by CodyCourtneyLove » Sun May 09, 2010 11:36 pm
I have been with my insurance company for 23 years, never had an accident, never late on a payment and always kept them abreast of modification and upgrades done to the car. With each modification and upgrades done to the vehicle, to improve on handling and safety, I asked and offered receipt of work done to see if an increase was needed to cover replacement or repair in case of an accident. At each renewal of my policy I also reminded them of the modifications and upgrades to see if their would be an increase and was told No, I was a preferred customer.Well I was involved in an accident that was not my fault and Public records show and state that the other driver was at fault and admitted to such, as did her insurance company. My insurance company wants to total out my car because the amount of the damage is more then what the book value for the car is. Even though with each renewal they told me they would fix my vehicle and get their money back from the other persons insurance company should I ever be in an accident not of my own fault. The total amount of upgrades and modification is a little over $9000.00 and to me was well worth the money, see it allowed us to avoid and survive an accident in which the other driver making an improper left hand turn tried to come through my wife passenger door in the rain on a wet slippery roadway. The other insurance company wants to settle and cover all damages to my vehicle. Damages to my vehicle after going over the medium which is curb high, appeared to be a broken oil pan and pump, and lower and upper left side mounting supports on quick investigation at the shop. Please tell me my rights in this matter as I would aspect the other insurance company of doing something like this and not my own. P.S. the other side told me, that it was their desire to fix my vehicle and pay for all damages. Would "Bad faith and Breach of Contract" apply as it appears my insurance company is disregarding my rights as a policyholder. The vehicle is a classic, it is a E34 BMW with a M50 motor made 8/91 in Germany.
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 02:28 am Post Subject:
Okay... I give up... what is the issue you have?
Your company has stated that they want to pay you for the value of your vehicle. Is this not what you want?
The other carrier has stated that they will pay for repairs to your vehicle. Is this not what you want?
Or is it that you want _your_ carrier to pay for the repairs?
Let's narrow down (or even just bring up) what the issue is.
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 02:26 pm Post Subject:
Sounds like Mr Love would like for someone to either pay for the reapairs to his vehicle which sounds like what the other persons insurance company is offering.
However, his company has determined that the value of his 91 BMW made in Germany in August of that year is worth less than the cost of the repairs.
Breach of Contract? I doubt Mr Love has read his! If it was a stated value policy he might have some recourse but it sounds unlikely.
Call your agent!
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 03:46 pm Post Subject:
.
.
Sounds like Mr Love would like for someone to either pay for the reapairs to his vehicle which sounds like what the other persons insurance company is offering. However, his company has determined that the value of his 91 BMW made in Germany in August of that year is worth less than the cost of the repairs.
Breach of Contract? I doubt Mr Love has read his! If it was a stated value policy he might have some recourse but it sounds unlikely.
Call your agent
AxeVictim,
Your stated value policy comment may be incorrect... and/or my agent may have misspoken.
I was told that unlike a Life Insurance Policy which pays the Stated amount of the policy, an auto policy with a stated amount is still handled as an "Actual Cash Value" policy. With the stated amount being the maximum amount (not the minimum) the insurer would pay.
As an example..One insures a specialty auto for say $70,000.oo. Its totaled and has an ACV of $93,000.oo. The insurer will only pay $70,000.oo. If it receives $34,000.oo in damage the insurer would only pay $34,000.oo
Is my agent correct?? If not... could you clarify the error(s) in his understanding of a Stated Amount Policies?
Thanks in advance.
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 07:30 pm Post Subject:
It would depend on what type of policy it is as indicated. If he pays high premiums, he may have it insured for x amount of dollars regardless of what the ACV is. If it's totalled, he gets the amount he insured it for. In a case where the vehicle has incurred a significant amount of damage/dollar value, that may vary from company to company. They may even determine it a total loss for that reason.
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 07:46 pm Post Subject:
.
.
Trench,
In the event of a Total Loss, do you have access to or know of any specific policy language that states the insured would receive the entire Stated Amount even if the ACV was say...... 40% less than the stated amount?
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 11:03 pm Post Subject:
Let's look at the fundamental principle of INDEMNITY that guides all forms of insurance.
To indemnify means to restore a person in whole or in part to the condition which existed, or which they enjoyed, prior to the loss, but without profit or gain.
A stated value policy puts a negotiated TOTAL LOSS limit (aka "limit of liability") in writing between the insurer and the insured. If the loss is less than total, the contract normally has the standard actual cash value language in the contract. The whole idea is to compensate one for their financial loss, not to provide a profit.
So if a vehicle was insured for its collector/other value at $70,000, but suffers a $40,000 loss, the $40,000 is the ACV and all the insured is entitled to. If repaired, and the next day the vehicle suffers a total loss, then the insured receives a check for $70,000.
Two separate incidents, to separate payments. The insured has lost a $70,000 vehicle, even after $40,000 of repairs. But if the insured receives a $40,000 check to make repairs but the vehicle was never repaired, the $70,000 total loss payment would necessarily be reduced by the $40,000 of prior damage. That's why checks for repairs are often written to the name of the body shop & insured, if payment is not made directly to the repair shop -- to insure that the repairs are made.
As to the original post, the concept being expressed is known as "ALEATORY". In insurance, there will almost always be an unequal exchange of values between the insurer and insured. Either lots of premiums paid and no/small claims payments, or the reverse, small premiums paid and large loss. Rarely will insurance turn out to be an even exchange.
So we accept the "risk" of paying a defined amount of premiums to receive a large measure of peace of mind . . . knowing that our financial loss will be covered (in whole or in part is what some folks fail to appreciate) . . . rather than not paying premiums and being exposed to 100% of the financial aspect of a loss.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 01:32 am Post Subject: Responding to your Reply
This is Cody Courtney Love. Please accept my delay to responding to your appreciated responses as the delay came from me having to chase my insurer down for an answer to the above statement. It appears that they use a formular to determine total loss and although they advertise that they will repair all damages that when it is not your fault. They use this formular to determine whether the other insurance company will repay them back for an accident that was not your fault. So they receive the benefits of high premiums and never take a loss when they have already determine what the other side will pay. So if I do the math of $400.00 times 12 months times 19 yrs, I come up with a total of $91,200.00 paid to them by me. All I asked and wanted from them was my car to be fixed, total cost for the repairs I was told by them was $2,900.00. I have never had an accident until now, one would think doing the math that they would say to themselves hey, he been with us 25 yrs, never had an accident while with us, has ever driving endorsement imaginable and he now has his first accident and it was not his fault, lets fix his car especially when he has two other vehicles insured with us for the same amount. I am told there is an insurance policy which one is self insured what is it and how does one go about and get it.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 02:30 am Post Subject:
It appears that they use a formular to determine total loss and although they advertise that they will repair all damages that when it is not your fault.
The error in this is you are probably mistakes. Break out your policy and see what it states.It probably states "we will pay for the direct and accidental loss...". There is also a Limit of Insurance portion which _specifically_ spells out that they will pay the lesser of the repair cost or value. Do you really think if you have $20,000 in damages to a $5,000 that the insurance was going to pay $20,000?You are paying $400/month for vehicle insurance? I'm guessing that there is some _big_ risk there. Each and every day your insurance company is assuming that risk up to your policy limits. If you kill someone this week and have $300,000 in coverage, that amount will probably be paid to protect you. Using your reasoning shouldn't you then owe the insurance company $200,000? You seem to think it should be dollar for dollar payments, right? The other option is that you can post a bond and insure yourself if you think it's worth it.
Bottom line is that you both agreed to the terms of the contract and they have not changed anything.
I'm _still_ at a loss for what you want. See my initial post. One carrier is offering to pay you the value of the vehicle, the other carrier is offering to pay for the repairs. What is your issue with this loss? :roll:
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 06:08 am Post Subject:
CodyCourtneyLove . . .
In order to have the thousands of dollars of protection every year that you have never needed to rely on until now, you placed your insurers at great risk in each of those years, too. They deserve to be compensated for assuming your risk. And they were. But you seem to believe they owe you something more than your current contract entitles you to obtain. Insurance is not cumulative as you surmise. And be glad it isn't!
Once again, I would direct you to my explanation of ALEATORY above. Tcope is trying to help you understand this, too, when he writes
Using your reasoning shouldn't you then owe the insurance company $200,000? You seem to think it should be dollar for dollar payments, right?
I've paid tens of thousands of dollars for my medical insurance over more than 35 years since I was no longer covered by my parents' insurance (counting what my employers paid, it would amount to hundreds of thousands combined). Been hospitalized twice, for a total of 5 days -- for gall bladder surgery in 1992, and for surgery to reduce a broken ankle in June 2007 -- and I know they have been paid a lot more than I received in services. Does that make me eligible for a free surgery of my choice? Of course not!
I've paid additional tens of thousands of dollars for auto insurance in most of my 40+ driving years, and only had a couple of minor claims. Do they owe me a new car because I'm such a good driver? Hardly! I'm just one of the lucky ones who have never totaled a car -- mine or anyone else's -- in close to 1,000,000 miles of travel. Can I expect the future to mirror the past? Probably not.
Insurance is something many of us purchase in an attempt to insulate ourselves or our loved ones from the financial impact of loss of life, income, home, health, auto, personal property, or from our liability to others due to our own negligence, among other things. We pay our premiums, even as insurance agents, often bemoaning the cost of doing so.
Most of us, as well as some of the insurance consuming public, understand that although the premiums may sting us in the pocketbook, life is better when we have no claims. But when the occasional claims do arise, we are certainly better off for having obtained and paid for the insurance than if we had not.
You seem to be ignoring this principle of insurance. It's as if you are wagering on black and red at the same time on the roolette (yes, intentionally misspelled) table so you will not lose. That's exactly why they added green . . . to give themselves a 1:36 or 1:37 chance of beating you in what would otherwise be a no win/no lose situation.
You should understand that the insurance company has been betting against you as much as you have been betting against them. Someone has to win, and they write the rules. It's called "the contract". Not only is it ALEATORY, it is also UNILATERAL. We don't get to change any of the rules, we can only be bound by them. When we have a claim and get paid, not only do we not "win", we rarely break even.
But I'll take the peace of mind that comes with an insurance policy. Because I'd rather not try to "win".
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 01:59 pm Post Subject:
Trench,
In the event of a Total Loss, do you have access to or know of any specific policy language that states the insured would receive the entire Stated Amount even if the ACV was say...... 40% less than the stated amount?
Sometimes I do. Recently I did a total loss for semi tractor. I didn't have to do an ACV, because the policy for the owner was not an ACV policy. He insured the truck for $25,000, and was paid that. I can gaurantee that the ACV was no where near that.
Add your comment