by Guest » Sat Apr 28, 2012 02:24 am
HELP!!!! Auto insurance!!!
Well here's the deal my truck was stolen and was found stripped missing bed and hood and wheels my insurance estimated the damage to be 12000 my truck blue books for 16000 they told me they were gonna total my vehicle so today someone from the insurance calls me and said all the investigation is done and they gonna pay me 16781 to pay off my truck I owe 15000 but he said if I wanted to see if I can get the vehicle fixed he would see how much they would give me to fix it how would that work?????
Well here's the deal my truck was stolen and was found stripped missing bed and hood and wheels my insurance estimated the damage to be 12000 my truck blue books for 16000 they told me they were gonna total my vehicle so today someone from the insurance calls me and said all the investigation is done and they gonna pay me 16781 to pay off my truck I owe 15000 but he said if I wanted to see if I can get the vehicle fixed he would see how much they would give me to fix it how would that work?????
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 04:13 am Post Subject:
If the repairs will cost about $12,000, and you and the insurance company agree on that, then you will still owe the $15,000 to the lender, and you will have a truck with other than factory-original body parts, which could diminish its value (a separate claim).
Or, you can agree to receive the check for $16,781, pay off what you owe, and have about $1700 left over for a down payment a new truck. Then you can have a new truck and a new loan balance and probably higher auto insurance premiums.
That's how it works.
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 01:28 pm Post Subject:
[quote](a separate claim)]/quote]
This implies that it _is_ a claim. It's not... as it's not covered under a 1st party claim (or the carrier would be the only one that does).
The other _big_ difference is if you have the vehicle repaired, you only owe what you have left on the vehicle. If you take the $1700 and finance another vehicle then you will owe what you financed.
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 07:05 pm Post Subject:
As a comprehensive claim, why couldn't there be a diminished value loss? This damage is not different than due to a collision. (In reality, because no collision was involved, it's less likely to lead to a diminished value claim.)
As to the "big" difference . . . there is, essentially, no difference. The role of insurance is to restore the insured to the "condition that existed" in the moment prior to the loss. The "condition" may be financial, it may be physical, it could be a combination of both.
At that moment, he had ownership of an intact truck with a particular Actual Cash Value. And he also owed about $15,000 on the unpaid loan balance. When he gets an insurance check for some $16,000+, he has been "restored" to the financial condition that existed in that moment. The insurance company, at that point, is entitled to outright ownership/possession of the vehicle, which is encumbered by third-party financing.
Someone owes the lender its $15,000 loan balance. Because the insurance company paid that money to the insured, the insured owes it to the lender. The $1700 difference may be used in any manner. Since the OP does not have a vehicle at this point, the $1700 is available as the down payment on a new vehicle -- exactly the same amount as would have been available by trading in the vehicle for the same value.
It's not a big difference, it is merely the opposite side of the coin. If there is a difference it is nothing other than (a) a damaged car repaired with a loan balance remaining or (b) a damaged car traded in, with $1700 of net cash value after the loan has been satisfied. Under (a), the OP has the original vehicle with a loan balance, and under (b) he has a new vehicle with a loan balance.
Financially, his loss has been compensated, which is the only promise the insurance company makes. Physically, he may or may not be driving around town in a new vehicle.
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 06:33 am Post Subject:
As a comprehensive claim, why couldn't there be a diminished value loss?
I did not say there was not DV... only that it was not a claim. It's not going to be covered under the policy. It's not one of the named perils under comprehensive coverage and the policy does not state it offers coverage for DV (pair for repairs of value... not loss of value).
condition that existed
Auto policies have not said that for years (probably 15 years). Ever since USAA, Nationwide and several others got burned for that wording, they have removed it from their policies.
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 02:24 am Post Subject:
Thank u guys very much but I was wondering say I do want my truck back but I don't want them to total it is there a way I can talk to the insurance to see what's the most they will give me to fix my truck and I'll pay the rest reason being is my credit is pretty beat up right now and I don't think I'll be able to finance another vehicle I do have money and my Uncle owns a body shop so it wouldn't be that much
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 03:12 am Post Subject:
You might not be able to talk them out of totalling the vehicle, but you could certainly negotiate retaining the vehicle, in which case they will deduct the salvage value from the claim amount they would pay.
Add your comment