by DivineAngel00 » Sun Oct 07, 2012 05:27 am
Hi,
I was recently involved in an accident in which the other party was 100% at fault. I, not knowing much about what to do at that point, called my insurance company to report the accident which resulted in my opening a claim directly with them which they are going to 'subrogate' with other side but only on the car value and rental car portion. They say that my medical and other out of pocket expenses should be filed directly with the other side.
I don't understand why they are doing this. What do they have to gain and don't I stand to lose? For example, they are limiting my rental vehicle the amounts stated under my policy and after making me a settlement offer on my total loss (ridculously low and which I am disputing) are saying that I have 3 days to give the rental car back but I haven't received any money yet and will be without a car. If I were to have filed as a 3rd party claimant on the other side wouldn't they have to make me whole and let me have the car until I received the settlement check? Also, why would they only partially subrogate?
Given the above I tried to close the claim with my insurance company and open a new claim directly with the other side's insurance but my insurance company told me that although I could open a claim directly it with the other side it was too late to close it completely with them. I called the other side's insurance and they said that they could open a claim but would not be paying for the rental/ vehicle storages costs incurred prior to the claim being opened with them (my car has been in the shop for two weeks while the insurance adjuster assessed it). So for now I have left it as is.
I am very confused and would really appreciate some advice as to what the best thing to do at this point is and why they are doing things this way. I'm in California if that makes any difference.
Thank you in advance :-0
I was recently involved in an accident in which the other party was 100% at fault. I, not knowing much about what to do at that point, called my insurance company to report the accident which resulted in my opening a claim directly with them which they are going to 'subrogate' with other side but only on the car value and rental car portion. They say that my medical and other out of pocket expenses should be filed directly with the other side.
I don't understand why they are doing this. What do they have to gain and don't I stand to lose? For example, they are limiting my rental vehicle the amounts stated under my policy and after making me a settlement offer on my total loss (ridculously low and which I am disputing) are saying that I have 3 days to give the rental car back but I haven't received any money yet and will be without a car. If I were to have filed as a 3rd party claimant on the other side wouldn't they have to make me whole and let me have the car until I received the settlement check? Also, why would they only partially subrogate?
Given the above I tried to close the claim with my insurance company and open a new claim directly with the other side's insurance but my insurance company told me that although I could open a claim directly it with the other side it was too late to close it completely with them. I called the other side's insurance and they said that they could open a claim but would not be paying for the rental/ vehicle storages costs incurred prior to the claim being opened with them (my car has been in the shop for two weeks while the insurance adjuster assessed it). So for now I have left it as is.
I am very confused and would really appreciate some advice as to what the best thing to do at this point is and why they are doing things this way. I'm in California if that makes any difference.
Thank you in advance :-0
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 07:05 am Post Subject:
If I were to have filed as a 3rd party claimant on the other side wouldn't they have to make me whole and let me have the car until I received the settlement check?
Usually not. They only owe rental until they make an offer. However, I've yet to find an insurance company that would not allow 3 days of rental after the offer was made.
Also, why would they only partially subrogate?
They are not your agent or attorney. They are only subrogated to the amount they pay. Besides... you really think they should be negotiating and settling your pain and suffering claim? How could they do that? In other words, they can't settle _your_ portion of the claim.
Given the above I tried to close the claim with my insurance company and open a new claim directly with the other side's insurance but my insurance company told me that although I could open a claim directly it with the other side it was too late to close it completely with them.
That is incorrect. As long as you've not cashed your carriers check, you can close your claim. However, this is going to delay settlement and you'd be without rental reimbursement if you kept the rental. It makes it awkward for your carrier if they have already committed to payment on your rental but that does not matter.
I called the other side's insurance and they said that they could open a claim but would not be paying for the rental/ vehicle storages costs incurred prior to the claim being opened with them (my car has been in the shop for two weeks while the insurance adjuster assessed it).
No... they _can_ pay you for reasonable loss of use (rental). There is no label of when this rental payment is for... it's just a reasonable amount of time. If it's 1 week, they pay 1 week. If it's 2 weeks, they pay 2 weeks. They even owe you loss of use if you don't get a rental. You loss the use of your vehicle. That is why it's owed.
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:32 pm Post Subject:
They say that my medical and other out of pocket expenses should be filed directly with the other side.
I don't understand why they are doing this. What do they have to gain and don't I stand to lose?
No one is in a position to lose or gain. Your medical insurance should not be paying for your loss either -- that is entirely the responsibility of the other party. Why you did not immediately initiate a claim with that company only shows that you don't understand the process (like most people). And any other out of pocket expenses would never be the responsibility of your own insurance company -- at least not until you exhausted the other party's liability coverage and needed to rely on your uninsured/underinsured bodily injury and/or property damage coverage to pick up any shortfall.
It can be "expedient" to make your claim through your own insurance company for exactly the reason they have told you. They pay you and then they subrogate with the other insurer -- it's a simple process. But they should not be low-balling your claim. You are entitled to ACV = replacement cost minus depreciation. Doesn't matter which insurance company is going to pay it.
As tcope has said, you can always send your insurance company's check back to them, and then pursue your claim properly through the other insurance company. But the delay that has been created only works to your disadvantage, and beyond a "reasonable" amount of loss of use, even a court won't award you 100% of the cost of a rental vehicle for a period of time longer than it should have taken to settle your claim.
What effort have you expended toward purchasing a replacement vehicle? If none, why? Don't you want things back to "normal" as soon as possible. If it was apparent that you would need a new vehicle, you should have taken care of that ASAP regardless of which insurance company was going to pay the claim.
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:29 pm Post Subject:
Thank you for your replies I understand better now. I was just a little confused as to why they would partially subrogate the vehicle side instead of advising me to file a claim directly with the other side and have everything go through the same insurance company.
I have not gone about purchasing a new vehicle as I was only informed on Thursday that the car would be totaled and received the settlement offer on Friday. It had been in the shop for a week and a half prior to that being assessed and the adjuster/ body shop were going back and forth as to whether it should be repaired or totaled. Since getting the offer which is about $4k below what I think it should be I have been busy learning about that and preparing a response to them with more realistic comparables/ numbers.
I was planning to wait for my settlement check though to pay for the new vehicle. I had thought (until I was told otherwise on Friday) that until I received the actual money to pay for a new vehicle a rental car should be covered, if not by my own insurance then by hers. Not everyone has the ability to finance two vehicles at the same time and a car dealer is not going to give me a vehicle on a promise that i'll have the money next week.
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 03:39 am Post Subject:
Not everyone has the ability to finance two vehicles at the same time and a car dealer is not going to give me a vehicle on a promise that i'll have the money next week.
Look at your policy. Does it state that they will pay for a rental until either the vehicle has been repaired or they pay for the value of the vehicle? Argue that they legally have not paid for it until you get the check. Argue that you should at least be given a few days to look for another vehicle. If the adjuster won't budge, speak to a supervisor.
Add your comment