 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2005Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO
First of all, I'm not sure if it is entirely fair of me to single out GEICO. What I just experienced may be endemic to the entire insurance industy. Still, I am getting the shaft from GEICO, and part of what I want to ask is whether what I experienced does, in fact, occur with other insurance companies. Basically, after nearly 30 years of driving, I had my first real accident. Totally not my fault, I was stopped at a light, and the guy behind me must have been distracted -- he simply slammed into me doing about 20 miles an hour. That forced me into the car in front of me. Fortunately, I am basically fine (at least so far, but we'll see if my neck and back are still sore in two weeks). However, the rear and front bumpers of my car were messed up pretty good. The body was scrunched, just slightly. Now, several issues have come up with GEICO: 1. I have an older car (about 10 years old), and the book value is (according to GEICO) about $2000. GEICO also estimates the cost of the repair about a bit over $2000. They say they will not pay for the repairs, if the repairs cost more than the cost of the car. They have referred to my car as a "total loss", or something to that effect, even though in fact the car still runs well and could probably go for another five or ten years. (I maintain the car well.) So, First Question: Does this happen with other insurance companies, that they will not pay for repairs if the estimated repair costs are more than than the estimated value of the car? If this is routine, is it even possible to purchase a rider on insurance which says, in essence: "Even when the value of my car drops, you will guarentee to cover the repair costs, up to $X? (Where $X might be, say, $10,000.) 2. Now, GEICO will pay for what they say is the replacement value of the car, which I can then spend on whatever I want (such as, as much repairs as that will cover). However, GEICO has also told me that: (a) I need to bring in my title to my car, for them to make a copy of that. And... (b) I'll have to "sign something" before they will give me the check. And... (c) After accepting this check, they will no longer provide collision coverage for the car at all. (I can still get liability coverage.) Second Question: What's up with all this -- the copy of the title to my car, and the "something" they will make me sign, and dropping my collision coverage? Would other insurance companies do the same thing? 3. The car in front of me was a very, very expensive car. Although the damage was minimal, the bumper on that thing could cost $100,000. (Well, not that much, but a lot.) On the other hand, the bozo who caused the collision (the one who hit me from behind) is apparently not rich, and has about $10,000 of coverage for other people's cars. So, GEICO is now saying they will not pay anything until they first make sure that his $10,000 coverage will cover both the check they write for me, and the check they write to the guy in front of me (the guy with the fancy car that I was pushed into). Third Question: Can GEICO withhold payment -- even though all parties have already admitted I'm not at fault -- because the guy who caused the accident might not have enough coverage? Bottom line, I've paid GEICO good money for many years, never had an accident, and now when I finally need them, they are basically saying, "Our policies, plus our number crunching on your car and your accident, boil down to 'Get Lost'." Two final notes (A) All three parties involved are insured by GEICO, yet the GEICO people are acting as adversaries to each other, essentially representing (or failing to represent) their clients as if they were separate companies. If common sense prevailed here, you would think that the fact that all three parties have poured money into GEICO would make them realize the fairness of simply paying out what they owe -- taking care of all their customers. You would also think one person could oversee the entire process, but instead they got three people dickering with each other. (B) I asked GEICO if there was any person or committee within the company I could appeal to. The answer was, "Here is the phone number for the state insurance commissioner." GEICO: "We're here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year... to tell you to go jump in a lake." Comments, insight, and feedback are much appreciated. Maybe a final question: Is there any chance of my getting anywhere if I bring in my attorney? I don't want to spend more valuable money on the attorney, if it won't change anything. > First of all, I'm not sure if it is entirely fair of me to single out > GEICO. What I just experienced may be endemic to the entire insurance [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > attorney? I don't want to spend more valuable money on the attorney, > if it won't change anything. Maybe I missed something. What is the make, model, year of the vehicle? I have Allstate, my parked vehicle was the #3 in a 4 vehicle chain accident. I didn't have rental car coverage, and paid $200 out of pocket, insurance covered the rest. :/ If at the end of the story you still have a major complaint or find that slong the way, yuo are being treated unfairly by any insuracne carrier, write to teh insurance commissioner of your state and/or teh states where the insured are based out of. It is amazing how easily an insurance company can be convinced to do the proper thing when the governing body is asking them what their position on a situation is... From experience, I know they will pay for a car that is "totaled" and let you keep it without all that contract stuff... At least in NJ. Joe in Northern, NJ V#8013 '86 VN750 Ride a motorcycle in or near NJ? http://tinyurl.com/4zkw8 http://www.youthelate.com Young Life? eMail me! Born once - Die twice. Born twice - Die only once. Your choice... Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar car when you have a perfectly good (albeit damaged) car for 0 dollars is bad. > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar > car when you have a perfectly good (albeit damaged) car for 0 dollars is > bad. He will be able to keep the car. The insurance companies have formulas they use in cases like this. I had a similar situation with GEICO, I have an extended warranty with them and the transmission died. I was told that NYS law says if the cost of the repair is more than 75% of the value of the car, they have to total it. In my case, the settlement turned out to be more than the cost to repair the transmission with the deductible factored in (they lowered the settlement by $100 and I kept the car). And in the end, they told me I could keep my extended warranty if I faxed them proof of repair, which I did. Bill > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? Because that minimises the payout when the repair cost is higher than the book value of the car. > They don't seem to realize that only walking away > with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar car They're essentially claiming that you can buy another car for $2K which would be as good as the wreck pre accident. > when you have a perfectly good (albeit > damaged) car for 0 dollars is bad. > They're essentially claiming that you can buy another car > for $2K which would be as good as the wreck pre accident. Which is often bullshit. It doesn't factor in the non-market value of the car to the individual. Say you had a car in good condition, and all the other cars out there were badly worn, for instance. Or the car had some performance mods installed? So what is the problem? Just take out an agreed value policy - problem solved David > > They're essentially claiming that you can buy another car > > for $2K which would be as good as the wreck pre accident. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other cars out there were badly worn, for instance. Or the car had some > performance mods installed? >>They're essentially claiming that you can buy another car >>for $2K which would be as good as the wreck pre accident. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other cars out there were badly worn, for instance. Or the car had some > performance mods installed? Don't ever mention performance mods to an insurance company, they will figure out a way to raise your rates. Just get the carcass back somehow so you don't lose the good parts. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Don't ever mention performance mods to an insurance company, they will > figure out a way to raise your rates. Just get the carcass back somehow > so you don't lose the good parts Good point, though some mods you could do to a car would be for reasons other than flying down the road at 100 mph and sliding through hairpins. > > Don't ever mention performance mods to an insurance company, they will > > figure out a way to raise your rates. Just get the carcass back somehow > > so you don't lose the good parts > > Good point, though some mods you could do to a car would be for reasons > other than flying down the road at 100 mph and sliding through hairpins. Most stock cars (well, decent ones anyway) will do more than 100 MPH out of the box, and the kinds of mods I prefer are the kind that will *prevent* sliding in hairpins, at least the unintentional kind. But the point is that insurance companies are kind of wary of *any* modifications, and if they aren't obvious it's best not to mention them at all, lest one's rates increase dramatically. Note that this advice is probably not good advice outside the US; I know that in the UK at least one faces far greater consequences for not mentioning even basic mods like a sport suspension or cold air intake, and the ins. cos. do charge markedly higher rates for modified vehicles. How lucky do you feel? nate >> Don't ever mention performance mods to an insurance company, they will >> figure out a way to raise your rates. Just get the carcass back somehow >> so you don't lose the good parts > > Good point, though some mods you could do to a car would be for reasons >other than flying down the road at 100 mph and sliding through hairpins. Most cars without mods can do more than 100 mph. However, performance mods are statistically all-too-often done by or for people who drive in ways imprudent one way or another or in more than one way. Cars with higher performance in terms of top speed, acceleration to 60 MPH or whatever or horsepower/weight tend to cost more when the factory makes them that way - why not if made that way after getting into the hands of the end user? - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > > They're essentially claiming that you can buy another car > > for $2K which would be as good as the wreck pre accident. > > Which is often bullshit. It doesn't factor in the non-market value of the > car to the individual. Do you insure your car's sentimental value? Who writes these policies? > Say you had a car in good condition, and all the > other cars out there were badly worn, for instance. Or the car had some > performance mods installed? >>>They're essentially claiming that you can buy another car >>>for $2K which would be as good as the wreck pre accident. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Do you insure your car's sentimental value? Who writes these policies? Lloyd's of London. >>Say you had a car in good condition, and all the >>other cars out there were badly worn, for instance. Or the car had > > some > >>performance mods installed? >> They're essentially claiming that you can buy another car >> for $2K which would be as good as the wreck pre accident. > Which is often bullshit. It doesn't factor in the > non-market value of the car to the individual. That's what agreed value policys are for. They wont agree to a silly price tho, essentially because there is too much risk of deliberately crashing the car to get the higher value than can be obtained with say a tradein. > Say you had a car in good condition, and all the > other cars out there were badly worn, for instance. The system allows for that. > Or the car had some performance mods installed? That would affect the book value if they are sensible. The insurance companys mostly arent interested in insuring that sort of car if they can avoid it tho, they consider hoons like that too high a risk. >>> They're essentially claiming that you can buy another car >>> for $2K which would be as good as the wreck pre accident. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >there is too much risk of deliberately crashing the car to >get the higher value than can be obtained with say a tradein. Yup, referred to in the biz as moral hazard. >> They're essentially claiming that you can buy another car >> for $2K which would be as good as the wreck pre accident. > > Which is often bullshit. It doesn't factor in the non-market value of the >car to the individual. Say you had a car in good condition, and all the >other cars out there were badly worn, for instance. "Blue Book" value is for cars in well-maintained or good condition, sometimes with various different prices for various levels of mileage. > Or the car had some performance mods installed? That is an additional claim to make with the insurance company. You will need proof that this was done, probably along with proof of the value of the mods at time of the crash or maybe even market value of the modded car just before crash time. Especially expensive mods may be something to purchase insurance riders for. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar > car when you have a perfectly good (albeit damaged) car for 0 dollars is > bad. I had the opposite experience with Farmers some years ago. I slammed into a car that turned left in front of me (I had a green light. Turned out she got a solid green (instead of a green arrow) and failed to yield. I couldn't avoid her without hitting oncoming traffic.) As I got out of my truck and walked over to the sidewalk, I noticed that the front tires were pointing opposite directions. Now, I know squat about car repairs, but I know the front wheels are supposed to aim together. So I knew this was pretty bad damage. Farmers had the truck towed to a body shop, estimated that it was repairable for some trivial amount of money and told the shop to order replacement parts. After only two days, the body shop discovered the serious damage underneath, informed Farmers, who then decided to total it. I got a fair deal on the settlement, but I felt really bad for the body shop. They got stiffed on the parts cost because the insurance underwriters/estimaters didn't bother to look underneath. >I got a fair deal on the settlement, but I felt really bad for the >body shop. They got stiffed on the parts cost because the insurance >underwriters/estimaters didn't bother to look underneath. Don't feel so bad. If they are a reputable shop who has been in business for a while they will have a relationship with their parts supplier that will allow them to return the parts and get a refund. ----------------- Alex >> Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem >> to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >she got a solid green (instead of a green arrow) and failed to yield. I >couldn't avoid her without hitting oncoming traffic.) Accident was the fault of the oncoming driver who failed to yield to traffic oncoming to that driver when turning left - a moving violation in my USA state and at least most of the other 49. > As I got out of my truck and walked over to the sidewalk, I noticed >that the front tires were pointing opposite directions. Now, I know squat [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >body shop. They got stiffed on the parts cost because the insurance >underwriters/estimaters didn't bother to look underneath. I suspect the body shop did not lose out too badly if the insurance company decided to total the car. If the body shop puts a large amount of money into a car and afterwards the car is declared totalled - it's then between the insurance co and the body shop. Competent body shops should generally be able to put not too much money into cars that end up being declared totalled unless they get some sort of at least almost adequate compensation for fixing them. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar > car when you have a perfectly good (albeit damaged) car for 0 dollars is > bad. Because they give you approximately what you would pay for a used one in the same condition. Why should the other insurance payers pay for you to replace your old clunker with a new car? If they really did that, insurance fraud by intentionally causing accidents would be through the roof. EDIT: Just saw the poster, so I guess the inane comment is par for the course. Chris > > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem > > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because they give you approximately what you would pay for a used one in > the same condition. That would be perfectly acceptable if the insurance company did the legwork, found a selection of cars similar to yours and delivered them to your home or office for you to make a selection. > Why should the other insurance payers pay for you to > replace your old clunker with a new car? If they really did that, > insurance fraud by intentionally causing accidents would be through the > roof. They don't even pay your costs to find a replacement car -- newspapers, phone calls, time off from work, etc. I had to sue to get the cost of licensing the new car. Screw 'em. SignatureCheers, Bev =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= SAVE GAS, FART IN A JAR >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem >> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > found a selection of cars similar to yours and delivered them to your home or > office for you to make a selection. Around here you are entitled to proving to your insurance company, that a car in the same condition is not available for their price. A friend did this for a totalled Nissan and got $2000 more than the insurance originally offered. The problem for most people is, that they either don't know or don't dare to challenge the mighty dragon. Chris >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem >> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > found a selection of cars similar to yours and delivered them to your home or > office for you to make a selection. Come on, Bev! You don't pay for door service, so you're *not* going to get it. OTOH, often you can do quite well by insurance settlements. Shopping is the *CONSUMER's* job. >> Why should the other insurance payers pay for you to >> replace your old clunker with a new car? If they really did that, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > calls, time off from work, etc. I had to sue to get the cost of licensing > the new car. Screw 'em. No, they don't. Have you looked at your policy? SignatureKeith > >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem > >> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > get it. OTOH, often you can do quite well by insurance settlements. > Shopping is the *CONSUMER's* job. What do you mean, "door service"? The insurance company (AAA) of the bitch who hit me was responsible, not my own liability-only company. I would have been happy if they'd let me hack off her little finger, but NOOOOOO! I was paid for medical stuff and pain/suffering, but what I really wanted was to not have to search the county for a 1980 Datsun 210 with low mileage, a new clutch, and total cleanliness on the bottom -- not steam-cleaning, just NO DIRT. I didn't believe such a thing was possible until I looked under that car. > >> Why should the other insurance payers pay for you to > >> replace your old clunker with a new car? If they really did that, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, they don't. Have you looked at your policy? In this case, my policy was irrelevant. It was her liability policy and it should have taken care of ALL my car problems, leaving me in the same state I was before she plowed into me. If you ever want to sue an insurance company in small claims court, make sure you get a real judge. SignatureCheers, Bev -------------------------------------------- There is no such thing as a foolproof device because fools are so ingenious. >> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They >> >> > don't seem [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > company > in small claims court, make sure you get a real judge. Actually, It doesn't matter what her insurance policy says. Her policy indemnifies her against claims to the limit of the policy. As the injured party, you have a right to be made whole by the party causing your loss. Your claim is against the other party, not her insurance provider. Their job is to defend her against your claim. To that end, they may make you an offer. You don't have to accept it. If you don't like the offer, you can file a civil suit against her and ask a judge and jury to decide. Her insurance company will defend. A court will decide damages in terms of dollars. You can ask for what ever trips your trigger but the court will decide. It could be more or less than her insurance company offers as settlement. That's what you sign, an agreement that the offer settles the claim to some degree. Understand, your claim is against the other party, not their insurance company. Now, if you have colission insurance, your insurance company will offer to trade your wrecked car for some cash, less deductable, depending on the terms of your policy. You can still file suit for outstanding damages but you won't get paid for the car twice. > >> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They > >> >> > don't seem [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > claim to some degree. Understand, your claim is against the other party, not > their insurance company. Yes. All of that is true, and I did indeed sue The Bitch, who appeared in court with the AAA rep. I got more than AAA was originally willing to settle for, and they paid me right away, but I still felt screwed. Is it conceivable that a judge would order them to find me a car as good as the one the insured destroyed through such gross stupidity that true justice would have given her jail time? Apparently not, although in this case a Magistrate made the decision. > Now, if you have colission insurance, your insurance company will offer to > trade your wrecked car for some cash, less deductable, depending on the > terms of your policy. You can still file suit for outstanding damages but > you won't get paid for the car twice. I've never owned a car that was worth more than a few years' collision premium. That doesn't mean that such good "worthless" cars are easy to find. SignatureCheers, Bev ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is. >> >> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They >> >> >> > don't seem [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > destroyed through such gross stupidity that true justice would have given her > jail time? That would be extremely rare. You would be entitled to claim the cost of finding one tho. > Apparently not, although in this case a Magistrate made the decision. >> Now, if you have colission insurance, your insurance company will offer to >> trade your wrecked car for some cash, less deductable, depending on the >> terms of your policy. You can still file suit for outstanding damages but >> you won't get paid for the car twice. > I've never owned a car that was worth more than a few years' collision > premium. That doesn't mean that such good "worthless" cars are easy to find. True. >> >> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They >> >> >> > don't seem [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > her > jail time? No, it is not conceivable. A judge can only order, you be paid for your loss. He can consider many things when determining "loss" but your time is generally worthless. Jail time???? Oh, I see. You aren't interested in being made whole. You want retribution. You're going to be really disappointed here. This is a civil case and there is no crime. The woman that caused the damage cannot be fined or jailed. Unless you can convince the District Attorney, a crime has been committed and that it rises to a level the state needs to persue, you are out of luck. > Apparently not, although in this case a Magistrate made the > decision. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > premium. That doesn't mean that such good "worthless" cars are easy to > find. No, and it doesn't mean the state is going to assist you in your quest for "a pound of flesh". How's that working out for you? >> Come on, Bev! You don't pay for door service, so you're *not* going to >> get it. OTOH, often you can do quite well by insurance settlements. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >DIRT. I didn't believe such a thing was possible until I looked under that >car. <SNIP> >> No, they don't. Have you looked at your policy? > >In this case, my policy was irrelevant. It was her liability policy and it >should have taken care of ALL my car problems, leaving me in the same state I >was before she plowed into me. If you ever want to sue an insurance company >in small claims court, make sure you get a real judge. Insurance companies, and even most courts in most places where "things tend to work" do not quite make victims whole on an average. If the average victim is "made whole", then one who works more than average at being "made whole" comes out ahead by being victimized. Insurance costs more when some find a profit motive to be a victim. Insurance costs much less where potential victims have financial motivation to do what is reasonably necessary to avoid being victims or victimized worse than they could be if they used some prudence. As in insurance costing less where jaywalkers are not quite made whole if they get hit while jaywalking, and where you have a financial incentive to keep at least 1/4 of one eye out for bad drivers and keep a bit of extra distance from them, and to stop far enough behind a vehicle stopped ahead of you to not hit it or get hit by it if something goes somewhat wrong. I find it perfectly acceptable for the owner of a car totalled in a non-at-fault accident to be paid only what it costs to buy a comparable car (and not more merely if the market lacks anything quite like the car that got totalled), and not for value of time spent shopping for one. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > >> Come on, Bev! You don't pay for door service, so you're *not* going to > >> get it. OTOH, often you can do quite well by insurance settlements. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Insurance companies, and even most courts in most places where "things > tend to work" do not quite make victims whole on an average. I believe that. I do not believe it's correct. > If the average victim is "made whole", then one who works more than > average at being "made whole" comes out ahead by being victimized. > Insurance costs more when some find a profit motive to be a victim. That assumes that the victim somehow contributes to the accident. What if that's not applicable? > Insurance costs much less where potential victims have financial > motivation to do what is reasonably necessary to avoid being victims or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ahead of you to not hit it or get hit by it if something goes somewhat > wrong. I think the concept of comparative negligence covers that. In my case, not applicable. > I find it perfectly acceptable for the owner of a car totalled in a > non-at-fault accident to be paid only what it costs to buy a comparable > car (and not more merely if the market lacks anything quite like the car > that got totalled), and not for value of time spent shopping for one. Imagine you are driving along legally, within the speed limit, doing everything right, and suddenly this loon pulls out from a side street on the right, aiming straight at you as she makes a left turn. You honk, you make evasive maneuvers, but the loon hits you square in the passenger door anyway, knocking your car sideways in addition to caving in the side of the car. The bitch CHASED ME DOWN, even if she did it while she was looking the other way -- she claimed. There is NOTHING my fault here and there was NOTHING I could do to avoid it. To suggest that I should settle for less than what I had the moment before the bitch hit me and that I should have to go to any effort at all to regain that status is to suggest that we all become victims of the insurance companies and the incompetent loons they represent. Not that we aren't, of course, but I've never heard anybody say that that was a good and proper thing. SignatureCheers, Bev ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Nothing in the universe can withstand the relentless application of brute force and ignorance." -- Frd, via Dennis (evil) >> Insurance companies, and even most courts in most places where "things >> tend to work" do not quite make victims whole on an average. > >I believe that. I do not believe it's correct. Correct, or proper. You appear to be contradicting yourself here. > >> Insurance companies, and even most courts in most places where "things > >> tend to work" do not quite make victims whole on an average. > > > >I believe that. I do not believe it's correct. > > > Correct, or proper. You appear to be contradicting yourself here. Sorry, I'll be more specific/accurate: I believe it's true; I do not believe it's right. SignatureCheers, Bev --------------------------------------------------------- "I don't think they could put him in a mental hospital. On the other hand, if he were already in, I don't think they'd let him out." -- Greek Geek >> >> Come on, Bev! You don't pay for door service, so you're *not* going to >> >> get it. OTOH, often you can do quite well by insurance settlements. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >That assumes that the victim somehow contributes to the accident. What if >that's not applicable? It surely becomes applicable all too often when prospective victims see the profit motive to be victimized. This is a situation to prevent. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) >> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem >> >> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What do you mean, "door service"? You just asked for them to bring a (perhaps more than) perfect replacement to your door so that you're not bothered looking for a replacement. > The insurance company (AAA) of the bitch who hit me was responsible, not > my own liability-only company. Sure, it is their liability. So sue the bitch. You won't get much satisfaction, but if you want to go through the mill... > I would > have been happy if they'd let me hack off her little finger, but > NOOOOOO! Tell us how you *really* feel. > I was paid for medical stuff and pain/suffering, but what I > really wanted was to not have to search the county for a 1980 Datsun 210 > with low mileage, a new clutch, and total cleanliness on the bottom -- > not steam-cleaning, just NO DIRT. I didn't believe such a thing was > possible until I looked under that car. Ok, you *are* asking for door service. The fact is that you often cannot replace what you had, exactly. What do you want? A _new_ one? As others have pointed out, you're going to fall somewhat short on this end. OTOH, you were compensated for your injury. Count yourself fortunate. What if "the bitch" had only $10K liability, as others here have said are their state minimums (shudder)? >> >> Why should the other insurance payers pay for you to replace your >> >> old clunker with a new car? If they really did that, insurance fraud [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > In this case, my policy was irrelevant. Yes, sorry. > It was her liability policy and > it should have taken care of ALL my car problems, leaving me in the same > state I was before she plowed into me. If you ever want to sue an > insurance company in small claims court, make sure you get a real judge. Well, you can go to a real court and demand a jury trial. It might cost a nikel, but it _is_ your right. SignatureKeith > >> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem > >> >> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > replacement to your door so that you're not bothered looking for a > replacement. Exactly. Anything less is placing a clearly-unwanted burden on me. > > The insurance company (AAA) of the bitch who hit me was responsible, not > > my own liability-only company. > > Sure, it is their liability. So sue the bitch. You won't get much > satisfaction, but if you want to go through the mill... I got several $hundred I wouldn't have had otherwise and it didn't cost me anything. I'd rather have had them do the hunting. > > I would > > have been happy if they'd let me hack off her little finger, but > > NOOOOOO! > > Tell us how you *really* feel. Well, I actually would have liked to saw it off with a bread knife, but I didn't want to gross anybody out. Maybe a little amateur dental work, too... > > I was paid for medical stuff and pain/suffering, but what I > > really wanted was to not have to search the county for a 1980 Datsun 210 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > replace what you had, exactly. What do you want? A _new_ one? As others > have pointed out, you're going to fall somewhat short on this end. Nope, just a used one as good as the one that was destroyed. I don't think that's unreasonable. > OTOH, you were compensated for your injury. Count yourself fortunate. > What if "the bitch" had only $10K liability, as others here have said are > their state minimums (shudder)? I would have been OK. The medical stuff was for the MRI for my husband because he was in the passenger seat and the doorjamb hit his head. I'm pretty sure the total was less than $10K. > > It was her liability policy and > > it should have taken care of ALL my car problems, leaving me in the same [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, you can go to a real court and demand a jury trial. It might cost a > nikel, but it _is_ your right. I think I'd be willing to have a real judge decide, but not a magistrate -- otherwise known as a lawyer helping out for one reason or another. SignatureCheers, Bev ============================================================= "What's truly sad is that your vote counts the same as mine." -- S. Brown >> >> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem >> >> >> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Exactly. Anything less is placing a clearly-unwanted burden on me. Not only unwanted, but undeserved. I don't know how it became acceptable in our society for you to suffer a loss due to another driver's incompetence and never be made whole. In TV commercials (for Farmer's Insurance, IIRC), we see the accident that resulted in the car being destroyed being played in reverse: the red 1968 Camaro convertible flies up out of the ocean, jumps up on top of the cliff, and parks itself underneath the hand of the owner, who is leaning against it while his girlfriend takes a picture. And that's how it SHOULD be - everything should be as close to the way it was before your property was damaged as possible. You not only deserve to have your damaged vehicle replaced with a vehicle in as-good-or-better condition, you also deserve fair compensation for your time and inconevience while that replacement is procured AND that inconvenience needs to be minimized. That means they supply you with a rental car comparable to the one that was taken from you, but they also do the legwork to find replacement candidates and bring them to you for your approval. Forcing you to spend your personal time (or, even worse, take time off from work) to go shopping for a car and then never compensating you for that wasted time merely adds to your losses. Unlike the promises made in TV commercials, the reality is you're never going to be made whole after a car accident. The insurance company is going to try their damndest to pay you less than your car was worth; you're going to waste a lot of time fighting to get repaid, shopping for a car, and using alternate transportation. And we put up with it. >> > I was paid for medical stuff and pain/suffering, but what I >> > really wanted was to not have to search the county for a 1980 Datsun 210 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Nope, just a used one as good as the one that was destroyed. I don't think >that's unreasonable. It's not - unless you work for an insurance company. SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ AMEN, BROTHER! (I'm sure god will forgive me for top-posting just this once...) > >> >> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem > >> >> >> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > It's not - unless you work for an insurance company. SignatureCheers, Bev [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. --Revolution Books, New York, New York > First of all, I'm not sure if it is entirely fair of me to single out > GEICO. What I just experienced may be endemic to the entire insurance > industy. Still, I am getting the shaft from GEICO, and part of what I > want to ask is whether what I experienced does, in fact, occur with > other insurance companies. No, you are not fair to single out Geico for following standard industry practice. > Basically, after nearly 30 years of driving, I had my first real > accident. Totally not my fault, I was stopped at a light, and the guy [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > even though in fact the car still runs well and could probably go for > another five or ten years. (I maintain the car well.) So double check the book value on KBB.com. See if it really is worth $2000. If the car is in better than average shape (there are clear guidlines on kbb.com) then you can make the case that the car is worth more. Now look at this from the point of view of the insurance company. they have a choice: 1) pay to repair the car. or 2) buy the car from you at book value. They will do which ever costs less. So if the cost to repair the car is more than the book value it will be decleared a total loss. This is not fair I know. I went through this last year. You take care of a car and hope to drive it a good long time, then some idiot on a cell phone creams you from the back. > So, First Question: Does this happen with other insurance companies, > that they will not pay for repairs if the estimated repair costs are > more than than the estimated value of the car? Yes, this is all pretty much standard industry practice. > If this is routine, is it even possible to purchase a rider on > insurance which says, in essence: "Even when the value of my car > drops, you will guarentee to cover the repair costs, up to $X? (Where > $X might be, say, $10,000.) Nope. Not that I know of. > 2. Now, GEICO will pay for what they say is the replacement value of > the car, which I can then spend on whatever I want (such as, as much [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > collision coverage? Would other insurance companies do the same > thing? Again, standard industry practice. Normaly when a car is totaled the insurance company will take the car. But if you want, they will pay residual value on the car. But they will only pay once. After that the car is determined to have no value. Even if you get it fixed to pre-loss condition. They want to keep a copy of the title and want to see it to make sure that you don't have a "wreck" or "Rebuild" title. In either case the car would have been totaled at some time in the past and they will not pay on it again. Because of the way most people drive and keep cars, they are considered to always lose value. Althought a good rebuild and restore can increase the value of a car. In that case you should look into special insurance that is issued to owners of classic cars. > 3. The car in front of me was a very, very expensive car. Although > the damage was minimal, the bumper on that thing could cost $100,000. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have already admitted I'm not at fault -- because the guy who caused > the accident might not have enough coverage? Check your policy. You should have un-insured/under-insured motorist coverage to protect yourself in case of such an event. > Bottom line, I've paid GEICO good money for many years, never had an > accident, and now when I finally need them, they are basically saying, > "Our policies, plus our number crunching on your car and your > accident, boil down to 'Get Lost'." You would get this from anyone else. SignatureJust my $0.02 worth. Hope it helps Gordon Reeder greeder at: myself.com Hey Dubya! Unity means let's try to meet each other halfway Word to the wise: Never buy collision insurance on a $2000 car. I stop collision once my car goes below $8000. It's basically not worth it if you determine the odds of you totalling the car multiplied by your yearly premiums. There is a reason insurance is such a profitable industry, it's legalized gambling and the insurance companies are the house. If you get in an accident without collision you're much better off using your saved premiums to pay off whatever damage there is. If the accident is totally not your fault, you can deal with the other person's insurance and if it's a reputable company, they will cut you a check. Someone rear ended me on my motorcycle that wasn't insured for collision and the other guy's insurance company, State Farm, were more than happy to cut me a check for the entire value of the bike. As for liability, that's a different issue in that those costs can go real high. Insurance should only be purchased for catastrophic events. You should not buy insurance with the expectation to nickle and dime the insurance company. And $2000 is a relatively minor loss, not worth paying to protect. Okay, you say: "If the accident is totally not your fault, you can deal with the other person's insurance and if it's a reputable company, they will cut you a check." Well, in this case, I am totally not at fault, but the other guy's insurance company is the same as my own, GEICO. So, let's say the other guy had been insured through Allstate. Same deal, my car is worth a bit less than $2000, the estimated cost of repair is over $2000. But now, my insurance company, GEICO, would be collecting from Allstate to get the money to pay for my car repair. Would GEICO still be telling me: "No, we are not going to collect that money from Allstate, even though they are the insurer for the responsible party, because the repair costs more than your car is worth?" Or, on the other hand, am I getting stiffed precisely because there is a conflict of interest -- my insurer is the same as the other guy's insurer, so my insurer simply doesn't want to pay what they owe me, because it still really comes out of their pocket? Steve O. >Word to the wise: Never buy collision insurance on a $2000 car. I stop >collision once my car goes below $8000. It's basically not worth it if [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >insurance company. And $2000 is a relatively minor loss, not worth >paying to protect. "Spying On The College Of Your Choice" -- How to pick the college that is the Best Match for a high school student's needs. http://www.SpyingOnTheCollegeOfYourChoice.com > Okay, you say: "If the accident is totally not your fault, you can > deal with the other person's insurance and if it's a reputable [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > responsible party, because the repair costs more than your car is > worth?" You are misunderstanding. If you didn't carry collision insurance, you would probably have saved more than $2,000 by now (from not paying premiums). Your insurer would not owe you anything, so you would have to collect directly from the other insurer. If they are reputable, they will cut you a check promptly. If they are not reputable or you were at fault, you'd still be better off. > Or, on the other hand, am I getting stiffed precisely because there is > a conflict of interest -- my insurer is the same as the other guy's [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > "Spying On The College Of Your Choice" -- How to pick the college that is the Best Match for a high school student's needs. > http://www.SpyingOnTheCollegeOfYourChoice.com >>Okay, you say: "If the accident is totally not your fault, you can >>deal with the other person's insurance and if it's a reputable [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > they will cut you a check promptly. If they are not reputable or you > were at fault, you'd still be better off. If the care is financed you have to carry collision. SignatureTo reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell > >>Okay, you say: "If the accident is totally not your fault, you can > >>deal with the other person's insurance and if it's a reputable [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > If the care is financed you have to carry collision. Correct. If the car is financed, then you will have to jump through the bank's hoops. However, who finances a 10+ year old car worth less than $2,000? >>>>Okay, you say: "If the accident is totally not your fault, you can >>>>deal with the other person's insurance and if it's a reputable [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > However, who finances a 10+ year old car worth less than $2,000? I missed that part of the post. SignatureTo reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell >> Okay, you say: "If the accident is totally not your fault, you can >> deal with the other person's insurance and if it's a reputable [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >they will cut you a check promptly. If they are not reputable or you >were at fault, you'd still be better off. If you are not at fault and the offending driver's insurance co. tries to get away with not paying you like a reputable insurance co. would, then you have grounds to sue them. Based on what I have heard, I would advise to name as defendants in such a suit the offending driver, the stingy insurance company, any owner of the offending vehicle other than the driver, and any insurance agent that the insurance co. of the offender(s) could try to pass the blame onto. I have heard it could help to file suit in a court whose jurisdiction includes where the crash occurred, and maybe do so in a court whose jurisdiction that at least has at least optional service of serving "complaints" to where the offender lives while also having jurisdiction where the crash occurred - typically in the same one of the 50 USA "states". If the offender does not live in the same state that you got crashed in, then you need more professional legal advice than I can amateurly offer if you need to sue. (Whatever I said that your lawyer advises against is from me and nobody else, and I am the only one irresponsible for such. My liability for Usenet legal advice is not to exceed what you paid me for it.) - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) In misc.consumers.frugal-living Steven O. <null@null.com> wrote: > Okay, you say: "If the accident is totally not your fault, you can > deal with the other person's insurance and if it's a reputable > company, they will cut you a check." > Well, in this case, I am totally not at fault, but the other guy's > insurance company is the same as my own, GEICO. I think this is part of the problem. If there was another insurance company involved you could get the other driver's liability policy to pay for the repairs in this case. The agreed upon value issue is between you and your insurance carier. In cases where there car is safely repairable, I don't believe you have to accept a "totaled" payment from the other drivers insurance carrier. The problem is you have an agreement with GEICO that says they can total your car for economic reasons instead of just safety issues. > So, let's say the other guy had been insured through Allstate. Same > deal, my car is worth a bit less than $2000, the estimated cost of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > responsible party, because the repair costs more than your car is > worth?" Possibly, but you could deal directly with Allstate and tell them to return your car to pre-accident condition. Its still the other driver's liability, regardless of what your own comprehensive insurance will cover. > Or, on the other hand, am I getting stiffed precisely because there is > a conflict of interest -- my insurer is the same as the other guy's > insurer, so my insurer simply doesn't want to pay what they owe me, > because it still really comes out of their pocket? DING! With the cost of auto repair today, I think its irresponsible to have $10k in liability insurance. You may want to threaten to sue the other driver directly since his policy limits where insufficent to cover the damage done to the other vehicles inthe accident. Be aware that GEICO can ask for its money back if you get paid, so you have to sue for the whole amount of your costs including the part GEICO is willing to pay for. >>Or, on the other hand, am I getting stiffed precisely because there is >>a conflict of interest -- my insurer is the same as the other guy's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > whole amount of your costs including the part GEICO is willing to pay > for. $10k is the minimum for liability coverage in my state. Tis fine for those who have no assets. I carry a million in liability, if something does happpen I want the burden of litigation to be on the insurer not me. Sure I could buy another home and another second home and start another business. Cost comparison what I'll pay in extra premiums over my lifetime is a bargain. Jessica >>>Or, on the other hand, am I getting stiffed precisely because there is >>>a conflict of interest -- my insurer is the same as the other guy's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > $10k is the minimum for liability coverage in my state. Tis fine for > those who have no assets. It's nice for the bozo who only has to pay peanuts in premiums for his $10K policy. It's irresponsible for the state to let this guy drive with such low coverage though since anyone he victimizes with more than $10k of damages (like in this case) is now screwed. Either the victim or his own insurance company is likely to end up with the bill that's rightfully the bozo's. >>$10k is the minimum for liability coverage in my state. Tis fine for >>those who have no assets. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (like in this case) is now screwed. Either the victim or his own insurance > company is likely to end up with the bill that's rightfully the bozo's. Exactly, PA only requires 15/30/5, $15,000 per person for personal injury, up to 30,000 total, and $5,000 for property damage to the other driver's car and/or property. That might have been an adequate amount in 1950 but is really only chump change now. >> It's nice for the bozo who only has to pay peanuts in premiums for his $10K >> policy. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >driver's car and/or property. That might have been an adequate amount in >1950 but is really only chump change now. PA is my state - 30K is only total and specific items are limited to less? I surely believe drivers should have "financial responsibility" for a lowish value new car (aprox. $15K) plus enough to pay medical bills for 2 people with broken legs (total becomes about $50K?) I have repeated a saying that most of Pennsylvania is more like Alabama than Alabama is! - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) >>>>Or, on the other hand, am I getting stiffed precisely because there is >>>>a conflict of interest -- my insurer is the same as the other guy's [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >(like in this case) is now screwed. Either the victim or his own insurance >company is likely to end up with the bill that's rightfully the bozo's. I thought minimum liability in my state was about $30K. I suspect a need for an increase, as well as a need to increase fines for moving violations - especially passing violations, "careless driving", use of a turn-only lane as a passing lane, use of a lane obstructed by a lane ending, obstacle or slow vehicle as a passing lane (and to outlaw any of these that could be legal). I also believe that if the big city just east of me used their police helicopter to find aggressive drivers to target for speeding violations, that this would be a good use of police resources. I think that a driver who makes 4 lane changes within 1 mile on the same road while going faster than 85th percentile speed as averaged over that mile is worth identifying by helicopter if the municipality has a helicopter that is not busy with something else! - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) >With the cost of auto repair today, I think its irresponsible to have >$10k in liability insurance. Collision and liability are seperate animals. Liability is for medical and pain & suffering. An hour in an emergency room can approach $10K (list price) as in an accident I was in. In misc.consumers.frugal-living rick++ <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote: >>With the cost of auto repair today, I think its irresponsible to have >>$10k in liability insurance. > Collision and liability are seperate animals. Liability is for medical > and pain & suffering. An hour in an emergency room can > approach $10K (list price) as in an accident I was in. Everywhere I have lived has two types of liability coverage - "Damage to someone elses' property" (property) liability and "bodily injury to others" (medical) liability. Collision is coverage you can purchase to cover own vehicle. It has nothing to do with protecting any vehicle but the one that is insured. >>With the cost of auto repair today, I think its irresponsible to have >>$10k in liability insurance. > >Collision and liability are seperate animals. Liability is for medical >and pain & suffering. An hour in an emergency room can >approach $10K (list price) as in an accident I was in. Liability is also for damage to cars crashed by the liable insured, and for rental car costs while the car(s) crashed by the insured liable are being repaired. Keep in mind that a fender-bender can cost $2500-$3,000-plus for repairs if any crumple zones get crumpled - possible at only about 5 MPH crash speed! (USA used to require "5 MPH bumpers" but now the requirement is only 2.5 MPH) - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > >>With the cost of auto repair today, I think its irresponsible to have > >>$10k in liability insurance. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for rental car costs while the car(s) crashed by the insured liable are > being repaired. AAA would only pay for a rental car until they made the offer. If I'd needed a rental car (the Datsun was driveable at non-freeway speeds, you just couldn't get into the passenger side) I guess I would have had to sue them for that too. > Keep in mind that a fender-bender can cost $2500-$3,000-plus for repairs > if any crumple zones get crumpled - possible at only about 5 MPH crash > speed! (USA used to require "5 MPH bumpers" but now the requirement is > only 2.5 MPH) Different accident -- when a tiny Nissan of some sort rear-ended my 1978 deVille (the Nissan chicklet wasn't wearing her seatbelt, she shattered the windshield with her head [there was no blood and she kept whining "My mom's gonna kill me"] and the whole front end was smashed in) the body shop wanted to replace the whole sprung bumper assembly along with some other misc. sheet metal parts. No functional damage so I pocketed the cash. That was actually a profitable accident because all I had to spend was $50 to put the car on the frame-realignment machine. SignatureCheers, Bev --------------------------------------------------------- "I don't think they could put him in a mental hospital. On the other hand, if he were already in, I don't think they'd let him out." -- Greek Geek >Okay, you say: "If the accident is totally not your fault, you can >deal with the other person's insurance and if it's a reputable [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >responsible party, because the repair costs more than your car is >worth?" If the offending driver had insurance from a different company, then all their insurance company had to pay you was what your car was worth just before it got totalled. >Or, on the other hand, am I getting stiffed precisely because there is >a conflict of interest -- my insurer is the same as the other guy's >insurer, so my insurer simply doesn't want to pay what they owe me, >because it still really comes out of their pocket? All they owe you is market-value purchase price for a car like what yours was just before it got crashed - as determined by methods that "the industry" has accepted. If you got crashed by an offending driver with an insurance company other than your own, the offending driver's insurance company will similarly want to minimize payout. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) >Word to the wise: Never buy collision insurance on a $2000 car. I stop >collision once my car goes below $8000. It's basically not worth it if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >is totally not your fault, you can deal with the other person's insurance >and if it's a reputable company, they will cut you a check. I live in an area with a significant number of uninsured drivers, adjacent to a city where it is widely reputed that some awfully significant percentage of the drivers are uninsured. A couple years ago my car got totalled by an uninsured driver, in an accident that was ruled completely the uninsured driver's fault. If you sue the offending driver for damage/loss of your car, all legwork is up to you if you lack collision coverage. If you have collision coverage, then your insurance company pays you for what they determine to be the value of your totalled car, and they sue the offending driver if they see fit to do so. Collision coverage is possibly worthwhile if your car is worth as little as $2,000 and you drive through neighborhoods that have a lot of uninsured drivers. - Don Klipstein don@misty.com) I generally agree, though the threshold for going naked on comp and collision may differ from one person to another. I carry liability only on my SUV. A decent car, but book value is less than $5K. If I wreck it, it's on me. If someone else wrecks it... well, it's on them (hopefully). Liability is critical. And the minimums in most states are a joke. Even if you don't own a home, you should consider triple digit coverage for injuries to others. I carry $100K for property damage liability... around here I am just as likely to hit a $80K Mercedes as I am to hit Bev's $4 Datsun. :) >Liability is critical. And the minimums in most states are a joke. >Even if you don't own a home, you should consider triple digit coverage >for injuries to others. If, that is, you like enriching insurance companies. A personal injury accident where someone is crippled for life can easily wipe out whatever coverage you have, even million-dollar coverage. If you have no major assets, chances are they'll settle for your insured maximum. And if they don't, you're bankrupt either way. The extra coverage gains you nothing and costs you extra in premiums. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. "Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote >>Liability is critical. And the minimums in most states are a joke. >>Even if you don't own a home, you should consider triple digit coverage [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > your insured maximum. And if they don't, you're bankrupt either way. > The extra coverage gains you nothing and costs you extra in premiums. FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and home coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large assets to protect. Floyd > FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and home > coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large assets > to protect. For most people, $1MM of smooth liability coverage is about as much as they can get. And even if you killed someone, the *actual* damages will seldom go beyond that. You probably can't buy enough coverage to protect you against potential sky-is-the-limit pain and suffering/punitive damages. >> FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and home >> coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large assets [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >they can get. And even if you killed someone, the *actual* damages >will seldom go beyond that. Killing someone is relatively cheap; your insurance company settles the wrongful-death suit and that's that. It's crippling someone which is expensive. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and home > >> coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large assets [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wrongful-death suit and that's that. It's crippling someone which is > expensive. Even then, what are the *actual* damages in a case where someone is crippled? Look at the Schiavo case (not to discuss the merits of feeding tubes).. Her husband got a damage award from the doctors that he blamed for her condition. The award was calculated to cover her care expenses for the rest of her life. I think it was about a million bucks and she was a gork. I was discussing with someone recently an award to a young girl that lost 3 fingers in an escalator accident. She got $15M. The dicussion was that perhaps a million of that could be actual damages (the cost of care, and other *actual* future losses that could be proved at the time of the award). Punitive damages and pain-and-suffering are unpredictable. When you kill someone, the actual victim is not in court. When you cripple someone, then the jury gets to see some pathetic victim and awards go ballistic. Most people could not get coverage for that possibility. >> >> FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and >home [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Even then, what are the *actual* damages in a case where someone is >crippled? Look at the Schiavo case (not to discuss the merits of Depends on whether you get to figure in lost income. >Punitive damages and pain-and-suffering are unpredictable. When you >kill someone, the actual victim is not in court. When you cripple >someone, then the jury gets to see some pathetic victim and awards go >ballistic. Most people could not get coverage for that possibility. Exactly. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >Punitive damages and pain-and-suffering are unpredictable. When you >kill someone, the actual victim is not in court. Why not? Do they fet some sort of special treatment? They should be required to be in court. > >Punitive damages and pain-and-suffering are unpredictable. When you > >kill someone, the actual victim is not in court. > > Why not? Do they fet some sort of special treatment? They should be > required to be in court. I guess we have enough underemployed taxidermists to make this work. Could the heirs choose how the deceased is mounted? Costume? Maybe a 'Chatty Kathy' string that you pull to get random quotes... "Damn, doesn't that idiot have any brakeAAAAGGGGHHHHHHH!" or "Where's the remote?" etc. SignatureCheers, Bev ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo "Few skills are so well rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims." --Thomas Sowell >FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and home >coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large assets >to protect. No way. I have a million dollar blanket that costs me less than $50 a year. >>FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and home >>coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large assets >>to protect. > >No way. I have a million dollar blanket that costs me less than $50 a >year. Is that what you pay to have it dry cleaned? Steven O <null@null.com> wrote in message news:q2lg615bps5a30r85pd6b4reuem7g7d2st@4ax.com... > First of all, I'm not sure if it is entirely fair of me to single out GEICO. > What I just experienced may be endemic to the entire insurance industy. That Freud fella is pissing himself laughing for some reason... > Still, I am getting the shaft from GEICO, and part > of what I want to ask is whether what I experienced > does, in fact, occur with other insurance companies. > Basically, after nearly 30 years of driving, I had my first real accident. > Totally not my fault, I was stopped at a light, and the guy behind me > must have been distracted -- he simply slammed into me doing about > 20 miles an hour. That forced me into the car in front of me. > Fortunately, I am basically fine (at least so far, but we'll > see if my neck and back are still sore in two weeks). You didnt have the headrest up high enough. > However, the rear and front bumpers of my car were messed up pretty good. The > body was scrunched, just slightly. Now, several issues have come up with > GEICO: > 1. I have an older car (about 10 years old), and the book value is > (according to GEICO) about $2000. GEICO also estimates the cost [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > even though in fact the car still runs well and could probably go for > another five or ten years. (I maintain the car well.) > So, First Question: Does this happen with other insurance > companies, that they will not pay for repairs if the estimated > repair costs are more than than th |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message