Car Forum / Nissan / Nissan Maxima / May 2004
Unthinkable happened yesterday..:(
|
|
Thread rating:  |
BI - 24 Apr 2004 17:11 GMT I was driving down the road in my '02 Maxima, was in the left lane and was preparing to make a left turn (which was just after gas station). A lady comes stairght out of the gas station and hits me on the left side. Half of my left passenger door is messed up. I called up 911, took photos of the accident, exchanged information and after the formalities were completed, officer sent me on my way. While leaving I saw that officer was talking to the lady and gave her a yellow peice of paper(I don't know what that means).
I called up my insurance company (GEICO) and they told me I have two options, either go through them and pay my collision deductable ($500) and get everything fixed up. They also told me that as it was not my fault my premium will not go up (which I doubt). The other option they told me is that, I can call other persons insurance company (State Farm) and ask them to pay for all the collision damage repairs and rental car expenses.
I will get my police report today evening and then I am going to call their state farm agent. I have been associated with this group since I brought my '02 Maxima (in Dec'01) and personally beleive that I can get real and truthful adivce from you all. I would greatly appreciate if anyone of you can give me any advice or suggestions on how to go about my situation. I have been browsing the Internet on how to deal with these so called "adjusters" and frankly am little bit concerned about how to deal with these guys with out being ripped off or get a cheap fix for my baby. My accident took place in Charlottesville, Virginia. And I am resident of Virginia.
thank you all in advance and sorry for such a long post, BI
CW - 25 Apr 2004 02:05 GMT Definitely go through their insurance first. If the adjuster is unreasonable or difficult, you can always go through your own. When dealing with the adjuster, just be aware that you are entitled to a rental car comparable to your maxima. Do NOT settle for a neon or kia. You should also be able to pick which autobody shop you go to although they may make you get at least two estimates. I would be leery of "insurer recommended" autobody shops as they often have agreements to do the least-expensive work, although the insurance company may offer you an appealing multi-year warranty. Depending on the damage, your best bet may be to get a whole door (even if from a salvage yard). Do not let them bondo large damage. It'll look like crap after just a few years. Make sure they do a good job with the paint. It should match and the surface should feel slick and smooth. Shops sometimes like to make shortcuts on the paint job.
Your car will never be the same, unfortunately. Your job is to ensure that the work they do will last a good long time since your car is so new. Hopefully you can find a good autobody shop near you. Most, IMHO, do very poor work.
CW
Steve T - 25 Apr 2004 07:09 GMT > Your car will never be the same, unfortunately. Your job is to ensure > that the work they do will last a good long time since your car is so > new. Hopefully you can find a good autobody shop near you. Most, > IMHO, do very poor work. There's a good reason for this, the insurance companies won't pay what it takes to correctly fix a car and haven't for years. Anyone that was any good at doing bodywork stopped doing crash repairs a long time ago and went into restoration work. The same thing is going to happen with health care if it hasn't already!
One thing they have been doing is: some insurance companies are buying a couple of body shops in an area, doing work at a loss so they can claim "so and so is at ___ dollars an hour" to set the "prevailing rate" artificially low. Then they refuse to pay any more than that to anyone! Gotta wonder how that can be legal but it is, just as they can get together and "price fix" their rates which is illegal in any bussiness besides the insurance bussiness. It's gotten out of hand but at this point they have too much control in the Gov to do much about it.
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
David Geesaman - 26 Apr 2004 13:39 GMT > There's a good reason for this, the insurance companies won't pay what it > takes to correctly fix a car and haven't for years. Anyone that was any [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > bussiness. It's gotten out of hand but at this point they have too much > control in the Gov to do much about it. Any advice on how to detect if this is happening, and what may be done about it?
Dave
Steve T - 27 Apr 2004 01:36 GMT > "Steve T" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> One thing they have been doing is: some insurance companies are buying a >> couple of body shops in an area, doing work at a loss so they can claim > "so >> and so is at ___ dollars an hour" to set the "prevailing rate" > artificially >> low. Then they refuse to pay any more than that to anyone!
> Any advice on how to detect if this is happening, and what may be done > about it? As far as them "price fixing"? They -are- doing it all over the country and our Gov has passed laws that makes it legal for the insurance companies (but no other industry) to do this! Trying to change this is like fighting tort law. As long as these groups "donate" money to Gov officials, they can get any laws they need passed.
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
Richard Tomkins - 25 Apr 2004 02:05 GMT Here in Canada, specifically the Province of Ontario, the insurance industry got regulated to iron out these issues. In a case such as yours, I go to my preferred repair place (Delaer does excellent work and uses origianl parts) and I rent a car. My insurance company covers the costs and then bills the other company for the expenditure. I don't pay a thing, unless I caused the accident.
However, the insurance costs go up if you have a number of accidents, regardless on whether or not I caused them, because they then believe that I live or drive in a high risk area.
I am surprised that for the amount of money you pay that the isurance company doesn't handle the little petty deatils for you, like the deductible and rental. That should be part of the service.
rtt
Steve T - 25 Apr 2004 06:59 GMT > I will get my police report today evening and then I am going to > call their state farm agent. I have been associated with this group [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > my baby. My accident took place in Charlottesville, Virginia. And I am > resident of Virginia. First find the body shop YOU want the car fixed at. Don't bother with estimates from shops yet, call their insurance company and they'll have an adjuster look at the car. They'll write an estimate which will probably be about half the real damage (they hope you'll cash the check which ends their liability!). Then they will attempt to steer you to one of their "preferred" shops. Read this as someone who will do cheap work for what they say they will pay, panel paint the car etc. If the insurance company won't pay enough, they will cut whatever corners they have to to meet the price to remain a "preferred" shop. Obviously we aren't a "preferred" shop anymore because we won't play those games and neither are any of the good body shops.
Once you take the car to a good shop, they will have to make suppliments, reinspections, argue with adjusters etc etc. It's become a nightmare trying to do repairs correctly but it's the only way to get a quality repair.
You -DO NOT- have to use their "preferred" shops but yes they will make you jump through a bunch of hoops to use another shop. Also DEMAND only new nissan parts, none of their LKQ (like kind and quality) crap parts they will want to use. You are in the drivers seat because it's THEIR insured fault, if it was your fault it would be worse. These companies have be sued enough times now that they -WILL- do the right thing if they realize they can't push you around. Threaten to report them to the insurance commisioner if they start acting stupid -at all- about this! It seems to be the only thing they understand.
I'd also DEMAND lost value as they are going to sell the information to the reseller databases that this car has been wrecked, so even if it is repaired perfectly, it's lost value because they sold your personal information! It could be as much as several thousand dollars! I can't believe it's legal for them to make money at your expense this way, but it is so you need to get paid for this as well. You will probably have to go to a dealer to find out the trade-in/resale value before and after the wreck to determine how much lost value you need to ask for.
In another words, if you don't want to get screwed like 99% of people do, you're going to have to fight with them so get ready! It's gotten so bad we don't like even doing insurance repairs anymore and most of the bodywork/paint we do now is restoration work. Good luck!
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
CW - 25 Apr 2004 19:19 GMT Very interesting info. Thanks.
CW
>I'd also DEMAND lost value as they are going to sell the information to the >reseller databases that this car has been wrecked, so even if it is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >don't like even doing insurance repairs anymore and most of the >bodywork/paint we do now is restoration work. Good luck! BuddyWh - 27 Apr 2004 01:23 GMT >I'd also DEMAND lost value as they are going to sell the information to the >reseller databases that this car has been wrecked, so even if it is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >to a dealer to find out the trade-in/resale value before and after the >wreck to determine how much lost value you need to ask for. Hold on now... surely you're not advocating LYING on resale! Fact is... it was WRECKED, that is the truth and should be disclosed. It is FAIR and something consumers should expect a reputable dealer to tell them.
How well do speedometer disclosure laws set with you... not to mention salvage title disclosures. If the repair is good enough, it can be assessed and given appropriate value, as can the maintenance program behind a 150K mile car in outwardly good condition.
I'd really prefer to take my business to a place where I can trust them to tell me everything about the car I buy.... and the work they do. With posts like that, you'd be well advised to to remove the atlanta racing line at bottom.
BuddyWh
Steve T - 27 Apr 2004 01:52 GMT >>I'd also DEMAND lost value as they are going to sell the information to >>the reseller databases that this car has been wrecked, so even if it is >>repaired perfectly, it's lost value because they sold your personal >>information!
> Hold on now... surely you're not advocating LYING on resale! Where did I say that?
> If the repair is good enough, it can be > assessed and given appropriate value, In the real world that isn't the case. Go trade in a car that has one of these insurance records on it and see how much value they take off even if there is nothing that can be seen i.e. it was repaired correctly. Before these records were SOLD, you could tell the dealer it had a wrecked fender and was fixed and they wouldn't care if it was done right. Now they WILL devalue the car thousands of dollars and it doesn't matter how well it was fixed. People should be paid for this lost value as part of the insurance settlement since the insurance company is the cause of the lost value.
> I'd really prefer to take my business to a place where I can trust > them to tell me everything about the car I buy.... and the work they > do. With posts like that, you'd be well advised to to remove the > atlanta racing line at bottom. Feel free to go anywhere you like or read negativity into my post if you want. I don't think the insurance companies should sell this information if they -aren't willing to pay the customer the lost value- that selling this information is going to cost the owner of the car. My point was to -get paid- for this devaluation, not that people should lie about the car being damaged.
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
BuddyWh - 27 Apr 2004 04:10 GMT >>>I'd also DEMAND lost value as they are going to sell the information to >>>the reseller databases that this car has been wrecked, so even if it is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >fixed. People should be paid for this lost value as part of the insurance >settlement since the insurance company is the cause of the lost value. That is a false premise: the insurance company is not the cause of the lost value, the WRECK is the cause of the lost value. The insurance company just made that fact be known.. and rightly so!
You appear, very strongly, to advocate they NOT be disclosing to an agency that makes that knowledge publicly available. That fosters a system where dealers can, and will, easily perpetrate the lie. Justify it as you want, but enabling others to lie, and sharing in the profits of it, also makes you share in the lie itself. At the very least, it makes you an advocate of their ability to do so.
At best it is a sign of very poor ethics. Surely you can imagine why they were willing to only mark it down slightly before? Perhaps because they knew they could retail it at full value? never telling John Q about the wreck? Now, though, John Q has access to some information (just like the odometer disclosure... and salvage title disclosure...)
>> I'd really prefer to take my business to a place where I can trust >> them to tell me everything about the car I buy.... and the work they [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >paid- for this devaluation, not that people should lie about the car being >damaged. Me read negatively?? don't write negatively... maybe proof your rants before posting.
It may be unfortunate, but the wrecked auto is worth less if the market makes it so. If you just want them to reimburse that lost value... I imagine that's as hard to prove as trying to get the true worth of a well maintained auto that gets totaled (or when selling it outright for that matter.) It just ain't gonna happen very easily simply because it is very hard to prove something that is basically theoretical.
Bottom line is... don't get in wrecks.
One thing we do agree on.... they shouldn't be selling it. They should be obligated to report it, without remuneration (just like the odometer and salvage title).
BuddyWh
Steve T - 27 Apr 2004 07:49 GMT > You appear, very strongly, to advocate they NOT be disclosing to an > agency that makes that knowledge publicly available. One last time, what I'm advocating is the insurance company should pay people for the lost value due to the wreck, especially since the insurance companies are capitalizing on this information since they are -selling it-. Many people don't realize how much this will cost them at trade-in time.
Maybe you can't understand when I said :"I don't think the insurance companies should sell this information if they -aren't willing to pay the customer the lost value- that selling this information is going to cost the owner of the car. My point was to -get paid- for this devaluation, not that people should lie about the car being damaged."
You think the insurance company is concerned about the buyer of the car later and this is why they sell this information? They see this as a way to increase their profits or they would give the information away for free!
> At best it is a sign of very poor ethics. ??? Because I recomend people try to recover this lost value at the time of the accedent, especially when if wasn't their fault? Or do you think they should take it on the chin because someone ran into their car to save the insurance company some money?
>Bottom line is... don't get in wrecks. Yea that helps when someone runs into them! Did you read the OP's post? They were sitting still and someone drove into the side of their car. So you believe they should just eat the lost value due to someone else's negligence so as not to burden the insurance company?
> Me read negatively?? don't write negatively... maybe proof your rants > before posting. Obviously you've got a bee in your bonnet about something, maybe you're still upset about that "antiseize on sparkplugs" thread or some other thread where you were proven wrong? Get over it! :-)
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
filesiteguy - 28 Apr 2004 20:15 GMT >> You appear, very strongly, to advocate they NOT be disclosing to an >> agency that makes that knowledge publicly available. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >later and this is why they sell this information? They see this as a way to >increase their profits or they would give the information away for free! Being in this situation right now, I agree with Steve here. DV is paid by the insurance company because I won't get the full value on resell. I don't think anybody's advocating lying about the fact that the car was in an accident. Besides, CARFAX and the like have that information nowdays.
>>Bottom line is... don't get in wrecks. > >Yea that helps when someone runs into them! Did you read the OP's post? They >were sitting still and someone drove into the side of their car. So you >believe they should just eat the lost value due to someone else's >negligence so as not to burden the insurance company? I have some co-workers that tried that. They even kept their cars (classic '40's and '50s cars) in the garages.
When the fires came through, though, couldn't help the cars.
As for my accident, my wife was at a stoplight behind another car when ours got rammed at 47MPH.
Steve T - 29 Apr 2004 00:26 GMT >>> You appear, very strongly, to advocate they NOT be disclosing to an >>> agency that makes that knowledge publicly available. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>it-. Many people don't realize how much this will cost them at trade-in >>time.
> Being in this situation right now, I agree with Steve here. DV is paid > by the insurance company because I won't get the full value on resell. > I don't think anybody's advocating lying about the fact that the car > was in an accident. Besides, CARFAX and the like have that information > nowdays. Where do you think Carfax gets their information? <g> And you think they get it for free? Of course not and why I think the insurance companies should use the money they get for selling this information to help pay for the DV the accedent will cause.
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
BuddyWh - 30 Apr 2004 11:40 GMT >Where do you think Carfax gets their information? <g> And you think they get >it for free? Of course not and why I think the insurance companies should >use the money they get for selling this information to help pay for the DV >the accedent will cause. How much revenue do you think that information generate?
And... how do you fairly determine the lost value in a specific situation?
BuddyWh
filesiteguy - 30 Apr 2004 14:00 GMT >>Where do you think Carfax gets their information? <g> And you think they get >>it for free? Of course not and why I think the insurance companies should [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >BuddyWh Dunno about the first question. I went to a website which caluclated the value.
There's a generic loss value calculation out there. I don't remember exactly, but it was something like 10% of the repair total. You'd have to look it up.
Some good references I found were here:
http://info.insure.com/auto/collision/diminishedvalue.html
and here:
http://www.injurylaworegon.com/definition_diminished_%20value.htm
http://www.insure.com/states/ga/auto/statefarm1201
and I just found this: http://www.statefarmsucks.com/
This is from my notes... Diminished value is defined as the selling price differential, in a retail environment, of one vehicle that has been damaged and repaired, as compared to an identical vehicle that has never been damaged. There are two types of diminished value, inherent diminished value, which refers only to the fact that the vehicle has sustained collision damage, and repair- related diminished value, which refers to non industry repairs or faulty workmanship that will require corrective action.
Inherent diminished value is the result of a prospective buyer's perception that a damaged and repaired vehicle is not as valuable as another vehicle of same year, make and model that has never been damaged. This form of diminished value value exists even if the vehicle has been completely restored to industry standards and meets all manufacturer specifications. This loss of value results from the perception that the vehicle can never regain its pre-loss value, regardless of the quality of the repair.
Repair- related diminished value is the result of a non-industry or faulty repair on the part of the repairer. Examples of this are: mismatched paint, misaligned body panels, undressed welds or use of parts that are not supplied by the original manufacturer. Also, repairs not performed in accordance with industry standards, or repairs that may, in any way, compromise the vehicle warranty, would also be considered as repair- related diminished value. In order to determine repair related diminished value, a physical inspection of the vehicle would be required.
Diminished value in general is highly subjective and can only be accurately determined by the actual sale of the vehicle in a retail market as compared to the sale price of an identical vehicle in the same market area. If the repaired vehicle is new, and sold immediately after repairs are completed, loss of value could be quite substantial. However, if the same vehicle is sold several years later, the loss of value would most likely be nil.
BuddyWh - 01 May 2004 03:48 GMT >Diminished value in general is highly subjective and can only be >accurately determined by the actual sale of the vehicle in a retail [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >substantial. However, if the same vehicle is sold several years >later, the loss of value would most likely be nil. Very interesting... but especially this part... the subjective and uncertain nature.
Consider this hypothetical situation... a clever used car buyer notes paint finishing and undecarriage damage indicative of a repaired wreck. Using this as leverage, he gets an exellent price on the used car... well below blue book retail. A boon resulting just as much from his or her mechanical inclination and intuition as bargaining skills.
Now, of course, everyone can have access to this same kind of information, via CarFax et. al., You don't have to be a clever mechanicaly inclined buyer to find the information you could use to aid in bargaining.
To continue the hypothetical situation... if that smart buyer soon gets in an accident, he rightly should demand full blue book, quite possibly well above his actual purchase price. If the insurance company (collectively speaking) had paid the original owner for diminished value they essentialy could be paying it again. hmmm... something seems wrong here.
On the whole... as a consumer... I like the situation as it is. I tend to think we benefit more, through both reduced premiums as well as enhanced bargaining power, by haveing as much information available as possible, and with no dimished value payment.
BuddyWh
Steve T - 01 May 2004 18:23 GMT >>Diminished value in general is highly subjective and can only be >>accurately determined by the actual sale of the vehicle in a retail [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > diminished value they essentialy could be paying it again. hmmm... > something seems wrong here. No because there is a record of the accedent. The whole point was... -because- they have these records and use them against the consumers, the consumer should be paid for their lost. The second own would suffer no DV since the car already has the "wreck record" so no DV would be paid, nor would the car bring as much on being totaled as a car that had never been wrecked. And yes they use these record to pay less for a totaled car payoff as well "Well the car was wrecked once before so it's value is.....", heard that from them before as well.
No one ever said these record are bad or that no one should tell a perspective buy that a car was in a wreck. What is being said is: If the insurance companies are going to sell this information and make it publicly avalible, they should pay the DV that it causes. It's not that complex or some kind of "ethical" question, it's just a fact. The ONLY person who is getting screwed is the owner of the car and the insurance company isn't going to lose twice paying for DV.
BTW why are you so concerned about the insurance company saving money?
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
filesiteguy - 02 May 2004 04:55 GMT >>>Diminished value in general is highly subjective and can only be >>>accurately determined by the actual sale of the vehicle in a retail [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >BTW why are you so concerned about the insurance company saving money? Yeah, I now own a "previously wrecked" Maxima. Yes, it is fixed. It "should" work as before and perform as before in any subsequent accidents, but it will always be tagged as "accident" material.
Therefore, though, my wife got some pune personal damage ($1500), we should get compensation for the car.
BuddyWh - 02 May 2004 16:10 GMT >Yeah, I now own a "previously wrecked" Maxima. Yes, it is fixed. It >"should" work as before and perform as before in any subsequent >accidents, but it will always be tagged as "accident" material. > >Therefore, though, my wife got some pune personal damage ($1500), we >should get compensation for the car. A puny $1500?? by personal damage... do you mean injury??
Please explain how compensation for the car (I'm assuming for DV) would make up for the pay out you accepted for your wife's injuries?
Why did you accept the $1500? you didn't need to. The insurance would still be liable years from now when latent injuries are likely to show themselves... and the therapy will be much more than $1500.
BuddyWh
BuddyWh - 02 May 2004 15:45 GMT >>>Diminished value in general is highly subjective and can only be >>>accurately determined by the actual sale of the vehicle in a retail [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >BTW why are you so concerned about the insurance company saving money? Very simple... if jacks up my premium! Insurance co's don't pay out from a vacuum, they pay from their rate pool. If you have a problem with the profits insurance companies make in your state then attack it through your state's insurance regulatory process.
It is so subjective and it's speculative nature makes it far more complex than it appears. In short... the owner is not getting screwed unless they sell the car and realize a loss because of it. Absent that it is purely theoretical.
Very simply, if the owner never sells the car they never realize a loss! If they sell the car years down the road, the DV is much less than if they sold it immediately. .
Not only that, but no matter how much you see it otherwise it is not a given that buyers will demand, nor sellers need give, consideration. At the best (worst?) insurance companies should only be on the hook for actual, realized losses where the seller demonstrates good fiduciary responsibility in the sale.
Don't mix this issue with "the repair can never be as good as the original manufacture". That is decidedly different... many times true. But, while I don't suggest accepting a substandard repair... what truely is good enough? It's important to me that some (many??) insurance companies guarantee repairs for the life of the auto if you take it to one of their preferred shops. If a repaired panel starts rusting... or a replaced window leaks... or a wreck-damaged tie rod loosens at 20 years / 200K miles, take it back to the insurance company and demand re-repair! That's far better than you are likely to get from most any auto manufacturer and should be considered to add enough value for the owner to cancel any residual DV at the same mileage/years.
Lastly... how does it alter the situation if the insurance co's _gave_ this information away? This touches on a whole other issue surrounding privacy.
Sounds to me like there are many issues that you have all bundled together here. Why are you so worried about dinging insurance companies?
BuddyWh
Steve T - 03 May 2004 06:23 GMT > On Sat, 01 May 2004 13:23:28 -0400, Steve T <fotocord@yahoo.com>
>>BTW why are you so concerned about the insurance company saving money? > > Very simple... if jacks up my premium! Insurance co's don't pay out > from a vacuum, they pay from their rate pool. If you have a problem > with the profits insurance companies make in your state then attack it > through your state's insurance regulatory process. Oh yea -they- are going to stop them from making to much money....
> Lastly... how does it alter the situation if the insurance co's _gave_ > this information away? But they don't _give_ it away. They are making money off this yet refuse to pay back what this takes away from the consumer.
> This touches on a whole other issue > surrounding privacy. Exactly. I like how they now use people's credit history (or even lack thereof) as a basis for upping their auto rates! I own my house outright, don't NEED to borrow any money and haven't done so in 10 or so years. I have a very healthy investment porfolio and am basically now on the end where -I- am the one leanding other people money. Yet 2 years ago they doubled my rates because they said I had no credit history so I'm now considered a -high risk driver-! I have no tickets, no wrecks in 20 years yet get hit with this so now I HAVE to go out and borrow money/pay it back to get the insurance company off my back. It will take several years to get this sorted out and in the mean time it's costing me over $1000 a year in premium hikes!
They have WAY too much control of people's personal information for something we are required by law to have. They also have no interest in listening to anything when it is costing thre consumer money out of their pockets. It's INSANE that my lack of credit history doubles my car insurance (been with this same company for 15 years and they never cared before, now they ALL do!) yet they don't care if someone talks on a car phone while they are driving, which IS causing accedents!
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
Steve T - 01 May 2004 01:06 GMT >>Where do you think Carfax gets their information? <g> And you think they >>get it for free? Of course not and why I think the insurance companies >>should use the money they get for selling this information to help pay for >>the DV the accident will cause. > > How much revenue do you think that information generate? Enough for companies like Carfax to exist. $1 a car per wreck reported would generate quite a bit of income and my guess is it's a lot more than that. The revenue generated by the used car sales people is substantial. They pay -a lot- less for cars they can find a wreck report on and I doubt very seriously they pass this found report on when they sell the car at retail. This is the reason there is any interest in this information to start with. It's only a very small percentage of retail used car buyers that will research this type information themselves.
> And... how do you fairly determine the lost value in a specific > situation? Fair to whom? You'd think if the insurance companies where wanting to be fair, they'd have this figured out for their PAYING customers wouldn't ya?
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
filesiteguy - 28 Apr 2004 20:11 GMT >> I will get my police report today evening and then I am going to <snip>
>jump through a bunch of hoops to use another shop. Also DEMAND only new >nissan parts, none of their LKQ (like kind and quality) crap parts they >will want to use. You are in the drivers seat because it's THEIR insured >fault, if it was your fault it would be worse. These companies have be sued Oh, yes, In my post I forgot to mention the genuine Nissan parts. I insisted on this (with the body shop's help) and the insurance company (State Farm) aquiesed. It only delayed my repair by two weeks to wait for the parts to be shipped from Japan.
>I'd also DEMAND lost value as they are going to sell the information to the >reseller databases that this car has been wrecked, so even if it is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >to a dealer to find out the trade-in/resale value before and after the >wreck to determine how much lost value you need to ask for. Since you're working with State Farm, they WILL balk at the diminished value aspect. (They did balk at my claim - $3000 - for DV.) Here's a link to THIER own site discussing diminished value. Do a google search and you will find plenty of companies willing to perform a DV inspection.
K
http://www.statefarm.com/media/dimvalue.htm
M - 25 Apr 2004 07:43 GMT > I was driving down the road in my '02 Maxima, was in the left lane and > was preparing to make a left turn (which was just after gas station). [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > thank you all in advance and sorry for such a long post, > BI I'll just add to all the good advice you have gotten, one other not so nice aspect of this event (at least here in California). I had the misfortunate to have a now bankrupt (and gone) major department store replace a blown Michelin on my '89 Maxima. They apparently twisted it changing the tire. Buckled the roof! I wasn't there but they either dropped it or who knows what. Nightmare.
Anyway, here in California, when a car has major damage, one is supposed to disclose that to a buyer. And I had damage...the freakin' frame (unit) had to be crunched back into alignment. Now, insurance paid for all this stuff and the repairs looked fine but I really couldn't sell the car in good conscience without disclosing. Frankly, I believe fair would have been to total (or near total the thing). So, I am not sure of the cure but beware of any need to disclose significant damages.
In my case, I gave the car to my sister (she needed one), in 1995. She and her hubby drove it for 8 years. Got in a head-on with a Buick at low speed, had it fixed. A daughter rear-ended someone with it, had it fixed. Now, nearing 300K miles, one of my sister's kids and her hubby use it as daily driver. So, the result wasn't so sad but it could have been a real pocketbook slammer.
M
habibe99 - 25 Apr 2004 23:23 GMT what a sad story..... I was in a similiar suitation with my Saturn, to make a long story short, it was a minor incident when someone took a turn out of a parking lot a little too shart and clipped the front left part of my car, scratching it pretty bad. called my insurance and they wanted me to pay a deductable, I hung up on them and called the other guys insurance (Geico) they sent an adjuster out in a week or so, and I got 1400 bucks for what was basically paint scratches, had a friend buff out most of them, and just lived with the 1 bigger scratch for a few months and sold the car. it worked out pretty good -Slick Nick
BI - 26 Apr 2004 21:05 GMT Thank you all for your valubale advice(s). Here is the current status, I got in touch with the State Farm agent (other persons insurance company) and they took my information and told me that someone from their claims department will contact me with regard to fixing my car.
In the meanwhile I went to my Nissan Dealer Collision Center (Roanoke, VA) and they have given me an estimate of about $1500 (apparently these guys are certified estimaters for State Farm) and will take approximately 5 days to repair. They told me that the entire rear door needs to be replaced, the Quarter Pro needs to be repainted and other minor things to be fixed. Also, can anyone guide me in how to claim (and calculate) diminished value for my car due to the accident, especially when it is the other persons fault.
thank you all for your valuable advice and time. I will keep you all updated, BI
Steve T - 27 Apr 2004 02:00 GMT > Thank you all for your valubale advice(s). Here is the current status, > I got in touch with the State Farm agent (other persons insurance [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > needs to be replaced, the Quarter Pro needs to be repainted and other > minor things to be fixed. Find out if they are going to panel paint it or blend onto the adjacent panels. No one can panel paint a car perfectly and you will see the color difference if they do this. Don't let them tell you they can't be responsible for the rest of the paint being "faded", that's BS. The paint all matched before the wreck and it should afterwards, the key words are "pre-accedent condition" and it's in any insurance policy I've ever read.
> Also, can anyone guide me in how to claim > (and calculate) diminished value for my car due to the accident, > especially when it is the other persons fault. You might have to go around like you are wanting to buy a car and trade this one in, find some value then tell them it's going to show up as having a $1500 wreck and see what they say. Might be hard to get a honest answer out of them but I know several people who ended up getting 10-15% less on trade in once this sort of report showed up in the car's history.
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
filesiteguy - 28 Apr 2004 20:05 GMT >I was driving down the road in my '02 Maxima, was in the left lane and >was preparing to make a left turn (which was just after gas station). [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >thank you all in advance and sorry for such a long post, >BI Glad to hear you're not hurt.
One thing to check out as well is diminished value compensation. You can find websites which will appraise your car's diminished value. I'm still fighing with State Farm on what they should pay me for my car's diminished value.
By the way, I took my '98 to a shop which not only specialized in accident body work, but was well known in the resto-mod world of classic cars. I figured that they get paid to do work for people who really care about their classics, so they must be good.
Turns out, I've been quite happy since getting the car back. I really don't notice any issues. It did take three months to get my car back after my wife's accident in '02, but the rental car did agree to let me drive a Park Avenue Ultra while I was waiting.
HTH
twaugh5 - 30 Apr 2004 00:09 GMT > I was driving down the road in my '02 Maxima, was in the left lane and > was preparing to make a left turn (which was just after gas station). [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > appreciate if anyone of you can give me any advice or suggestions on > how to go about my situation. I had an experience with State Farm a few years back -- wreck was the other driver's fault -- which was quite unpleasant. In all it took many phone calls and finally mentioning the problem to an executive with State Farm who attended our church before they agreed to take car of the accident. In all, it was over a month before they gave the OK for a repair. I hope you have better luck.
> I have been browsing the Internet on how to deal with these so > called "adjusters" and frankly am little bit concerned about how to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > thank you all in advance and sorry for such a long post, > BI Steve T - 30 Apr 2004 03:41 GMT > "BI" <bhai@vt.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it was over a month before they gave the OK for a repair. I hope you have > better luck. And what kills me is they will drag their feet for a month but once they decide to honor their end of the deal, they bitch at the body shop if the actual work takes a day over what they think it should and start asking the body shop to pay the rental car etc... We've waited 2 weeks for an adjuster to come out and approve extra work, then complain that it takes 3 days to finish the car up!
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
BI - 30 Apr 2004 15:33 GMT Hi guys,
Thank you all providing very valuable insights. Finally after a week long phone calls, the claims department of State Farm (SF) called yesterday and asked me where I want to get my car fixed. I told them that I want to get it fixed at my Nissan Dealer Collision Center (Roanoke,VA). Because this is a nissan collision center, I am hoping paint will match when compared to others, please correct me if I am wrong. SF representative told me that the shop I want to get it fixed is SF approved "Service First" centers, so SF will send the cheque directly to the collision center after the repair is done. The SF representative also told me that I will be provided a rental car for the period where my car is in the shop (5 days as per the collision center estimater). As per all your suggestions, I asked the SF rep. how do I claim the diminished value of my car. She told me that, it can only be done once the car is repaired.
Based on what I read on this news group and on Internet, once they pay for the repairs the Insurance companies are no longer obligated to payme anything. Legally the case is closed, right?? If this is correct, then I should try to fight with the SF people before I get my repaired, right? What do you all suggest? I asked couple of my friends but I have got conflicting answers and more over, all of them don't completely understand what diminished value of the car mean.
thanks a lot guys, really appreciate all your suggestions and helpful tips, BI
Steve T - 01 May 2004 00:57 GMT > Hi guys, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > paint will match when compared to others, please correct me if I am > wrong. They don't have access to 'special paint' and aren't going to be using 'nissan' brand paint anyway, I don't think nissan even has paint if you wanted to buy it other than touchup paint. I'll be shocked if they match the paint perfect, make -sure- you are happy with the match. If not complain and don't accept this when they try to pull the "your old paint is faded" BS. The car is supposed to be put back into 'pre-accedent condition' and the paint matched before the wreck.
> Based on what I read on this news group and on Internet, once they > pay for the repairs the Insurance companies are no longer obligated to > payme anything. Legally the case is closed, right?? I know if they write a check for the damage and you cash it, it's a done deal. I'm not sure if that is the case here, sounds fishy to me they have to wait till it's repaired to deal with DV. I think they are hoping you will just go away and not press this issue as they are not happy about this DV crap they started!
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
BI - 01 May 2004 14:26 GMT > They don't have access to 'special paint' and aren't going to be using > 'nissan' brand paint anyway, I don't think nissan even has paint if you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > faded" BS. The car is supposed to be put back into 'pre-accedent condition' > and the paint matched before the wreck. The reason I am preferring Nissan is that I am hoping they will do a good job, if nothing else just to keep up their reputation. And more over I dont know any other auto body shop which does a good job.
> I know if they write a check for the damage and you cash it, it's a done > deal. I'm not sure if that is the case here, sounds fishy to me they have > to wait till it's repaired to deal with DV. I think they are hoping you > will just go away and not press this issue as they are not happy about this > DV crap they started! Well in my case I think that State Farm will not send me a check directly. As the collision center is State Farm's service first authorized shops, they will reimburse the shop directly (atleast for the repairs). I will call up the State farm guys once again and see if I can get the DV claim started off.
thanks a lot Steve for taking the time to write down all this valuable information. Really appreciate all your help, BI
Steve T - 01 May 2004 18:26 GMT >> They don't have access to 'special paint' and aren't going to be using >> 'nissan' brand paint anyway, I don't think nissan even has paint if you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > good job, if nothing else just to keep up their reputation. And more > over I dont know any other auto body shop which does a good job. Oh there is nothing wrong with using them, just check the paint match carefully when you pick the car up. Once you "accept" the car, it's harder to get anything done. If you refuse to accept the work, you stay in the rental car and the insurance company has more pressure on them. Trust me it's the insurance companie's idea to panel paint the car, the body shop would much rather blend to ajacent panels to get a good match.
> thanks a lot Steve for taking the time to write down all this valuable > information. Really appreciate all your help, > BI No problem, hope it works out!
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
BI - 03 May 2004 22:51 GMT Hi guys,
Just to give my status update, I called up State Farm (SF) claims department and enquired about how I can file for diminished value of my car. They put me through to another preson (I suppose she is an expert in dealing with DV cases). I explained her that due to the accident (not-my fault) my car has lost value and want to get paid for my lost value. She plainly stated that its SF's position that "in the state of Virginia, once the car is restored back to it pre-accident condition they dont pay any Diminished value". I tried to explain her that I have been to the car dealer and they have quoted me a lesser trade-in price (because my car was in an accident), but she bluntly repeated the same thing.
I don't know what to do, I know my car has certainly lost value due to the accident. And also based on all the discussion on this post, the car can never be restored to its pre-accident condition. I am planning on calling the Commissioner's office of Virginia Bureau of Insurance and see what he has to say about it. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
thanks alot for all your help and advice, BI
Steve T - 04 May 2004 00:59 GMT > Hi guys, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have quoted me a lesser trade-in price (because my car was in an > accident), but she bluntly repeated the same thing. Yep, they transfered you to the person they -pay- to deny claims...
> I don't know what to do, I know my car has certainly lost value due > to the accident. Yes it has. Especially when you see the paint doesn't match and they claim the rest of your car's paint has faded and it's not their fault etc etc.
> And also based on all the discussion on this post, > the car can never be restored to its pre-accident condition. I am > planning on calling the Commissioner's office of Virginia Bureau of > Insurance and see what he has to say about it. If that doesn't get you anywhere, take them to small claims court! I had to do this with a larger company once when they wouldn't do the right thing. Once they got the paperwork, they settled as they knew getting lawyers involved would cost more than what I was asking for.
 Signature Steve
http://www.atlantaracing.com
|
|
|