by Guest » Wed May 13, 2009 06:09 am
I live in Georgia. My car was totaled in an accident almost two months ago. I filed with the at fault person's insurance company. They accepted liability two weeks after the accident and paid for a rental car until they made an offer for the total loss of our car. Then we started running into problems.
The offer for our car was, in my opinion, way too low. Lower than KBB, NADA, Edmunds, or any other similar car in the state. I asked for and received the CCC Valuescope report that they used to determine the value. The first thing I noticed was that they didn't include some significant options on our vehicle for comparison. Their offer also didn't include loss of use.
I sent a letter detailing the items missing from their settlement offer and provided my own comparables and estimation of the value of my claim. I also asked for loss of use for all of the time between the date of the accident and the present, excluding the days they provided a rental car. I based my loss of use figure on the cost of a rental car. Then my claim got put in the "ignore" stack. For three weeks I couldn't get any response at all about my claim.
When I finally called a supervisor, my adjuster called me back and told me they had added the missing options to my car and revised their offer. Their offer is still too low and she first said that the company didn't pay for loss of use. After a little more discussion, she told me I would need to talk to a different adjustor about the loss of use claim. I talked to the other adjustor and she offered $15 per day for loss of use for the period between the accident and the day they decided it was totaled, and nothing more.
I have a couple of problems with the offer. First, $15 per day for loss of use seems like such a random, low, number that it’s meaningless. The adjustor said “we pay $15 per day”. Why $15 per day? It seems like the best way to determine the value of using a car for a day is to look at daily rental prices. I couldn’t rent a bicycle for $15 per day in my city. I’ve seen other adjustors on this board mention $15 per day. Where does that come from? I’m pretty confident that if I sued the driver, I’d get more than $15 per day for loss of use and I’m even more confident that the insurance company would have to pay a lot more in legal fees to defend a suit than they would have to pay if they made a more reasonable offer. I don’t get the logic. Maybe someone here can help me understand, or better yet, help me figure out how to convince the adjustor that they should pay a more reasonable amount for my loss of use.
The second problem involves the length of time I should receive loss of use. Georgia statute states that any insurer, upon acceptance of liability, pursuant to any automobile liability or motor vehicle liability insurance policy, shall pay reasonable benefits for losses, including total losses, to a third party for loss of use of such motor vehicle. What are reasonable benefits? Who knows, but I think it would be reasonable for the company to pay loss of use from the date of the accident until the present, because their first offer wasn’t reasonable since it left out several items that inaccurately lowered the offer. To compound that “mistake”, the insurance company refused to respond to my phone calls, emails, and letters for three weeks after their inaccurate offer; leaving me without a car, without a rental car, without compensation for my car, and told me they wouldn’t pay for loss of use or other parts of my claim. Of course they feel like that’s no big deal and all they’ll pay is a few days at $15 per day.
Please help me understand how this should work.
The offer for our car was, in my opinion, way too low. Lower than KBB, NADA, Edmunds, or any other similar car in the state. I asked for and received the CCC Valuescope report that they used to determine the value. The first thing I noticed was that they didn't include some significant options on our vehicle for comparison. Their offer also didn't include loss of use.
I sent a letter detailing the items missing from their settlement offer and provided my own comparables and estimation of the value of my claim. I also asked for loss of use for all of the time between the date of the accident and the present, excluding the days they provided a rental car. I based my loss of use figure on the cost of a rental car. Then my claim got put in the "ignore" stack. For three weeks I couldn't get any response at all about my claim.
When I finally called a supervisor, my adjuster called me back and told me they had added the missing options to my car and revised their offer. Their offer is still too low and she first said that the company didn't pay for loss of use. After a little more discussion, she told me I would need to talk to a different adjustor about the loss of use claim. I talked to the other adjustor and she offered $15 per day for loss of use for the period between the accident and the day they decided it was totaled, and nothing more.
I have a couple of problems with the offer. First, $15 per day for loss of use seems like such a random, low, number that it’s meaningless. The adjustor said “we pay $15 per day”. Why $15 per day? It seems like the best way to determine the value of using a car for a day is to look at daily rental prices. I couldn’t rent a bicycle for $15 per day in my city. I’ve seen other adjustors on this board mention $15 per day. Where does that come from? I’m pretty confident that if I sued the driver, I’d get more than $15 per day for loss of use and I’m even more confident that the insurance company would have to pay a lot more in legal fees to defend a suit than they would have to pay if they made a more reasonable offer. I don’t get the logic. Maybe someone here can help me understand, or better yet, help me figure out how to convince the adjustor that they should pay a more reasonable amount for my loss of use.
The second problem involves the length of time I should receive loss of use. Georgia statute states that any insurer, upon acceptance of liability, pursuant to any automobile liability or motor vehicle liability insurance policy, shall pay reasonable benefits for losses, including total losses, to a third party for loss of use of such motor vehicle. What are reasonable benefits? Who knows, but I think it would be reasonable for the company to pay loss of use from the date of the accident until the present, because their first offer wasn’t reasonable since it left out several items that inaccurately lowered the offer. To compound that “mistake”, the insurance company refused to respond to my phone calls, emails, and letters for three weeks after their inaccurate offer; leaving me without a car, without a rental car, without compensation for my car, and told me they wouldn’t pay for loss of use or other parts of my claim. Of course they feel like that’s no big deal and all they’ll pay is a few days at $15 per day.
Please help me understand how this should work.
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 01:00 pm Post Subject:
I asked for and received the CCC Valuescope report that they used to determine the value. The first thing I noticed was that they didn't include some significant options on our vehicle for comparison.
They will have to add these which may or may not chance the ACV..Their offer also didn't include loss of use.
They don't owe you loss of use if they have had you in a rental until an offer of settlement is made..I have no idea where the 15 a day came from, I've never said it...I personally wouldn't feel I owed loss of use, with the possible exception of the time period you were NOT in a rental until offer of settlement...Who knows, but I think it would be reasonable for the company to pay loss of use from the date of the accident until the present, because their first offer wasn’t reasonable since it left out several items that inaccurately lowered the offer.
Again I would say from the date of loss, until they put you in a rental, until the time they added the correct options and gave you that offer, then two - three days more...however you wouldn't be entitled to loss of use, while in a rental they are paying for..I would say loss of use payment at a min. would be the lowest amount you could actually rent a car for...Now that they have added the options is their offer a viable one?
As to them not responding to your calls, wish we'd have known that and you could've filed a complaint with your states Dept of Ins. (still could)....
Where are you in the value of the vehicle? What are they saying the ACV is (now) and what do you think it is and based on what?
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 01:49 pm Post Subject:
I'd agree 100% in asking the same question... what is "reasonable"?
I've mentioned $15 in many posts. It comes from years of working for several different carriers and speaking to hundreds of people who worked for many other carriers... $15 is typically what many adjusters pay if the person does not obtain a rental.
Why $15 and not the cost of a rental? If a rental is obtained then it's easy to say what the loss of use amount should be. The person paid $30/day for the rental so rather then pull some number out of a hat, just use the person's actual expenses. But what if the person did not obtain a rental... what is "reasonable" then? My opinion is that "reasonable" is then what is usually paid and accepted. Why is the amount the insurance company offers less then the cost of a rental? It's always been my opinion that its fair to offer less then the cost of a rental as now I'm only considering the person's inconvenience and not the price of a rental. The price of a rental includes profit to the rental company, their expenses, taxes, etc. Is this part of the person's inconvenience? Many people have other vehicles that they can use so they don't get a rental. So how inconvenient was it for them not to be able to use the vehicle in the accident? But is also comes down to the insurance company waiting to spend as little as possible on the claim. No denying that. It's the adjusters responsibility to make a "fair" offer and keep the amount as low as possible. I've not looked at rates but I'm betting a compact car goes for about $22/day. So we are talking about the difference of $7/day for, what... a week? Also, did they put you in a compact car for the rental? Let me end the LOU statement by also saying that you are not wrong in your thinking that LOU could simply be based on the cost of a rental. I suspect if you filed in small claims court that the insurance company would then pay the additional amount. My recommendation is to again speak to a supervisor and make the same argument for $25 or $30/day on the LOU payment. But you might want to throw in that if paid, you'd be willing to settle the claim. If the supervisor sees that agreeing to a higher LOU amount will get the claim settled, then they would likely be more willing to agree to the increase.
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 04:53 pm Post Subject:
Thanks for the replies. To clarify the time frames a little, the first 2 weeks after the accident I had no rental car. I don’t think there’s any question that I am entitled to loss of use for that period.
After 2 weeks, the 3rd party company accepted liability and rented a car for me. I had the rental for 2 weeks, and then the insurance company made an offer and cut off the rental. I know I’m not entitled to loss of use for those weeks because they provided a rental.
My real question is about the next 4 weeks. The offer that the insurance company made didn’t include several options on my car and didn’t include loss of use for the 2 weeks I was without a vehicle. The offer was $1500 below the average “book” value for the vehicle (KBB, Edmonds, NADA) and $3,000 below the average price of similar cars in the market. I contacted them by phone, email and regular mail about the missing items and difference in price, but couldn’t get a response for almost 4 weeks. When they responded, they added the missing items and increased their offer by $500, but initially denied any loss of use claim. After some more discussion, they offered $195 loss of use for the first 2 weeks I was without a vehicle.
My feeling is that they should owe me loss of use for the 4 weeks that they failed to respond to my attempts to negotiate a settlement. Their initial offer was based on incorrect information and failed to include the loss of use for the first 2 weeks, even though they should have known that they were legally required to pay loss of use for that period (based on Georgia law). If they had responded promptly and made the adjustments, I wouldn’t have suffered through 4 more weeks without a vehicle. By failing to respond, they put me in a position where I had no ability to mitigate my loss of use damages - aside from accepting their offer that was artificially low, due in part, to their omissions. Their current position is that they don’t pay loss of use after they decide the car is totaled (make an offer).
Is my line of thinking reasonable? We still have differences on the value of my car and the value of loss of use, but I think those are just a matter of negotiation at this point. However, it just doesn’t make sense to me that they can end their loss of use obligation by simply making an incomplete “offer”.
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 08:58 pm Post Subject:
Is my line of thinking reasonable?
I think it's reasonable, yes. But I don't know about 4 weeks. Yes they should have respondeded and there is no excuess for not doing so.... but you could not get anyone on the phone for 4 weeks? I think you should be explaining this to a manager and asking for 4 weeks additional Loss of Use for the reasons that you mentioned. But you may need to give up a little in order to get something. Perhaps after pressing the issue of 4 weeks LOU, you'd explain that you'd be willing split the difference, down to 2 weeks. It's up to you.Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 06:12 am Post Subject:
Hi Hobbled, this is what I've found on searching,
Hope it was helpful.
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 06:18 am Post Subject:
Hey Hobb, have you got the evaluation of the car from the local vendors in writing? You would be requiring all these documents to fight your case with the insurer.
Add your comment