Last post on Feb 12, 2013 at 3:55 PM
You are in the Smart Shopper
What is this discussion about?
Car Safety, Buying Insurance, Coupe, Convertible, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, Wagon, SUV, Van
#232 of 272 Re: Had "Taxi" [kirstie_h]
Apr 23, 2010 (10:05 am)
Actually.. that was my first thought.... althought very tough to find one identical... but that is not the protocal for how insurance works on claims.
I also recommended that I choose a new vehicle and depreciate it by the same mileage, years, and all same options... and even though they agreed that would be the same, becuase of inflation, something knowone wants to recognize in this process, the value of purchasing the vehicle today is much higher. They didn't want to base claim on that value.
I think the point I am trying to make is that there is more financial loss in this situation than just the fair market value of th vehicle, but because we are so used to how the system has been designed to work, in the insurance companies favor, we generally accept it.
If it was an option, and I did ask, I would have rather had my car built back to perfect condition, part by part and given back to me.. with a rental while I was waiting. However, that wasn't an option because it would have cost them too much and it was questionable about the safety of the frame condition.
I think the variable here is that a 3rd party, who is in the business of taking care of vehicles, is at fault. Unfortunately, no consideration, outside of litigation, is given when a loss happens due to someone elses negligence. That should change, especially in the case of a valet or dealership, repair service, etc. They need to be held more accountable. If they want to reap the business profits of taking care/selling/working on vehicles then they need to also take full financial responsiblity if they damage/total them, including all monetary losses (time off work, loss of use, equity in the vehicle, etc.. )..
#233 of 272 Re: Had "Taxi" [euphonium]
Apr 23, 2010 (10:38 am)
"a policy that pays you the full original purchase price on your future vehicles regardless of age or mileage.
"The insurance industry does not offer such a policy as it would create a moral hazard."
Not completely true. Allstate offers a new car replacement option (covers the first 3 years). I have this on my 2008 Saturn Outlook. GAP would not do me any good since I took proceeds of sale of some property and paid off the purchase. This option was only $5-8 a month extra IIRC.
"New Car Replacement If your new car gets totaled within the first three model years, you can get a new car not just the depreciated value."
Also, Erie insurance offers a similar policy: Replacement cost – Erie Insurance will pay to replace your car if it is two years old or less and is a total loss. The Policyholder will receive a new car of the same make and model. If the model is no longer available, the insured will be offered a similar vehicle. (The replacement coverage is not available on leased vehicles.)
#234 of 272 Re: Had "Taxi" [taximombutler]
Apr 23, 2010 (10:59 am)
"but because we are so used to how the system has been designed to work, in the insurance companies favor, we generally accept it. "
Its an old golden rule
He who has the gold makes the rule.
If you dont like it you have the option of going for self insurance. In that case you have the gold and you make the rule...very simple.
On the flip side if you have the gold to fight (sue) then also you make the rule and depending on the lawyer ($$) you might be able to get your interest back.. I'll be very happy for you.
Apr 28, 2010 (8:48 am)
Where'd she go?
Apr 28, 2010 (8:18 pm)
I'm still here.. been out car shopping.. something I also dread just as much as dealing with insurance adjusters..
Anyway... did accept offer from insurance, as stated, and I want to note that I went through 6 adjusters up the ladder and ended up with an additional $6K+ on my "fair market value" that they originally said on offer 1, final offer... so paid off the lien and ended up with just enough left to pay for TTL on the new vehicle.
Now.. still in "mediation" with the general counsel, and VP of Operations of the Valet Company and the hotel chain management on what additional monies they should pay based on the loss. So far they made 2 offers, the last one was the full downpayment back.. So, they have now "implied" that they should pay additional monetary losses on this sitaution, otherwise, they would have just relied on the insurance carrier's settlement and sent me back to them. So, now the issue is not whether they think I should be paid something outside of the insurance claim, but how much? This will be discussed in tomorrow's next conf call. That call will result in either a settlement agreement or an impasse which will prompt the filing of the formal complaint.
Will keep you posted..
#237 of 272 Re: Well? [taximombutler]
Apr 29, 2010 (8:23 am)
Congratulations on getting an additional $6,000. That shows you did your homework "proving" the vehicle's value to be more than the adjuster estimated.
By settling with the Hotel & Valet Co's insurance carrier, it is understood they are cleared from any further claims regarding this crash.
The Hotel/Valet may choose to pay you more and chalk it up to "Positive Public Relations". Or, they are feeling guilty about their Valet jocky taking your car out for a "Joy Ride" in the first place.
Please advise the year, make, & model of the vehicle.
Apr 29, 2010 (9:57 am)
Thank you, I did WAY too much HOMEWORK... no consumer should be allowed to be taken advantage of in that manner from an industry who is in the business to cover liabilities. They are taking advantage of people who have been placed into a claim position and "earning additional profits, above the premiums" and forcing the consumer to spend hours and hours on proving their valuations. That is their job... and yet their is no accountability to how much they "cheat" the consumer on claim after claim and consumers ALLOW this to happen everyday.
Regarding my settlement with Travelers. Before I settled with Travelers, during negotiations, and upon acceptance of settlement with Travelers, it was stated, in writing that the valet company understood that Travelers was only contractually obligated for the loss of use (rental) and the fair market value of the vehicle and that any additional monetary loss settlement would come directly from the valet company and hotel chain. Under tort law, filing for compensatory damages, there is nothing that prohibits the consumer from filing for the additional monetary loss. I can show that I tried the "mediation" route and provided documentation for damages requested, nothing more, nothing less, so there was nothing requested as unreasonable.
Yes, at this time the valet company is stating that they are paying out of empathy, however, what they are offering is almost rude and an insult. What gives them the right to decide what value is due based on empathy. The truth is that they are paying to avoid litigation and trying to figure out what will impact their bottom line the least. This was made evident when they tried to deduct part of the rental charges out of the "Empathy Settlement" they were offering. If it really was empathy or good PR and not "bottom line loss", they wouldn't have deducted that amount from what they were offering.
Bottom line is that businesses need to restore an individual back to the place they were financially before their business created the loss. This should be the standard.
I am not providing vehicle information because there are other parties involved in that accident and I don't want "third parties" looking for public information based on that information. Not sure why you are asking.
#239 of 272 Re: Well? [taximombutler]
Apr 29, 2010 (7:18 pm)
My reason for asking about the car was to determine if it was a one of a kind, unusual, or of limited production. Factors that would confuse a Freshman adjuster just out of University.
Empathy Value is very subjective. You don't start at a high figure and go down.
"restore an individual back to the place they were financially "
Because the "at fault" driver is not to be held responsible for more than the cost of the property damaged, his Liability carrier will not offer excessive indemnification to a Claimant beyond the value of the damage. Outstanding loan balances are not part of the damage. They are non related to the value of the vehicle.
Your pursuing is admirable, but seeking more than what you've been offered needs proof that it augments the value of that which was damaged.
#240 of 272 Re: Well? [taximombutler]
May 06, 2010 (9:55 am)
Congrats! Glad it is working out for you.
#241 of 272 Re: Well? [taximombutler]
Jun 09, 2010 (7:50 am)
Are you still writing on this blog? I am in a similar situation with the insurance company and I am doing a ton of homework to counter offer what they initially offered for a settlement on the car. Did you communicate with them via the phone or through letters/emails? Any advice you can offer?