by Guest » Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:09 am
My car was involved in a very minor rear-ender but the damage was more than the car was worth.
They offered me $3200 minus a $1050 claim paid 3 years prior on a separate minor accident that was not my fault.
Can they legally deduct the $1050 claim from 3 years prior???? Shouldn't the California Statute of Limitations prevent that?? They paid me the $1050 back in 2008 but I never had the minor scratch and scuffed bumper fixed.
Thank you
They offered me $3200 minus a $1050 claim paid 3 years prior on a separate minor accident that was not my fault.
Can they legally deduct the $1050 claim from 3 years prior???? Shouldn't the California Statute of Limitations prevent that?? They paid me the $1050 back in 2008 but I never had the minor scratch and scuffed bumper fixed.
Thank you
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:36 am Post Subject:
The SOL does not apply to their claim as it applies to the actually prior claim... not this one.
What they are claiming is that the prior damage/repair diminished the value of your vehicle.
Whats odd about this post is that those who support DV claims are now faced with admitted that this carrier is indeed 100% correct in their offer.
I'm assuming that this prior damage was repaired. Is this correct?
If it's correct then I'd ask the carrier to offer supporting documentation to show that the value is reduced by 50%.
If the prior damage was not repaired, is the cost to repair the prior damage $1050? If so, this is still incorrect. However, the value would be reduced... just not by full the repair cost.
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 09:02 am Post Subject:
I was just asking if their deduction from an incident over 3 years ago was fair.
If I waited until now to file a claim from a 2007 accident they would automatically deny it under the statute of limitations.
That said why should they be allowed to reduce my current settlement because they had also paid something in 2007? Shouldn't the stature of limitations prohibit this?
The $1050 they paid only covered half of the repairs so they underpaid then too.
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 04:25 pm Post Subject:
If I waited until now to file a claim from a 2007 accident they would automatically deny it under the statute of limitations.
SOL for written contract is 3 years on your state? You may want to look at that again. Usually the SOL for a written contract is much longer, around 6 years.The $1050 they paid only covered half of the repairs so they underpaid then too.
I'm confused... you state that you cannot file a claim for the damage from 2007 but you also state that you were paid for that damage. You are not clear on what I asked before... did someone pay you for this prior damage and was that old damage repaired? That is a big part of the issue.If they paid you for that loss and you did not have it repaired then yes, they should be able to lower the value of the vehicle.
the SOL does not apply in this situation at all. The issue is the value. It has nothing to do with a SOL.
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 09:22 am Post Subject:
the SOL does not apply in this situation at all. The issue is the value. It has nothing to do with a SOL.
Tcope is right. SOL has only to do with taking legal action against an at-fault party/insurance company in a tort situation.
If the OP was paid $1050 some time ago to pay for collision repairs, but those repairs were never made, why should an insurance company (same or not) pay for the same repair a second time? That is an unjust enrichment to the OP, and violates the concept of indemnity.
Add your comment