and includes profit for them which they had not earned at the time of loss ... additionally, I'm skeptical that they pay sales tax on the vehicle that they have not sold ... so I believe they pocketed the 4k sales tax as well.
 
Yep, everyone ripped off the carrier ... guess what, your carrier still makes money. They take it out of the average guy ... shocker.
 
And 50k to settle soft tissue?? Blame that on juries.

#5113 of 5324 Re: Insurance [lilyowen] by euphonium

Oct 12, 2012 (2:48 pm)

Replying to: lilyowen (Oct 11, 2012 6:24 pm)
The carrier should have only paid "dealer cost" is correct. Because of the settlement, there is more to this than we have been told. Agree with your post 100%

#5114 of 5324 Re: Insurance [manku] by victor23

Oct 17, 2012 (2:25 pm)

Replying to: manku (Oct 11, 2012 11:21 am)
From the pieces of information presented here, I woud say that:
 
1. "Insurance fraud" is the "business model" every time when insurance is involved (especially in health care), so no surprise here.
2. Be ready to be sued for bodily harm. That is what my brother is going through: he slightly rear-ended someone in a traffic jam at 5 mph or so 2 years ago; now, after 2 years, out of the blue, he is sued (it looks like another party had a pre-existing spine problem, and tries to milk a situation).
3. What you'd like to do is also "milking the situation". Yes, it hurts to see that someone profited at the expense of your insurance, and urges to try to share in the loot.
4. If you ask what is fair, sorry. I feel that if someone is at fault in an accident, it is fair for him to pay deductible, to have his premium raised, to pay fine for a moving violation, and to have his license suspended for maybe from 6 months to 2 years.
5. That said, I believe that most insurers nowaday advertise their "accident forgiveness" for the first accident in 5 years or so; so, you might be able to get a better treatment.

#5115 of 5324 Re: Insurance [victor23] by mikefm58

Oct 18, 2012 (5:53 am)

Replying to: victor23 (Oct 17, 2012 2:25 pm)
4. If you ask what is fair, sorry. I feel that if someone is at fault in an accident, it is fair for him to pay deductible, to have his premium raised, to pay fine for a moving violation, and to have his license suspended for maybe from 6 months to 2 years
 
I disagree. Isn't that a bit harsh? I may be at fault because I had a tire blow out or some other unforeseen mechanical problem.

#5116 of 5324 Re: Insurance [mikefm58] by kirstie_h HOST

Oct 18, 2012 (7:36 am)

Replying to: mikefm58 (Oct 18, 2012 5:53 am)
This would simply result in a greater number of people driving with a suspended license. Not everyone lives in a major metro area - in fact, most people don't. How would they get to work?

#5117 of 5324 Re: Insurance [kirstie_h] by victor23

Oct 18, 2012 (8:07 am)

Replying to: kirstie_h (Oct 18, 2012 7:36 am)
I may be at fault because I had a tire blow out or some other unforeseen mechanical problem.
 
This would simply result in a greater number of people driving with a suspended license. Not everyone lives in a major metro area - in fact, most people don't. How would they get to work?
 
Here we enter the area of hypothetical, because the actual law is either different or not enforced. But it is still a useful exercise, to try to construct a better world in our mind. Also, I recollect how the things worked out in the past, when I learned driving, when (and where) common sense and personal responsibility were more in fashion.
 
If the accident was caused by an unforeseeable and unsurmountable (because of the laws of physics) force, you are not at fault. Accidents happen. If the problem was caused by the poor maintenance, you are at fault and have to cope with consequences. It is better to have more people not driving than driving badly and putting others in danger. We have the right to be reasonably safe at the public streets. You are not going to allow just everybody to wield a firearm, for example. Driving is a privilege. Not living close to public transportation? Too bad. I remember (well, not in this country) when only one in 10 or 20 people had a car, and public transportation was tough, often even worse than we have now. 20-30-min walk to the bus stop or subway was pretty common. Children walked to their schools, rain, shine, or snow. And nobody died because of that.

Messages Page 512 of 533

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement