by Guest » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:55 am
I was caught in a sandstorm last month and reported windshield and paint damage to my insurance carrier. Afterwards, an adjuster came and inspected the damages. When I called the person who was taking care of my claim, he said that the damages done to the windshield were substantial but the paint simply worn off with time. I painted the car just 4-5 months ago out of my own pocket as the paint was fading. It is a 10 year old Mercedes and the damage was estimated at $2500. The person over the telephone also told that the pain was not as good as the factory paint and the adjuster saw visible signs of flaking. How can they say that the paint faded with time and not because of the sandstorm?
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:52 pm Post Subject:
How can they say that the paint faded with time and not because of the sandstorm?
Because they can be of that opinion. You can also have your opinion. What you have going for you is the sand/wind damage to the windshield. If this happened to the glass on the vehicle then the same sand probably caused some type of damage to the paint.
How much did the repainting of the vehicle cost? If it was more then $600 then I'd say you have a good argument that it was a quality job and should have been in good condition after just a few months (really, even a cheap paint job should show signs of little to no wear after 5 months).
Have you given the paint receipts to the adjuster? I'd explain that you have a _very_ good case as the insurance company is willing to admit that the glass was damaged but are trying to either say the paint was not damaged at the same time or that the paint was in such bad condition after 5 months that the sand did not cause any real damage. I'd say both of those statements would be losers. Glass is much harder then paint. So what scratches glass is going to really damage paint. You can then also show that the vehicle was just painted.
I think the adjuster may be mixing two different thoughts. Factory paint is "better" then paint done afterward. However, damage is damage and their policy does not exclude _coverage_ for this. The adjuster can feel free to apply depreciation to the after market paint (which is what should be done rather then denying the claim). I'd explain this to the adjuster in an attempt to get him/her to understand that they are not handling the claim correctly. If this does not ring their bell, speak to the adjusters supervisor and explain this.
1) You have a slam dunk case to show that the paint _was_ in good condition and _was_ damaged by the storm and;
2) The fact that the car was just repainted does not exclude coverage, that the insurance company can feel free to apply depreciation which would be correct.
Add your comment