Ask the Car People.SM


Replacement Cost by Insurance Company for Totaled Vehicle

272 messages,  Last post on Feb 12, 2013 at 4:55 PM

You are in the Smart Shopper Forum.

What is this discussion about? Car Safety, Buying Insurance, Coupe, Convertible, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, Wagon, SUV, Van

Messages Page 25 of 28

#233 of 272 Re: Had "Taxi" [euphonium] by wlbrown9

Apr 23, 2010 (11:38 am)

Replying to: euphonium (Apr 22, 2010 9:43 pm)
"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.
 
http://www.allstate.com/auto-insurance/auto-insurance-features.aspx
 
"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] by sanjaysdca

Apr 23, 2010 (11:59 am)

Replying to: taximombutler (Apr 23, 2010 11:05 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.

#235 of 272 Well? by euphonium

Apr 28, 2010 (9:48 am)

Where'd she go?

#236 of 272 Re: Well? [euphonium] by taximombutler

Apr 28, 2010 (9:18 pm)

Replying to: euphonium (Apr 28, 2010 9:48 am)
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] by euphonium

Apr 29, 2010 (9:23 am)

Replying to: taximombutler (Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm)
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.

#238 of 272 Re: Well? [euphonium] by taximombutler

Apr 29, 2010 (10:57 am)

Replying to: euphonium (Apr 29, 2010 9:23 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] by euphonium

Apr 29, 2010 (8:18 pm)

Replying to: taximombutler (Apr 29, 2010 10:57 am)
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] by dtownfb

May 06, 2010 (10:55 am)

Replying to: taximombutler (Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm)
Congrats! Glad it is working out for you.

#241 of 272 Re: Well? [taximombutler] by gss2004

Jun 09, 2010 (8:50 am)

Replying to: taximombutler (Apr 29, 2010 10:57 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?

#242 of 272 Re: What settlement to Take? by taximombutler

Jun 10, 2010 (8:19 am)

Replying to: gss2004 (Jun 09, 2010 8:50 am)
Hi... I have finally settled with the valet's insurance carrier, after moving through 6 different contacts, via phone and email. Basically, after I refused the first two offers from the first two adjusters (via phone conversations and explaining what I wanted), they passed me on to a 3rd adjuster. That adjuster I communicated with via both phone and email, and he ended up being my final adjuster, but I had to communicate with his supervisor and then a VP in claims to actually settle. They want to settle and close the claim and hope that you will just accept what they offer. They made me at least 4 FINAL OFFERS, which I didn't accept and my settlement still went up from the. I did my own market analysis on my own vehicle so I knew what the fair market value was. I also used the resources of my own personal insurance company to make sure I was understanding how they determine the fair market value. We ended up agreeing to to the listed NADA Retail Value, and that is considered one of the highest settlements you will get, for the fair market value of the vehicle. My advice: Know the fair market value (including ALL options on the vehicle) and don't settle until you get it.. just keep going up the chain. They carve off $1,000's on each settlement, they just won't make that extra on yours, which is what I told them. They also paid for me to be in a rental for 36 days.
 
I am fighting the rest of my settlement request through litigation since the valet company wanted to provide very little on the additional amount requested. Since they totaled my car I wanted to recover my downpayment, time off work and the two years of interest paid into the car since I had to go purchase another one and start the financing process all over again. They agreed to a very small portion of that part of the request, but not enough for me to settle. In addition, they were skating their corporate responsibilties and were extremely arrogant - enough for me to walk away from the smaller amount they offered and take it to litigation.
 
Hope this helps... I will certainly post later this year when the litigation process starts.

Messages Page 25 of 28

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Most Popular in Forums

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement