by KIM F » Mon Aug 13, 2007 02:21 pm
I WAS IN TWO CAR ACCIDENTS. 4 WEEKS APART. $1600 WORTH OF DAMAGE. INSURANCE CO. NEVER MAILED THE CHECK. THE 2ND ACCIDENT I WAS IN TOTALED MY CAR. THE INSURANCE CO IS NOW COMBINING BOTH CLAIMS AND GOING TO DEDUCT THE $1600 FROM THE TOTAL LOSS AMOUNT. WHICH DOESN'T COVER THE BALANCE DUE ON THE VEHICLE. CAN THEY DO THAT? DIDN'T THEY DROP THE BALL BECUASE THEY DIDN'T MAIL MY CHECK WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE APPRAISERS ESTIMATE?
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 03:45 am Post Subject:
First, STOP YELLING! It's RUDE!
Your insurance company is really not combining two claims. Actually they should be issuing two payments and taking 2 deductibles (which it sounds like they may not, so your actually getting paid more then you should). What you may be overlooking is that you did not have the damage on your total loss vehicle repaired. This would actually lower it's value (by the amount of the repair cost... more or less) and as long as the insurance company is not deducting this amount from the valuation of the vehicle, they are paying the correct amount.
Two options:
1) $5000 total loss value (no payment for prior accident and no deduction for same)
2)$1600 1st accident payment. Then $5000 value-$1600 in prior damage=$5000 (same as #1)
Lastly, the proper way for the carrier to pay this loss is as follows:
Accident#1: Repair cost less ded.
Accident#2: Vehicle value, less prior damage, less 2nd ded
I'm guessing there is a good possibility that the carrier is simply handling this as one claim and only subtracting the ded once. If this is the case, you are actually being paid more then the carrier owes.
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 06:08 am Post Subject: calculation should be proper!
Hi, i'd empathize with your situation but at the same time I'd like to stress to this fact that being 'totaled' is not much a measure of the real damage done to your car. Sometimes it may so happen that the design of your car may have lessened the overall effect of the mishap upon it and hence the totaled value may just show a different figure calculated upon [ultimate cost of repairing + cost of renting a car (if any)] depending upon the market value of your car. Hence you might need to talk to your adjuster about the appraiser's estimate. What do you think ?
regards, fatman
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 06:26 am Post Subject: seems a better deal..
Yeah in case you see that the deduction is only once for both the mishaps them I'm sure you're getting a better deal! Stella McCartney
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 06:44 am Post Subject: other things that you need to remember!
My friend, I'd just like you to remember that while considering the appraisal value your insurer doesn't go beyond his obligation of reinstating your car's pre-loss worth. In case he fails to support you with it then he certainly owes you what is called a 'diminished value'.
This is considered to get your car to its earlier functionality, its former get-up and former safety mode. Now, there are three distinct diminished values that you need to discuss with the insurer - the inherent diminished value, diminished value owing to insurance & diminished value owing to the repairs. Now out of these the insurance related dim value occurs as a result of the apprehensions & negligence while arriving at your insurer's appraisal. Please do make a note of this also!
Yeah, I feel your insurer was clever enough to contact you and appraise you within 24 hours....it has got nothing to do with the dispatch of the check. The time for dispatching the check from their end would obviously depend upon a number of factors followed by a close scrutiny! Hope, thats understandable.. Juanita
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 02:32 pm Post Subject:
My friend, I'd just like you to remember that while considering the appraisal value your insurer doesn't go beyond his obligation of reinstating your car's pre-loss worth. In case he fails to support you with it then he certainly owes you what is called a 'diminished value'.
Diminishment of Value does not apply to a total loss vehicle... almost no auto insurance policy allows for diminishment of value (this is a 1st party loss, not liability) and there are only a hand full of states that have laws that allow for admonishment of value.
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:02 pm Post Subject: Insurance Claims..
Is it fraud to accept accident payments from both your insurance company and the other party's insurance company for a "no-fault" car accident?
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 08:58 am Post Subject:
Hi onetime
As far as my knowledge goes, in a no-fault state, you can only claim from your own insurance company. You can sue the other party if the claim exceeds either a verbal or a financial threshold. But, you cannot have both - compensation from your own insurance company and the third party.
However, after your insurer has paid you for the loss, he may subrogate the other party's insurance company if he believes that the other party has been at fault.
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 06:43 am Post Subject:
Ultimately, the decision of how much cover you take out rests with you. While a lower limit of £1m may be appropriate for a ‘one-man-band’ builder, £2m or £5m of cover may be more suitable for medium and large-sized businesses. To discuss the options available to you, please don’t hesitate to get in contact with one of our experienced account handlers today. By taking out online public liability insurance policy, you can get on with the job knowing you are fully protected should an accident occur.
Health insurance tx
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:14 am Post Subject: Insurance claim
You cannot claim from both your company as well as the other party's company to compensate for your damages in any case.
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:39 am Post Subject:
Depends which coverage you're talking about....PIP, medpay, plus health coverage...and what your state guidelines say..If you mean for the physcial damage to your vehicles from your carrier and the other the answer is 'no' you can't and 'yes' it's fraud and further you 'will' be caught.
Add your comment