by Guest » Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:35 pm
my family and i were rearended by a state farm insured on a saturday before christmas and i had a rental on monday they called me.he admited fault and got a ticket for it. we went to the er also and got checked out. we have no ins either.it don't matter how many times you go to the er or doctor they are responsible for your injuries if there driver was at fault. state farm is just a slack company when it comes to paying.if they was not at fault they would come after you. I just got my car back and it was only a year old and it had around $6000 in damages and it is not right now.looks like crap.don't let state farm take advantage of you.let it go to court in front of a jury. they try to get out for as little as possible. there in business to make money and not give you what you deserve.they try to scare you don't sign nothing they want you to sign. because they could get you to sign something that will hurt you.becareful
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:34 pm Post Subject:
OK Lee, simmer down here a minute...are you actually saying that YOU have a one year old vehicle WITHOUT insurance on it AT ALL...State farm put you in a rental asap, fixed your car, again asap...and you're still saying,
state farm is just a slack company when it comes to paying
If you have a problem with the quality of your repairs...take the car back to the shop and call state farm...it's really very easy to fix that problem...I seriously see nothing wrong with what they have done, in fact sounds to me like they handled your claim perfectly...thus far...don't let state farm take advantage of you.let it go to court in front of a jury
How on earth did they take advantage of you?there in business to make money and not give you what you deserve.they try to scare you don't sign nothing they want you to sign. because they could get you to sign something that will hurt you.becareful
Of course they are in the business to make money...what business isn't in it to make money...how did they try and scare you? ok, you're just rambling....make sense, explain your problem or gripe...because from your post..i'd say regarding your claim anyway they (state farm) was on top of their game.if they was not at fault they would come after you
Well of course they would...isn't that what you did as well? Isn't that the correct way? what is wrong with that?Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 01:23 pm Post Subject:
we have no ins either
there in business to make money and not give you what you deserve
Don't you just hate it when someone causes a loss and the responsible party does not address that loss.Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 01:25 pm Post Subject:
Don't you just hate it when someone causes a loss and the responsible party does not address that loss.
Tcope could mean if the OP was in an accident that was his fault? He wouldn't be able to address the damage he caused, because of what again? oh yeah...HE'S UNINSURED!Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 04:39 pm Post Subject:
Each state should adapt a law that would keep uninsured motorist from profiting off an accident. In fact, I think that an uninsured motorist should always be at fault regardless of the situation since they are breaking the law and I am hoping each state adapts a law similar to this.
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 05:51 am Post Subject:
Each state should adapt a law that would keep uninsured motorist from profiting off an accident. In fact, I think that an uninsured motorist should always be at fault regardless of the situation since they are breaking the law and I am hoping each state adapts a law similar to this.
A few states do have "no pay, no play" laws that prevent people from profiting but keep in mind, this is different from baring all recovery as it still allows payment back for the person's property damage and medical bills only (it bares recovery for non-economic damages).You not having insurance and be ramming into you should not make you liable for my loss. You not having insurance is not related to what I did to you. So I don't agree that a person with no insurance should be liable. I also don't agree 100% with "no pay, no play" either. It's too broad and there are better ways to deal with the issue that are not enforced.
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 09:41 am Post Subject:
well, it sounds more of a complaint than a problem. However, lee since you were yourself driving uninsured don't you think that you were lucky that the other driver's insurance is taking care of the damages. At least, that guy has some coverage.
What is the total worth of the damages estimated by the insurer? what kind of paper have you been asked to sign?
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:10 am Post Subject:
I don't know I tend to 'swing both ways' on this issue, which is not a good (or any) stance...I get very frustrated, and flat out pissed when an uninsured (who was not at fault) makes all kinds of demands, including ridiculous ones, ...(any adjuster knows what I mean)...and to those I would LOVE to say, 'hit the bricks mack, you weren't even legal on the road' but i can't...my problem is with the 'habitual uninsured' not the guy that was 11 days late with his premium once in his life...but there can be no division between the two...it's either or...i buy into the no pay no play with the exception of 'gross' negligence...if i were queen of the world all b.i. claims would be denied (except actual bills) UNLESS there was gross negligence on the insured party (ie DUI) but alas, i'm only queen of my house.. :wink:
Add your comment