by bandjzmom » Tue Oct 12, 2010 02:56 am
Hi guys! I am new here, and I really need some advice. I was sitting at a red light back on June 10th, and a young man plowed into the back of my 2008 Honda van (which is paid off). He was traveling about 40MPH and made no attempt whatsoever to stop. My 13 y/o son was in the front passenger seat. I sustained a whiplash injury, but my son seems to be OK. Thankfully, the young man who hit me was insured. Problem is that the insurance company doesn't seem to be a very good one. I have had nothing but struggles and stress with them since the accident. I feel like I have been victimized over and over again. It took a whole week to get a rental car, and then the insurance company kept saying that they were no longer going to pay for the rental even though the body shop guy was not finished with my van. The total amount of damage exceeded $13K. The insurance company felt that the body shop guy should assume responsibility for the rental because he was taking a long time to fix the van. The body shop guy did finally assume the cost of the rental for the last 3 weeks that I had a rental. I finally got my repaired van back on September 17th. The insurance company has now refused to pay for the part of the rental that they feel should be the body shop's responsibility. The amount due to the rental company is $1,600. I spoke to an attorney today, and he advised me to go ahead and pay the rental company as they would not be willing to wait for the length of time it will take to recoup the money. I sure don't want them to sue me. So, I went over and paid them today. It was really hard to do because I feel that what is happening to me is not OK. I am hesitant to hire an attorney because I am afraid of the can of worms that move will open, and I worry that I won't come out ahead. I do have a meeting with an attorney tomorrow to discuss this. What do you think? Is the insurance company responsible for all of the rental expense? Is it OK for them to refuse to pay? I haven't yet addressed the medical part of the claim with them, and I am seriously dreading dealing with them regarding that. Thank you so much for reading this and I so appreciate any advice that you can share.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 06:01 am Post Subject:
Is the insurance company responsible for all of the rental expense?
I'm confused as it seems that the rental company was paying for part of the rental and the BS was paying for the difference. Did the BS not pay for those 3 weeks that they said they would?Is it OK for them to refuse to pay?
If the repair time was excessive, yes. The repair time is written in hours on the estimate/appraisal. Divide this by 4 or 5 and add in weekends and this is what the insurance company should be considering.Let me ask you... is one adjuster handling the property damage and another handling the injury? I'm betting that this is the case. Many insurance companies do this and I think it's a mistake. The PD adjuster does not care if they piss someone off as they are not responsible for settling the injury portion of the claim. The entire claim needs to be considered when adjusting a claim (from the insurance companies perspective). That is, a pissed off claimant is only going to make the settlement more difficult.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 07:36 am Post Subject:
I'd agree with tcope. I think it's only a better idea to view the claim on a broader perspective. It will save time and money for the carrier, save their reputation and will cause lesser hassle for the insured.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:39 am Post Subject:
Thank you for the input. To answer your questions:
Yes, the insurance company paid for the first month of the rental. Then, they say that there is a "timeline" during which they feel that the BS guy dragged his feet on the repair, and they are refusing to pay for the rental during that time ($1,600). Of course, the BS guy is saying that he did what he was supposed to be doing, and that it was a complicated repair. The BS does have a good reputation in the city and gives a lifetime guarantee on all of the body work done there. For me, it's a "they said" "he said" type of situation. How would I know who is being honest and reasonable?
Yes, there are two different adjusters, one for property and one for medical. It has been difficult to deal with either of them. Medical one is worse than property tho.
I am worried that the attorney who I have an appointment with is going to tell me that we will have to sue the kid that hit me in order to try to recoup the funds. I strongly suspect that he doesn't have any way of paying, and it would probably be pointless to win a judgement against him. I went through a divorce recently, and that experience taught me well to be very wary where attorneys and legal issues are concened.
Nothing like this has ever happended to me before. I guess I just ASSUMED that the insurance company would take care of the expenses since it wasn't my fault that I was hit. I am old enough to know better than to ASSUME though. :o)
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:55 am Post Subject:
OOPS...forgot to add that the BS guy did get a rental Camry for me, and I had it from August 25th-September 17th, which is when I picked up my repaired van. So, I drove the rental van booked by the guilty party's insurance company from June 18th- August 25th. I was NEVER told to return the van or else assume responsibility for the cost. The insurance company waited until after the fact to let me know that they were going to refuse to pay for part of that rental.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:33 am Post Subject:
hat is, a pissed off claimant is only going to make the settlement more difficult.
A pissed off claimant can always make a settlement more complicated. If a claimant fails to understand the claims process, it might land up in the court and cause more problems for the carrier. It might even result in a 'bad faith claim'.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:47 am Post Subject:
Juanita, I am sorry to say that I do not understand your reply. I don't know much at all about insurance. I posted here hoping to be enlightened about what I could reasonably expect in regards to my out of pocket obligation in this situation. I was not at fault. I suppose that most people would assume that if they are plowed into from behind while sitting at a red light, it would be reasonable to expect the insurance company of the person who hit them to take care of the expenses incurred. It just doesn't seem right to me that I should suffer monetary loss when I didn't do anything wrong. I am trying to understand about how this process really works. Thanks.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 02:05 pm Post Subject:
Mom . . .
If you had damaged your vehicle through your own fault, your insurance company would probably only pay the cost for a rental vehicle for up to 30 days (often limited to $30 per day, or $900 total). But, in your case, your "damages" are the result of a third-party's negligence. That party is responsible to "indemnify" you -- to restore you to whole, financially.
Regardless of the time it took the repair shop to complete the repairs, the fact that you were without your own transportation because of the collision and had to rent a vehicle is part of your total damages, and the third-party is responsible for that "loss". His insurance company may not be happy that it took as long as it did to repair the vehicle, but they are truly on the hook for the costs -- up to the actual policy limits -- and you should NOT have been responsible for any covered portion of your monetary loss. It was probably wrong for the insurance company to stop paying for the rental car after 30 days or so. Their failure to notify you of the impending termination of rental vehicle payments was also unfair.
That the insurance company chose to stop covering the rental vehicle expense is one of your "causes of action" that would allow you to sue the person who caused the collision (you don't sue the insurer in this case). If all of your other "damages" are being handled to your satisfaction (i.e., being fully paid, aside from any difficulties you are experiencing with individual adjusters), you probably do not need the services of an attorney, other than perhaps for some "advice" -- but not for "representation", at least not yet. They charge a flat hourly fee for giving advice, but they take 30%-40% of your damage award for representing you.
The amount you paid on your own for the rental car, plus the amount the repair shop paid for the rental car, are the amounts you will need to sue the at fault party for. If there are other unpaid or unreimbursed expenses that may arise, you need to wait until the claim is "resolved" before you sue the other party. You do not have to agree to any "ultimate" settlement if you do not believe the insurance company is being fair in its effort to resolve your claim.
Assuming all unpaid losses combined are less than the small claims court filing limit in your state, that's what you would sue for. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence (bills, invoices, rental car contracts, etc), the judge will determine fault and award a judgment. If the other party's insurance limits have not been exhausted, the insurer will most likely pay the judgment. (And you would reimburse the repair shop for the amount they paid for the rental vehicle as a portion of your award.)
In addition to anything else you choose to do, but before you get an attorney involved, you should file a complaint against the insurance company with your state's Dept of Insurance, alleging unfair claims practices. The DOI will investigate and if there are any problems in the handling of your claim, they will uncover them. It should change the insurance company's attitude toward you and your claim.
Unfortunately, once an attorney becomes involved, the DOI is generally prevented from providing much in the way of advocacy on your behalf. They can still investigate for the possible unfair claims practices violations.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 03:47 pm Post Subject:
You are entitled to collect all losses due to the negligence of the party that struck your car. This includes any loss of value due to the accident history, poor workmanship (flaws and defects) attributed to the repair, or use of inferior imitation parts that all lower the value of the vehicle. Your claim would be substantial if the appraisal was performed by an independent expert in DV appraisals.
Your attorney should be familiar with DV but may not be. If you choose to claim this loss, be sure to work with an appraiser that would be available for depositions and court if necessary. The attorney should also be able to document the loss of use when they make a demand for the loss in value due to any poor repairs (attributed to the shop) or the loss in value due to the stigma that is now associated with your vehicle since it has an accident history.
If it were my vehicle, I would also want a post repair inspection by an expert to determine if all damage was corrected according to the manufacturer's specifications and not some insurance funded entity that attempts to set standards outside the oem standards.
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 05:33 pm Post Subject:
How would I know who is being honest and reasonable?
From my prior post:If the repair time was excessive, yes. The repair time is written in hours on the estimate/appraisal. Divide this by 4 or 5 and add in weekends and this is what the insurance company should be considering.
If I understand it correctly, you had the rental through the insurance company and then several weeks later they told you that they would only pay for a portion of the time you already had it. The BS then agreed to pay from that time on. But this still left you with a few weeks in the middle that is not being paid? I'm guessing this was set up with Enterprise? If so... I've seen this problem happen a lot.
I was NEVER told to return the van or else assume responsibility for the cost. The insurance company waited until after the fact to let me know that they were going to refuse to pay for part of that rental.
Yup... and as an adjuster I've reamed out my fair share of Enterprise stores over this issue. What happens is that the adjuster uses an Enterprise system called ARMS to set up the rental. The adjuster sets a certain number of days. What _should_ happen is that ERAC (Enterprise Rent A Car) should call or send the adjuster a message letting them know that they need an extension. Many times they don't. The rental is then returned and ERAC tries to bill the adjuster for the excess days. The adjuster refuses to pay as the time was excessive and no extension was asked for. ERAC then tells the customer. Well, the customer never told of any issue. The customer was under the impression everything was being paid for. IMHO, this is a problem _created_ be ERAC but it is also the adjusters problem as they told the customer that the rental would be paid and the customer was never told of any problems. Feel free to ask the adjuster if the rental was set up on ARMS and if so, did ERAC ever ask for an extension. Ask ERAC the same question. As ERAC as sometimes they _do_ ask the adjuster for an extension but never get a reply. If they asked and never got a reply then I'd see about sticking the insurance company with the bill as if they need to respond to ERAC request for an extension and in failing to do so, stuck you with a bill and you had been told that the rental would be paid. This might be a bit confusing.It might even result in a 'bad faith claim
Juanita, no such thing as a 3rd party bad Faith Claim.His insurance company may not be happy that it took as long as it did to repair the vehicle, but they are truly on the hook for the costs
Max, the other insurance company only owes for the actual loss. Excessive rental is not part of the loss. For example, if the repair time is 3 days and the person has the rental for 2 months... that excessive time is not owed. Yes, the issue is that the other insurance company told the OP that the rental would be paid and then _after the fact_ said that they would not pay for all of the time the OP had the rental. Is excessive rental owed? No. But if the OP was told the rental would be paid, a direct bill as set up and the OP was never told the rental was being cut off... then the insurance company "may" have assumed that expense. If a direct bill was set up would be a key factor in this issue.Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 09:16 pm Post Subject: Ok, I am sort of getting it now
Oh thank you so much. You guys are really helping me to understand this. In regards to my suing the kid who hit me; I don't see the point. He is a kid, and I seriously doubt he has a thing that he could pay. I doubt if he was 20 yrs old. I think he was probably texting when he hit me. He was driving his sister's vehicle, and she had added him on her auto insurance policy. What would be the point of my paying an attorney to obtain a judgement against someone who doesn't have anything to pay? His insurance company has the word, "Specialty" following their name. Makes me wonder if it is some type of high risk insurance for people who can't otherwise be insured. Would it be possible that his liability limits would be low and that the insurance company would only have to pay to the top of the limits? (I am thinking out loud here..don't really understand) The repair on my van was $13K+ and my medical is at $2,500 + Chiropractic already. My auto insurance is with Travelers. I didn't use them for the repair because I didn't have rental coverage on my policy at the time of the accident. You can be sure that I do now.
tcope....You hit the nail squarely on the head with the assumptions about Enterprise. I have seven full printed pages of "ticket notes." The word ARMS is there. I had them print out and give me everything related to my rental when I paid them off. You did correctly understand the rental situation. No person ever contacted me from either Enterprise or the insurance company to instruct me to either return the vehicle or else assume financial responsibility. If they had, I would have returned it then. In fact, the property insurance adjuster called me (after the fact) to say that they had a "timeline" in which they felt that the body shop guy had caused delays in the repair and they didn't want to pay rental for that "timeline" period. The BS had called for a supplement because the initial estimate came in way low. 6 days later, the insurance appraiser arrived at the shop, and the insurance co. claimed that the BS guy didn't have the van broken down and ready for the adjuster to work up the supplement. That seems odd to me. Why would a BS call for a supplement and then not have the vehicle ready for the appraiser? I asked the property adjuster whether she had spoken with the body shop guy about this, and she said that she had "tried" to discuss this with him, but that he " just shut her down" and wouldn't discuss it. So, she wanted me to handle it with him. Unreal, right? I did call him, and I told him everything that she had said to me. That was on August 24th. He told me to take the Enterprise vehicle back to Enterprise, and he then sent me over to Hertz to get the Camry which he paid for during the remainder of the repair period. So, he paid for 24 days rental after I turned in the Enterprise vehicle. You'd think the insurance company would be happy with that and happily cover the rest.
I am so sorry to be so wordy here. I just want to make sure I have this right. You guys feel that I don't need to actually hire an attorney yet? I should go ahead right now and file a complaint with the GA DOI even though the medical part of my claim has not yet been addressed? I did learn about the diminshed value law in my state, and I sent notice early on to the insurance company to let them know that I would be expecting to receive those funds. Thanks for all the help!
Add your comment