by Guest » Tue Mar 11, 2008 09:41 pm
The short version: Slick ice, northbound milk truck slid into southbound lane ditch with rear bumper still sticking out into southbound lane. I (southbound) tried to avoid the milk truck but couldn't and my car sustained damage to right side.
A 3rd northbound vehicle slides into my vehicle left side. The 3rd vehicle insurer comes out before my insurer and says my vehicle is not totaled and cuts a check for their part of the damage.
My insurer comes later and says that the other drivers insurer should not have cut a check because my insurer says they they are supposed to do that. And, my insurer says my car (96 VW Passat TDI S/W) is totaled.
Can have the left side damage fixed separately from the right side damage and have two separate checks cut instead of what my insurer says must happen?
PS: I do plan on repairing the vehicle.
Thanks, Kurt
A 3rd northbound vehicle slides into my vehicle left side. The 3rd vehicle insurer comes out before my insurer and says my vehicle is not totaled and cuts a check for their part of the damage.
My insurer comes later and says that the other drivers insurer should not have cut a check because my insurer says they they are supposed to do that. And, my insurer says my car (96 VW Passat TDI S/W) is totaled.
Can have the left side damage fixed separately from the right side damage and have two separate checks cut instead of what my insurer says must happen?
PS: I do plan on repairing the vehicle.
Thanks, Kurt
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:26 am Post Subject:
I would think that the initial vehicle that caused the problem would be responsible, the milk truck. Wait for some of the people who work the field to come along and put in their two cents though.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 01:16 am Post Subject:
The milk truck was there about 60 seconds before I arrived, and my attempt to get around him was ineffective due to the slick ice conditions. Since he was there first I dont think he has any fault at all. The ice conditions were the worst I ever saw. Nobody involved got a ticket out of this accident because of the extremely poor road conditions at the time of the accident.
Kurt
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 08:44 am Post Subject:
A 3rd northbound vehicle slides into my vehicle left side. The 3rd vehicle insurer comes out before my insurer and says my vehicle is not totaled and cuts a check for their part of the damage.
Have you accepted the check?? Are you sure that the amount written on it is sufficient for the damages sustained by your vehicle? Have you filed the claim with the 3rd party insurer? Well, in one word, your case seriously need an expert's guidance.
You need to put more information regarding your car to know whether its actually totaled or not.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:40 am Post Subject:
Good morning Kurt and welcome....Your carrier (IMO) is incorrect...kindof....they will likely as your carrier handle this as one claim (under your collision) but it's not, and they will have to subrogate it as two claims (one the milk truck, one the other driver)....now if they handle it as one claim then your vehicle may very will (and likely) be totaled, however...you should be able to accept payment from the one claim....left side damage correct? and then collect from the milk truck on your right side...Has the milk truck accepted liablity? If not then you should be able to only request payment from your carrier on that side (that wreck)...and the vehicle will then not total....clear? (as mud right?) I've handled many claims that had mulitple impacts...they are kind of a pain, but yours is made less painless by the third impact promptly accepting liablity and paying the claim! hur-ray! If the milk truck has paid or agreed to accept liablity then request that your carrier, close their claim without payment...if there is a dispute with the milk truck you might want to have your carrier pay for the right side, then they will subro the right side damage (only)....please let us know if you have any other questions or we can be of further assistance to you....
p.s. glad you're ok...what a mess huh?
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 03:07 pm Post Subject:
I gave a shortened version of the accident in the earlier post. Basically, in this accident none of the parties received a ticket and the officer wrote the accident up as two separate incidents. The accident was recorded starting with the milk truck being disabled (most of the truck was on the shoulder of the road only part of rear bumper in southbound lane) I ran into it (slick ice and embanked road carried me right into it). So, as far as I know it was my fault that I couldn't avoid the disabled truck. I don't think my insurance company is going after the milk truck driver at all.
Anyway, my major roadblock (no pun intended) is the fact that the 3rd party's insurance company immediately sent me a check for their part of the damage and no, I didn't cash it yet because of the warning from my insurance company not to. They told me I cant “double dip” which at the time I was not. I didn't double dip, the 3rd parties insurance simply beat my insurance company in attempting to pay for their part of the damage.
Now, I would like to keep the 3rd party insurance check and get their part of the damage fixed. And then, I would like my insurance company to reassess the damage from my part of the crash. This should work out better for me (no salvage title) and more appropriate compensation (at least in my eyes). What do you think?
Thanks, Kurt
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:49 pm Post Subject:
I agree Kurt and that's exactly what I said, use your carrier for the milk truck damage only, (utilizing your collision coverage), and the other money from the other carrier to fix 'their' damage...I see no problem at all with that..You will not be double dipping unless your carrier pays you for the damage on the left side of the car...
Just tell the adjuster this is what you want to do, these are two separate claims...and should be no problem at all....if so let us know and maybe we can come up with a good argument or suggestions to sway your rep... :roll: ...seriously should not be any trouble/problem at all...
Please let us know and don't hesitate to ask anything that surfaces along the way...
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 05:31 pm Post Subject:
So your telling me there should be no problem doing this accident as two separate claims even though my carrier says they are supposed to handle the whole thing. OK! Now, here is another; I disputed the payment amount my carrier wanted to pay for the damage to the whole car. So my carrier requested proof of what I thought my vehicle was worth. My car is rare (wasn't a whole lot made) so I pulled examples off of Ebay, Autotrader and was able to find one locally. The vehicles were all relatively similar (mileage, condition, etc.). Well, when my carrier's claims rep. got back to me she provided only NADA and Kelly Blue Book for her proof of what the vehicle's worth was. That's what they originally did to obtain the cars value the first time. Why did they ask me for proof of the cars value and then tell me they can't use it? They simply replied, “… no we can only use what NADA and Kelly Blue Book says. Is my carrier obligated to consider the current market prices when a payment offer is being disputed?
Thanks for your help, Kurt
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 07:36 pm Post Subject:
There should be no problem...just tell them the ONLY DAMAGES you are claiming are those caused from the milk truck impact ONLY...you do not wish to file a claim, nor except damage payment from the other loss you are handling that yourself..period...if there is any trouble with them doing this I would tell them (nicely) that you are sorry but you see no alternative but to file a complaint with your stated Dept of Ins.. because this is clearly two separate claims, with two separate vehicles/carriers...I wouldn't think you will have trouble, and if they insist, ask that they put it in writing, and immediately file a complaint (all state have DOI websites, you can contact a consumer advocate or file a complaint on line)...
RE: value...Since I don't know the mileage of your vehicle or if it has aluminum/alloy wheels, leather seats, or power sun roof , and 4 or 6 cyl. (only options that effect this particular vehicle) I can't give you my opinion re: value (if you want to provide those I'd be happy to)....what did they say it was worth and what did you come up with? Really this isn't what we would consider a 'rare' or collector vehicle...just because they didn't make a ton of them (and I don't know that) doesn't make them worth more...sorry just trying to tell you the truth...let me now if you'd like the options and mileage..they can (kind of be forced) to do a market survey to determine value...but really in your case that point is now moot right? but again just if you'd like another opinion let me know about the motor/mileage/options and if there was ANY unrepaired prior damage or condition problems..(ie seats ripped etc)...
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:01 pm Post Subject:
The point may be moot now because I should end up getting enough money to pay for the repairs of the vehicle because after the other carrier pays for their part of the damage, my insurer should not be able to consider my car totaled.
I may consider describing the car but that IMO would open a can of worms. My 96 Passat TDI (diesel) station wagon was one of less than 2000 (if I remember correctly) made in the US that year. Diesel engine vehicles always retrieve a premium price and I can (and have) shown some of these vehicles fetching pretty high prices. I gave my carrier documentation of the prices that similar vehicles are selling for and then adjusted the value and asked approximately 1k less than what I saw other vehicles going for even though my vehicle is in “good” condition.
I feel more informed and confident and I'm ready to approach my carrier again after being provided with some real solid info here.
Thanks, Kurt
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:21 pm Post Subject:
I gave my carrier documentation of the prices that similar vehicles are selling for and then adjusted the value and asked approximately 1k less than what I saw other vehicles going for even though my vehicle is in “good” condition.
Am I understanding that they reduced the value of what you found by 1k Kurt? And the reason was ??????? because the others were excellent and yours good is that what you are saying? If not what was their reason for the deduction?I feel more informed and confident and I'm ready to approach my carrier again after being provided with some real solid info here.
I glad that's what we hope to do give the information you need! Please do let us know if we can be of further assistance !Add your comment