by Guest » Mon Jun 16, 2008 09:53 pm
Sorry in advance for long post.
My wife tapped the bumper of the car in front of her causing the other vehicle's bumper to angle down slightly and also cracked the paint. As I knew the damage was minor, I offered to settle w/o going through insurance. She got one quote at a very scary shop in a tough part of town for $850. (Replace and paint bumper on a 1999 Volvo S70.)
I had dealings with another Volvo shop on my side of Los Angeles and asked her to go there. She griped and moaned about taking her time for a second estimate, and I finally relented by offering her $50 for her time and trouble on a second quote.
Second quote came back much lower. We agreed that I would pay for the repairs directly, pay her for time and trouble and one day rental car. Well, she calls me last week and says she already got the car repaired and that she now wants $125 for time and trouble, $42 to replace a personalized license plate frame and the cost of the repair -- $570.53.
The big catch that she sprung on me today is that she won't sign a general release for me. She's crazy enough that I could see her wanting new tires in 6 weeks because of the 'accident'. Seriously, she's that bad.
So here's my dilemma. I don't want this going to my insurance company because I don't want to pay $3,000 in increased premiums for the next 3 years. I don't want this "speck" on my wife's record as an at-fault for the next three years in the event we have to switch insurance companies.
However, in talking with my insurance company, they said they my deductible would only apply for fixing damage to my car (there was none). So they would pay all her damages directly. They also said that if the damage was under $1,000, they won't increase the premium, but that it would record as an at-fault. I like the thought of having insurance pick up $740 in damage with no rate increase, but I'm having a hard time believing that is actually true.
Any thoughts or help would be greatly appreciated. I've insured with 21st Century in California. (Also, I don't think I'd have to file this with DMV if it went through insurance, but can someone help verify?)
Thanks so much!
My wife tapped the bumper of the car in front of her causing the other vehicle's bumper to angle down slightly and also cracked the paint. As I knew the damage was minor, I offered to settle w/o going through insurance. She got one quote at a very scary shop in a tough part of town for $850. (Replace and paint bumper on a 1999 Volvo S70.)
I had dealings with another Volvo shop on my side of Los Angeles and asked her to go there. She griped and moaned about taking her time for a second estimate, and I finally relented by offering her $50 for her time and trouble on a second quote.
Second quote came back much lower. We agreed that I would pay for the repairs directly, pay her for time and trouble and one day rental car. Well, she calls me last week and says she already got the car repaired and that she now wants $125 for time and trouble, $42 to replace a personalized license plate frame and the cost of the repair -- $570.53.
The big catch that she sprung on me today is that she won't sign a general release for me. She's crazy enough that I could see her wanting new tires in 6 weeks because of the 'accident'. Seriously, she's that bad.
So here's my dilemma. I don't want this going to my insurance company because I don't want to pay $3,000 in increased premiums for the next 3 years. I don't want this "speck" on my wife's record as an at-fault for the next three years in the event we have to switch insurance companies.
However, in talking with my insurance company, they said they my deductible would only apply for fixing damage to my car (there was none). So they would pay all her damages directly. They also said that if the damage was under $1,000, they won't increase the premium, but that it would record as an at-fault. I like the thought of having insurance pick up $740 in damage with no rate increase, but I'm having a hard time believing that is actually true.
Any thoughts or help would be greatly appreciated. I've insured with 21st Century in California. (Also, I don't think I'd have to file this with DMV if it went through insurance, but can someone help verify?)
Thanks so much!
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:11 am Post Subject:
It's very possible that your rates won't increase for a minor at fault claim. While there is no way to guarantee this, I think it's reasonable to believe your carrier in this information.
If they pay the claim, they will only pay for the repair cost plus appropriate car rental. You can always tell the person that she would then receive much less and see if she is then willing to sign a property damage release for the previously agreed amount. That is, if you still don't want to file the claim.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:06 pm Post Subject:
However, in talking with my insurance company, they said they my deductible would only apply for fixing damage to my car (there was none). So they would pay all her damages directly. They also said that if the damage was under $1,000, they won't increase the premium, but that it would record as an at-fault. I like the thought of having insurance pick up $740 in damage with no rate increase, but I'm having a hard time believing that is actually true.
Not to mention the fact that they may not pay anything at all since the damage is already repaired !! And 'if' they pay it she isn't going to get all of her ''time and trouble'' non-sense that you have agreed to pay...you might want to key her in on that! Maybe she will sign your release then...and if you do go thru your carrier please do not allow her to strong arm you into paying ANYTHING yourself...including this time and trouble of hers... :roll: I personally would tell her , "Look I've talked to my insurance company, this is the amount I agreed to pay you, and will still do so, but ONLY if you sign a release...if you don't want to fine...''I"" am not paying you a dime, and will file it with my carrier, I've already talked to them and they have told me they will inspect your vehicle to see EXACTLY what has been done, they will pay for that ONLY plus one days rental car AFTER you show them the paid receipt you have , and they will absolutely NOT pay you ANY time and trouble..In fact they won't pay you a cent, but will pay the shop. So which is it gonna' be?" And that's how I'd leave it with her....Let us know if we can be of further assistance, please do not give her a penney without a release signed...Also pop in and let us know how it goes....
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 02:26 pm Post Subject:
The carrier would (should) still pay the claimant, not the shop. They owe the claim to the vehicle owner as they suffered the loss. Whatever "deal" the claimant has with the shop is between them. Just a minor point.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 08:26 pm Post Subject:
The carrier would (should) still pay the claimant, not the shop. They owe the claim to the vehicle owner as they suffered the loss. Whatever "deal" the claimant has with the shop is between them. Just a minor point.
True...I'm just 'swermizing' that if I were the adjuster on this claim...and my insured admitted fault etc...I'd be looking that vehicle over mighty close to see EXACTLY what was done...and truthfully they 'could' deny the entire thing unless and until the clmt can prove these damages...I (if I were handling the claim) would request from the repairing shop an final bill (including invoices)...thus giving them the opportunity to supply me with their POA :wink: Sounds to me like this claimant is jerking the OP all over the place frankly. :xPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:51 pm Post Subject: So....
After pondering the decision yesterday afternoon, I called the claimant back and left VM that she could go ahead and file a claim. I said that if she wasn't going to sign a release that I wasn't going to work with her anymore.
She called me back about 2 hours later and says, "You know, I called the insurance company and they said they can't get me a check right away, you know, because I've already paid the damage, so why don't you just send over that legalese and let me see what it is all about." At this point, tired of being jerked left and right, I basically told her to bug off. I told her she hadn't done one thing we had agreed upon yet and that I was tired of playing her games and feeling threatened by her always saying she was going to call the insurance company.
So, in calling her bluff, she now wanted a release. Jeez.
My ins company called me this a.m. saying a claim had been filed and I re-played the entire story for them. They were very nice and said that I was correct to insist upon a release. It is now in the (hopefully) capable hands of 21st Century and, knock wood, I won't see a premium increase out of this.
I don't get the feeling that they'll jerk her around. She likely won't get the $125 "time and inconvenience" money, but the repair was done at a shop recommended by the ins co., so that part shouldn't be an issue for her.
Thanks for you feedback thus far!
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:04 pm Post Subject:
So, in calling her bluff, she now wanted a release. Jeez.
I knew it I knew it I knew it! :roll:She likely won't get the $125 "time and inconvenience" money,
I just about GAURANTEE that ! :wink: and frankly I think it serves her right...that was just OBNOXIOUS! I'm so glad you turned it in to your carrier...Please don't entertain any more conversations with this woman...Your adjuster can/will handle everything from here!Add your comment