by Guest » Wed Jul 24, 2013 08:22 pm
After an exhausting 3 1/2 year dispute over the valuation of my "total loss" vehicle, my first party claim Insurer now agrees they undervalued my car. So what happens now?
1. Do they just pay the difference with a supplemental check?
2. Do they owe interest on that money?
3. Is is plausible to ask for some type of compensation for the enormous amount of
my time it took challenging, disputing and battling my Insurer for a fair settlement
amount? In addition to the financial hardship of not being able to replace my
vehicle for the settle amount paid, I was burden with all the additional costs
related to building a strong case of evidence (researching and documentation)
as proof.
4. If so, how much?
5. Exercising my "Right to hire an Independent Appraiser" was not an available
option for me because my Insurer auctioned my car within 5 days of receiving
the Title package. (Of which I was told was necessary to start processing the
claim and needed for moving my car to their own storage facility to mitigate
damage expenses.)
6. Can I collect for "loss of use" on the days after my Insurer cut my Rental?
7. Am I entitled to a refund on the unused portion of my premium since I didn't have
a car for 5 months and Insurer was aware of this fact?
Thank you for your time reading my post. Any feedback is appreciated.
1. Do they just pay the difference with a supplemental check?
2. Do they owe interest on that money?
3. Is is plausible to ask for some type of compensation for the enormous amount of
my time it took challenging, disputing and battling my Insurer for a fair settlement
amount? In addition to the financial hardship of not being able to replace my
vehicle for the settle amount paid, I was burden with all the additional costs
related to building a strong case of evidence (researching and documentation)
as proof.
4. If so, how much?
5. Exercising my "Right to hire an Independent Appraiser" was not an available
option for me because my Insurer auctioned my car within 5 days of receiving
the Title package. (Of which I was told was necessary to start processing the
claim and needed for moving my car to their own storage facility to mitigate
damage expenses.)
6. Can I collect for "loss of use" on the days after my Insurer cut my Rental?
7. Am I entitled to a refund on the unused portion of my premium since I didn't have
a car for 5 months and Insurer was aware of this fact?
Thank you for your time reading my post. Any feedback is appreciated.
Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:37 pm Post Subject:
Do they just pay the difference with a supplemental check?
I would think so.
Do they owe interest on that money?
You can certainly argue that. What you want to keep in mind is that your state has a Statute of Limitations (and Statute of Repose) on contractual obligations. This means you cannot seek recovery from your carrier after that time frame unless you file a lawsuit before that time.
If you were to file suit and obtain a judgement, your state would probably allow you to collect pre-judgement interest. The grey area is that you don't "win" until a judge/jury says you win so it could be argued that pre-_judgement_ interest is not owed until there is a judgement. Valid point. However, your argument is, fine... let's go to trial, you will loose and then you will owe interest. So how about we cut to the chase and you can pay interest now. Again, this your argument. Now... the question is... is your carrier actually admitting they were wrong and owe more money or are they just offering you more to settle the dispute but not admitting that more is actually owed? If they are just offering more then their argument is since a judge/jury would not award more then there would be no judgement in your favor so no interest is owed. My advice... if they admit to the mistake ask for what interest your state allows (web search). If they are offering to settle then argue that it's owed an when they so no... negotiate.
If so, how much?
You can find this online. It's different from state to state or even county to county.
Exercising my "Right to hire an Independent Appraiser" was not an available
option for me because my Insurer auctioned my car within 5 days of receiving
the Title package.
You could not do it when you wanted to... but it was an option prior to you allowing them to take the vehicle and obtain the title.
Can I collect for "loss of use" on the days after my Insurer cut my Rental?
You ca argue this but IMHO you would not win that argument. They cut off the rental once they made the offer. You could have moved on at that point. But see my closing statement.
Am I entitled to a refund on the unused portion of my premium since I didn't have
a car for 5 months and Insurer was aware of this fact?
They should have cancelled the insurance on the date of loss. Or at least back dated it to that point. Why would you maintain insurance on a vehicle that was a total loss? I can understand that you over-looked that it should be cancelled. No big deal. As mentioned, carriers usually just back date the coverage as they knew the vehicle was a total loss anyway so they should have cancelled the insurance.
I won't go too much into the legal aspect of this issue but way back when, you should have made a written demand for $xxxxx.xx and sent that to them. This allows you to prove that you gave them notice of your demand. They should have also sent you payment at the time for the undisputed amount. If they did not, you should have sent them a letter telling them to pay the undisputed amount they should do this anyway but it helps you if you can show that you told them how to honor their own contract. All of this helps you prove what your additional damages were. For example, if they never issued th undisputed amount... or did not do it within a reasonable amount of time then you havea Bad Faith claim. If they did not evaluate the vehicle's value correctly and are not admitting that they made an error, 3 1/2 years later then yu have a good case for Bad Faith (which is why I'm betting they did not actually admit to this). When you speak to them about amounts owed to you keep throwing the words Bad Faith in the conversation (you did not do this so you are in bad Faith, etc). My recommendation is not to sound threatening (as insurance adjusters get threatened all the time)... you are just sending them key information to let them know you understand that they have some issues in the matter. If a person cna show a carrier acted in bad faith then it's no longer a matter of coverage... you would get awarded punitive damages. At that point the flood gates of money open up and the sky is the limit. Granted in your case it's not the lottery but none the less, an adjuster or supervisor does not want to explain a Bad Faith lawsuit to the their bosses.
PS why do I think this involves a CCC evaluation.
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 03:49 pm Post Subject:
If a person cna show a carrier acted in bad faith then it's no longer a matter of coverage... you would get awarded punitive damages. At that point the flood gates of money open up and the sky is the limit.
Only after a trial, and then only if the statute of limitations has not yet been passed. 3-1/2 years would be exactly 6 months too long in many states, such as California, where the time limit for filing a lawsuit is 3 years.I "wonder" why the insurance company suddenly decided it made a wrong decision 3-1/2 years ago. Could it be that they dragged things on just long enough to be in the clear? State laws in most states require that an insured/claimant be given adequate advance notice that the SOL is about to expire so that time remains to file a legal action if necessary.
Proof that the insurance company deliberately held the matter in abeyance long enough for the statute to expire would be grounds to set the statute aside and could allow a matter to proceed to trial.
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 03:55 pm Post Subject:
Only after a trial, and then only if the statute of limitations has not yet been passed. 3-1/2 years would be exactly 6 months too long in many states, such as California, where the time limit for filing a lawsuit is 3 years.
Bad Faith would be breach of contract. Written contract SOL is 4 years in CA (don't know where this took place). In most states Contract SOL is 4-6 years with 4 years being on the low side.
I think we are both thinking the same thing... how can a disputed amount drag on for 3 1/2 years. Obviously there is much more to that.
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 09:41 pm Post Subject:
My bad . . . I missed the part about first-party claim. Breach of contract only applies to first-party claims. Third-party property damage claims are subject to a 3-year statute of limitations, but written contracts in CA are 4-years. Either way, CA and most states require a minimum of 30 days' advance notice to an insured not represented by an attorney of the pending expiration of the SOL, otherwise the statute is tolled indefinitely (or until 30 days after notice is given).
Add your comment