Re: Automotive ennui
 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Ed" <fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in message
> news:00ff751da8e1a84cdf3cd3f1e434e6b0@msgid.frell. theremailer.net...
>
>>"New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the
>>housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect
>>boredom.
>>
>>"Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..."
>>
>>Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7
>>
>
>
> Much truth to that. I hesitated buying for a year because I did not know
> what I wanted and nothing excited me.
>
>

Amen. The Mustang and Charger R/T and SRT-8 are the *only* things that
have aroused an ounce of interest from me in many, many years.
Everything else is just your generic front-drive pill-on-wheels or
shoebox-on-wheels.

Re: Automotive ennui
 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Ed" <fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in message
> news:00ff751da8e1a84cdf3cd3f1e434e6b0@msgid.frell. theremailer.net...
>
>>"New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the
>>housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect
>>boredom.
>>
>>"Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..."
>>
>>Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7
>>
>
>
> Much truth to that. I hesitated buying for a year because I did not know
> what I wanted and nothing excited me.
>
>

Amen. The Mustang and Charger R/T and SRT-8 are the *only* things that
have aroused an ounce of interest from me in many, many years.
Everything else is just your generic front-drive pill-on-wheels or
shoebox-on-wheels.

Re: Automotive ennui
 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5m9mn6Fc6065U1@mid.individual.net...

>
> Well, then we are basing both our claims on two very opposite real
> experiences. Just because your friend is ethical doesn't mean the
> industry in general is. Progressive (the insurer of the other driver that
> ran me off the road last week and that I had to chase down for two miles
> before he stopped) is refusing to add value for *ANY* enhancements, other
> than for alloy wheels - and that only because NADA lists wheels but
> nothing else.
>

You do know that you don't have to take their appraisal - right? I'd be
getting another one. This guy seems to be a jerk and in NY, he wouldn't be
acting in accrd with the laws that govern the insurance industry.


> They are absolutely refusing to add for my adding higher-end OEM radio,
> 300M instrument cluster, larger 300M brakes, and some other things to my
> Concorde.

Again - go to another appraiser - or better... to your own company.


>
>>>A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my
>>>driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total
>>>out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition
>>>ones out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were
>>>sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him
>>>standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new
>>>pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them
>>>and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total
>>>out value work sheet.
>
>> Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill?
>> What was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it
>> was not on the car?
>
> Prior claim? Where do you get that, and why would you assume I was doing
> that. But the answer to that is no. It is exactly like I said - the
> original black paint on the trim was peeling. I went to a junk yard and
> got perfect conditon chrome trim (from a higher trim pacakge). Pulled the
> old trim off my car a week before the accident, hadn't put the new trim on
> yet, and the accident happened during that week. That's it. So you think
> I was trying to defraud the insurance company.

Geezus Bill - chill. I simply asked a question. You're awfully touchy. I
didn't recall you stating that peeling paint was what caused you to remove
thr original trim. Prior damage is simply the most common reason for not
paying n a particular piece of damage, so I asked if there had been a prior
claim.

>
>> Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I
>> don't see how you can call it fraudently low.
>
> You haven't done honest real world comparisons then. Nor have you
> compared the condition of the crap you find on the market and level of
> maintenance. IOW - you didn't actually look at the condition of the
> vehicles that were selling at the low end NADA values. You would not want
> to drive a car that was actually selling for the NADA value. Well - maybe
> you would, but I wouldn't.

No - I don't look at the low end crap, but that does not make NADA
fraudulent. I most certainly have done very real world comparisons and I do
know what I'm talking about. I'm beginning to see you as whining that
everything from insurance companies to NADA is against you and you overreact
to simple questions. You seem to feel you are targeted by the world.

>
>>>Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you
>>>an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of
>>>buying cars"?
>
>> I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true.
>
> (see below where you contradict yourself on that point)

No contradiction below.

>
>> When my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance
>> company even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like
>> make/model/etc. and their current selling price.
>
> Well, I can't choose the quality of the insurers of the people who destroy
> my cars, can I. The experiences I have had are that they refuse to do
> that - they will stubbornly point to the NADA book and insist that that is
> the only value thay will recognize.

Sucks to be you then.

>
>>>It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out -
>>>by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying
>>>it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for
>>>you, you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go
>>>thru the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no
>>>answer beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little
>>>experiment and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would
>>>find one to replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line
>>>(that he was trained to use if he is ever challenged).
>>
>>
>> He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your
>> financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the
>> accident.
>
> Yet above, in direct response to my saying "Why do you think their
> standard line when you challange them to find you an equivalent car for
> the same money is 'We're not in the business of buying cars'?" you said
> "I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true."
> You're contradicting yourself. Now here you just said "They are only in
> the business of covering your financial loss relative to the condition of
> the car at the time of the accident." So which of the contradictory
> things you said is true?

This is getting tiring. Let me explain since you clearly didn't try to
understand yourself. I was stating that I had never encountered the
attitude you spoke of - in fact I receive quite the opposite attitude. Ever
think it might have to do with how you present yourself

>
> But that's just an obfuscation factor on their and your parts. You are
> pretending to have missed where I said that I was not asking them to find
> a replacement car and buy it for me. I was asking them to prove that they
> could find one in the pre-accident condition of my car for the actual
> selling price of the NADA valuation.

Which commonly proves to be no problem for 99% of the car buying public on a
daily basis.


>
>> Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with
>> two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically
>> differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on
>> the cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those
>> cars were really selling for, or more than the high end.
>
> But because your experience is different, mine is invalid - that's what
> you're saying. Next time, I will put the world in stop motion just before
> he/she hits me or runs me off the road to get the credentials of their
> insurer and then let him/her know whether I will allow them to continue
> the accident. Geez.
>

No Bill - I said no such thing. You need to learn to read and get off your
self sympathy jag.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Re: Automotive ennui
 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5m9mn6Fc6065U1@mid.individual.net...

>
> Well, then we are basing both our claims on two very opposite real
> experiences. Just because your friend is ethical doesn't mean the
> industry in general is. Progressive (the insurer of the other driver that
> ran me off the road last week and that I had to chase down for two miles
> before he stopped) is refusing to add value for *ANY* enhancements, other
> than for alloy wheels - and that only because NADA lists wheels but
> nothing else.
>

You do know that you don't have to take their appraisal - right? I'd be
getting another one. This guy seems to be a jerk and in NY, he wouldn't be
acting in accrd with the laws that govern the insurance industry.


> They are absolutely refusing to add for my adding higher-end OEM radio,
> 300M instrument cluster, larger 300M brakes, and some other things to my
> Concorde.

Again - go to another appraiser - or better... to your own company.


>
>>>A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my
>>>driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total
>>>out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition
>>>ones out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were
>>>sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him
>>>standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new
>>>pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them
>>>and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total
>>>out value work sheet.
>
>> Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill?
>> What was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it
>> was not on the car?
>
> Prior claim? Where do you get that, and why would you assume I was doing
> that. But the answer to that is no. It is exactly like I said - the
> original black paint on the trim was peeling. I went to a junk yard and
> got perfect conditon chrome trim (from a higher trim pacakge). Pulled the
> old trim off my car a week before the accident, hadn't put the new trim on
> yet, and the accident happened during that week. That's it. So you think
> I was trying to defraud the insurance company.

Geezus Bill - chill. I simply asked a question. You're awfully touchy. I
didn't recall you stating that peeling paint was what caused you to remove
thr original trim. Prior damage is simply the most common reason for not
paying n a particular piece of damage, so I asked if there had been a prior
claim.

>
>> Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I
>> don't see how you can call it fraudently low.
>
> You haven't done honest real world comparisons then. Nor have you
> compared the condition of the crap you find on the market and level of
> maintenance. IOW - you didn't actually look at the condition of the
> vehicles that were selling at the low end NADA values. You would not want
> to drive a car that was actually selling for the NADA value. Well - maybe
> you would, but I wouldn't.

No - I don't look at the low end crap, but that does not make NADA
fraudulent. I most certainly have done very real world comparisons and I do
know what I'm talking about. I'm beginning to see you as whining that
everything from insurance companies to NADA is against you and you overreact
to simple questions. You seem to feel you are targeted by the world.

>
>>>Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you
>>>an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of
>>>buying cars"?
>
>> I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true.
>
> (see below where you contradict yourself on that point)

No contradiction below.

>
>> When my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance
>> company even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like
>> make/model/etc. and their current selling price.
>
> Well, I can't choose the quality of the insurers of the people who destroy
> my cars, can I. The experiences I have had are that they refuse to do
> that - they will stubbornly point to the NADA book and insist that that is
> the only value thay will recognize.

Sucks to be you then.

>
>>>It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out -
>>>by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying
>>>it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for
>>>you, you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go
>>>thru the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no
>>>answer beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little
>>>experiment and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would
>>>find one to replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line
>>>(that he was trained to use if he is ever challenged).
>>
>>
>> He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your
>> financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the
>> accident.
>
> Yet above, in direct response to my saying "Why do you think their
> standard line when you challange them to find you an equivalent car for
> the same money is 'We're not in the business of buying cars'?" you said
> "I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true."
> You're contradicting yourself. Now here you just said "They are only in
> the business of covering your financial loss relative to the condition of
> the car at the time of the accident." So which of the contradictory
> things you said is true?

This is getting tiring. Let me explain since you clearly didn't try to
understand yourself. I was stating that I had never encountered the
attitude you spoke of - in fact I receive quite the opposite attitude. Ever
think it might have to do with how you present yourself

>
> But that's just an obfuscation factor on their and your parts. You are
> pretending to have missed where I said that I was not asking them to find
> a replacement car and buy it for me. I was asking them to prove that they
> could find one in the pre-accident condition of my car for the actual
> selling price of the NADA valuation.

Which commonly proves to be no problem for 99% of the car buying public on a
daily basis.


>
>> Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with
>> two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically
>> differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on
>> the cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those
>> cars were really selling for, or more than the high end.
>
> But because your experience is different, mine is invalid - that's what
> you're saying. Next time, I will put the world in stop motion just before
> he/she hits me or runs me off the road to get the credentials of their
> insurer and then let him/her know whether I will allow them to continue
> the accident. Geez.
>

No Bill - I said no such thing. You need to learn to read and get off your
self sympathy jag.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Re: Automotive ennui
 

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:56:16 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

> You do know that you don't have to take their appraisal - right? I'd
> be getting another one. This guy seems to be a jerk and in NY, he
> wouldn't be acting in accrd with the laws that govern the insurance
> industry.

This is something that most people do NOT seem to know, and the insurance
companies certainly do not advertise it. They try to steer people to the
repair shops that give them the lowest prices, often with lower quality
repairs, and they scare the car owners into thinking that they will not
be warranted if they go somewhere else. And they certainly want you to
think that whatever they offer is what you have to take.

I have refused ridiculously low repair quotes from insurance adjusters in
the past, and they always grumble, but they always pay what my preferred
shop charges.

Luckily, I have never totaled a car, so I do not have any experience in
that venue.



--
Joe - Registered Linux User #449481
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Re: Automotive ennui
 

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:56:16 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

> You do know that you don't have to take their appraisal - right? I'd
> be getting another one. This guy seems to be a jerk and in NY, he
> wouldn't be acting in accrd with the laws that govern the insurance
> industry.

This is something that most people do NOT seem to know, and the insurance
companies certainly do not advertise it. They try to steer people to the
repair shops that give them the lowest prices, often with lower quality
repairs, and they scare the car owners into thinking that they will not
be warranted if they go somewhere else. And they certainly want you to
think that whatever they offer is what you have to take.

I have refused ridiculously low repair quotes from insurance adjusters in
the past, and they always grumble, but they always pay what my preferred
shop charges.

Luckily, I have never totaled a car, so I do not have any experience in
that venue.



--
Joe - Registered Linux User #449481
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Re: Automotive ennui
 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5m70urFbtdh2U1@mid.individual.net...
> Chevy Man wrote:
>
> > Great on flat ground but how would it do in the mountains? What happens
when
> > it breaks I am sure it will be CHEAP to fix. Gas mileage is not
everything
> > you have to include future repairs too. Especially when most people run
> > their cars well over 100k miles.
>
> Bingo. That's one of the problems with all the "money saving" or safety
> technology - they do fail - not all of them at the same time, but let's
> say you have 30 technological wizbangs on your car.

Bill you know better than that.

The modern car engine has hundreds of technological improvements -
everything from special mold casting and cooling procedures, special
alloys, plastics, materials, piston designs, etc. etc.

If any one of those changes failed - well you have a big dead paperweight.

The reason they don't fail all the time is that they have been time-tested.
Catalyatic converters for example are time-tested. They used to fail all
the time, now they don't.

There's a good
> chance several are going to fail at some point. Some are cheap to fix,
> some will cost more than the value of the car when it gets some age and
> mileage on it (*especially* if you are not a DIY'er and parts
> scrounger). Try selling or trading in a car when two or three
> electronic things (ABS, tranny controls, seat heaters and air
> conditionaers) are not working and see what that does to the value.
>

Those add-ins add value to the used vehicle. So if they aren't failed, you
get a higher resale value. You either buy a stripped down car, don't
enjoy the extra amenities, and sell it for dirt prices, or you buy a full
featured car, enjoy those amenities, and take a gamble that your going to
sell it before that stuff starts failing.

> And God help you if an insurance company is totaling out your car and
> discovers things missing or not working. They deduct fullup OEM parts
> prices and labor from the value of your car for everything - whether
> anyone really cares if it works or not - like that they can find.
> Doesn't take long, with their fraudlently low NADA starting numbers to
> get your actually-worth-$5000 car down to $2500 or less.
>

What are you smoking? I have had cars totaled and near totaled and once
the blue book/NADA is low enough they don't give a about whether things
are not working or not. And when the book value is high enough the car
is likely still under warranty.

And you always have to fight over the value of any car that they total.
What
matters is whether the car value is high enough to bother hiring an
appraiser.
If a $150 appraisal can get you an extra $600 added to the car value, it's
money well spent. If it can only get you an extra $150 added, well then you
won't do it and just end up grumbling about fraudlently low starting
numbers.

Grumbling about the insurance company's attempt to pay as little as possible
for a total is akin to grumbling over a car dealer trying to sell a vehicle
as high
as possible. It's expected behavior by both groups and is to be taken in
stride.

Ted

Re: Automotive ennui
 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5m70urFbtdh2U1@mid.individual.net...
> Chevy Man wrote:
>
> > Great on flat ground but how would it do in the mountains? What happens
when
> > it breaks I am sure it will be CHEAP to fix. Gas mileage is not
everything
> > you have to include future repairs too. Especially when most people run
> > their cars well over 100k miles.
>
> Bingo. That's one of the problems with all the "money saving" or safety
> technology - they do fail - not all of them at the same time, but let's
> say you have 30 technological wizbangs on your car.

Bill you know better than that.

The modern car engine has hundreds of technological improvements -
everything from special mold casting and cooling procedures, special
alloys, plastics, materials, piston designs, etc. etc.

If any one of those changes failed - well you have a big dead paperweight.

The reason they don't fail all the time is that they have been time-tested.
Catalyatic converters for example are time-tested. They used to fail all
the time, now they don't.

There's a good
> chance several are going to fail at some point. Some are cheap to fix,
> some will cost more than the value of the car when it gets some age and
> mileage on it (*especially* if you are not a DIY'er and parts
> scrounger). Try selling or trading in a car when two or three
> electronic things (ABS, tranny controls, seat heaters and air
> conditionaers) are not working and see what that does to the value.
>

Those add-ins add value to the used vehicle. So if they aren't failed, you
get a higher resale value. You either buy a stripped down car, don't
enjoy the extra amenities, and sell it for dirt prices, or you buy a full
featured car, enjoy those amenities, and take a gamble that your going to
sell it before that stuff starts failing.

> And God help you if an insurance company is totaling out your car and
> discovers things missing or not working. They deduct fullup OEM parts
> prices and labor from the value of your car for everything - whether
> anyone really cares if it works or not - like that they can find.
> Doesn't take long, with their fraudlently low NADA starting numbers to
> get your actually-worth-$5000 car down to $2500 or less.
>

What are you smoking? I have had cars totaled and near totaled and once
the blue book/NADA is low enough they don't give a about whether things
are not working or not. And when the book value is high enough the car
is likely still under warranty.

And you always have to fight over the value of any car that they total.
What
matters is whether the car value is high enough to bother hiring an
appraiser.
If a $150 appraisal can get you an extra $600 added to the car value, it's
money well spent. If it can only get you an extra $150 added, well then you
won't do it and just end up grumbling about fraudlently low starting
numbers.

Grumbling about the insurance company's attempt to pay as little as possible
for a total is akin to grumbling over a car dealer trying to sell a vehicle
as high
as possible. It's expected behavior by both groups and is to be taken in
stride.

Ted

Re: Automotive ennui
 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5m9mn6Fc6065U1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> > "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
> > news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net...
> >
>
> Well, then we are basing both our claims on two very opposite real
> experiences. Just because your friend is ethical doesn't mean the
> industry in general is. Progressive (the insurer of the other driver
> that ran me off the road last week and that I had to chase down for two
> miles before he stopped) is refusing to add value for *ANY*
> enhancements, other than for alloy wheels - and that only because NADA
> lists wheels but nothing else.
>
> They are absolutely refusing to add for my adding higher-end OEM radio,
> 300M instrument cluster, larger 300M brakes, and some other things to my
> Concorde.
>

Well of course they are. Your not their customer and they don't owe you
anything beyond what the minimum the law requires. And if there were no
witnesses, then Progressive is having to take you at your word as for the
damage their policy holder caused - and you can certainly imagine their
policyholder is claiming that the damage is minimal.

You said you chased him down - did you call the cops? Did he get cited
for failing to stop at an accident? If not, then looking at it from
Progressive's POV, you
could be lying through your teeth.

Just as if you hit someone else, and they made a claim against you, your
insurance company would nickel-and-dime their claim.

Insurance companies are in the business of acting to protect their
policyholders.
And you as a policyholder would be incensed if you hit someone's piece of
car old beater and they got your insurance company to give them a brand
new car. If insurance companies regularly did stuff like this, then people
would
be scamming them all the time and premiums would go through the roof.

> >>A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my
> >>driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total
> >>out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition
ones
> >>out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were
> >>sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him
> >>standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and
new
> >>pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them
> >>and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total
out
> >>value work sheet.

Well, that is your fault.

When my wife's minivan was rear-ended a few years ago, one of the things
that
was busted was the taillight. Naturally this made it unsafe to drive so I
bought a
replacement taillight the following day from a wrecker to use while she was
driving
it around while we were waiting for the body shop schedule to open up.
(this one
was a real hit and run, the cops came and all of that) The day I took the
van in to
the shop (where it was estimated) I made sure to replace the taillight with
the busted
one before estimate. Then after the estimate and when the repair work was
being
done I gave the shop the good tailight and that was set against the
deductible with full
OEM value. Of course I hadn't paid full OEM value to the wrecker.

> Well, I can't choose the quality of the insurers of the people who
> destroy my cars, can I. The experiences I have had are that they refuse
> to do that - they will stubbornly point to the NADA book and insist that
> that is the only value thay will recognize.
>

In which case you get your own appraisal and call their bluff in court.

Your a car guy Bill, you know how to access car forums. If you had done
so at the time you would have been told how to act and how to handle
the adjusters and what to expect. Then you would have put the trim on
and gotten credit for it, and this time around if you follow the advice we
are giving you you'll do the small claims thing.

It's pointless for you to get all upset about the tens of thousands of other
car owners out there who get in accidents and get suckered into taking
a low value for a total. Those people are adults and can choose to come
to car forums and ask for advice. They don't and so they don't do the
court route and they get screwed. Their choice. You ought to be happy
since their rolling over and taking it up the arse is keeping the premiums
lower for those of us who know how to handle these issues.

> I was asking them to prove
> that they could find one in the pre-accident condition of my car for the
> actual selling price of the NADA valuation.
>

That's not their job. Their job is to protect the interests of their
policyholders
and stockholders and try to pay out as little as possible. It's your job to
prove what they are offering is too low - something that is simple enough
that
we would expect someone with your level of intelligence to be able to do it
in
your sleep.

> > Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing
with
> > two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically
> > differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on
the
> > cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those cars
were
> > really selling for, or more than the high end.
>
> But because your experience is different, mine is invalid - that's what
> you're saying.

He didn't say if he was claiming on his own policy or that of another
insurers.

If he had comprehensive insurance (which most people do who own financed
cars, or cars that are worth a lot of money) then if he was hit he would
make
the claim against his own policy and his insurance company would go after
the other driver's policy. Since the other driver would be declared to be
at
fault, such a claim wouldn't be set against his own policy and would not
cause
his premiums to rise. And of course his own insurance company is going to
make sure he is happy in how the claim was handled.

You (obviously) carry liability only on your own vehicle. So do I, by the
way.
Both of us are saving a ton of money because we are doing that. The
difference
however is that I have accepted the fact that if I get hit, I will have to
fight
the other insurance company for a fair payment - this is the price of the
money
savings I am having by not carrying comprehensive. This doesen't bother me
much since I tend not to own vehicles worth more than a few thousand bucks,
and when I fight over my nickles with the insurance companies of people
who hit me, it's not worth it to the other insurance company to pay out for
a lawyer to fight me back.

You obviously have not accepted this. -
perhaps you need to re-evaulate whether liability-only is the correct
insurance
product for you to carry.

Ted

Re: Automotive ennui
 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5m9mn6Fc6065U1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> > "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
> > news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net...
> >
>
> Well, then we are basing both our claims on two very opposite real
> experiences. Just because your friend is ethical doesn't mean the
> industry in general is. Progressive (the insurer of the other driver
> that ran me off the road last week and that I had to chase down for two
> miles before he stopped) is refusing to add value for *ANY*
> enhancements, other than for alloy wheels - and that only because NADA
> lists wheels but nothing else.
>
> They are absolutely refusing to add for my adding higher-end OEM radio,
> 300M instrument cluster, larger 300M brakes, and some other things to my
> Concorde.
>

Well of course they are. Your not their customer and they don't owe you
anything beyond what the minimum the law requires. And if there were no
witnesses, then Progressive is having to take you at your word as for the
damage their policy holder caused - and you can certainly imagine their
policyholder is claiming that the damage is minimal.

You said you chased him down - did you call the cops? Did he get cited
for failing to stop at an accident? If not, then looking at it from
Progressive's POV, you
could be lying through your teeth.

Just as if you hit someone else, and they made a claim against you, your
insurance company would nickel-and-dime their claim.

Insurance companies are in the business of acting to protect their
policyholders.
And you as a policyholder would be incensed if you hit someone's piece of
car old beater and they got your insurance company to give them a brand
new car. If insurance companies regularly did stuff like this, then people
would
be scamming them all the time and premiums would go through the roof.

> >>A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my
> >>driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total
> >>out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition
ones
> >>out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were
> >>sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him
> >>standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and
new
> >>pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them
> >>and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total
out
> >>value work sheet.

Well, that is your fault.

When my wife's minivan was rear-ended a few years ago, one of the things
that
was busted was the taillight. Naturally this made it unsafe to drive so I
bought a
replacement taillight the following day from a wrecker to use while she was
driving
it around while we were waiting for the body shop schedule to open up.
(this one
was a real hit and run, the cops came and all of that) The day I took the
van in to
the shop (where it was estimated) I made sure to replace the taillight with
the busted
one before estimate. Then after the estimate and when the repair work was
being
done I gave the shop the good tailight and that was set against the
deductible with full
OEM value. Of course I hadn't paid full OEM value to the wrecker.

> Well, I can't choose the quality of the insurers of the people who
> destroy my cars, can I. The experiences I have had are that they refuse
> to do that - they will stubbornly point to the NADA book and insist that
> that is the only value thay will recognize.
>

In which case you get your own appraisal and call their bluff in court.

Your a car guy Bill, you know how to access car forums. If you had done
so at the time you would have been told how to act and how to handle
the adjusters and what to expect. Then you would have put the trim on
and gotten credit for it, and this time around if you follow the advice we
are giving you you'll do the small claims thing.

It's pointless for you to get all upset about the tens of thousands of other
car owners out there who get in accidents and get suckered into taking
a low value for a total. Those people are adults and can choose to come
to car forums and ask for advice. They don't and so they don't do the
court route and they get screwed. Their choice. You ought to be happy
since their rolling over and taking it up the arse is keeping the premiums
lower for those of us who know how to handle these issues.

> I was asking them to prove
> that they could find one in the pre-accident condition of my car for the
> actual selling price of the NADA valuation.
>

That's not their job. Their job is to protect the interests of their
policyholders
and stockholders and try to pay out as little as possible. It's your job to
prove what they are offering is too low - something that is simple enough
that
we would expect someone with your level of intelligence to be able to do it
in
your sleep.

> > Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing
with
> > two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically
> > differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on
the
> > cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those cars
were
> > really selling for, or more than the high end.
>
> But because your experience is different, mine is invalid - that's what
> you're saying.

He didn't say if he was claiming on his own policy or that of another
insurers.

If he had comprehensive insurance (which most people do who own financed
cars, or cars that are worth a lot of money) then if he was hit he would
make
the claim against his own policy and his insurance company would go after
the other driver's policy. Since the other driver would be declared to be
at
fault, such a claim wouldn't be set against his own policy and would not
cause
his premiums to rise. And of course his own insurance company is going to
make sure he is happy in how the claim was handled.

You (obviously) carry liability only on your own vehicle. So do I, by the
way.
Both of us are saving a ton of money because we are doing that. The
difference
however is that I have accepted the fact that if I get hit, I will have to
fight
the other insurance company for a fair payment - this is the price of the
money
savings I am having by not carrying comprehensive. This doesen't bother me
much since I tend not to own vehicles worth more than a few thousand bucks,
and when I fight over my nickles with the insurance companies of people
who hit me, it's not worth it to the other insurance company to pay out for
a lawyer to fight me back.

You obviously have not accepted this. -
perhaps you need to re-evaulate whether liability-only is the correct
insurance
product for you to carry.

Ted

Re: Automotive ennui
 

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$eu68pj$vg91$1@news.ipinc.net...

>
> He didn't say if he was claiming on his own policy or that of another
> insurers.
>
> If he had comprehensive insurance (which most people do who own financed
> cars, or cars that are worth a lot of money) then if he was hit he would
> make
> the claim against his own policy and his insurance company would go after
> the other driver's policy. Since the other driver would be declared to be
> at
> fault, such a claim wouldn't be set against his own policy and would not
> cause
> his premiums to rise. And of course his own insurance company is going to
> make sure he is happy in how the claim was handled.
>

Excellent observation - I was indeed speaking from the position of keeping
both Comp and Collision on all of my vehicles. And... as you state, I deal
with my insurance company and I let them deal with the other party's
company. If the other party's insurance company wants to see my car - fine,
but that's as far as it goes. I don't accept checks from them.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Re: Automotive ennui
 

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$eu68pj$vg91$1@news.ipinc.net...

>
> He didn't say if he was claiming on his own policy or that of another
> insurers.
>
> If he had comprehensive insurance (which most people do who own financed
> cars, or cars that are worth a lot of money) then if he was hit he would
> make
> the claim against his own policy and his insurance company would go after
> the other driver's policy. Since the other driver would be declared to be
> at
> fault, such a claim wouldn't be set against his own policy and would not
> cause
> his premiums to rise. And of course his own insurance company is going to
> make sure he is happy in how the claim was handled.
>

Excellent observation - I was indeed speaking from the position of keeping
both Comp and Collision on all of my vehicles. And... as you state, I deal
with my insurance company and I let them deal with the other party's
company. If the other party's insurance company wants to see my car - fine,
but that's as far as it goes. I don't accept checks from them.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Re: Automotive ennui
 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:5m9mn6Fc6065U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>>Well, then we are basing both our claims on two very opposite real
>>experiences. Just because your friend is ethical doesn't mean the
>>industry in general is. Progressive (the insurer of the other driver that
>>ran me off the road last week and that I had to chase down for two miles
>>before he stopped) is refusing to add value for *ANY* enhancements, other
>>than for alloy wheels - and that only because NADA lists wheels but
>>nothing else.
>>
>
>
> You do know that you don't have to take their appraisal - right? I'd be
> getting another one. This guy seems to be a jerk and in NY, he wouldn't be
> acting in accrd with the laws that govern the insurance industry.
>
>
>
>>They are absolutely refusing to add for my adding higher-end OEM radio,
>>300M instrument cluster, larger 300M brakes, and some other things to my
>>Concorde.
>
>
> Again - go to another appraiser - or better... to your own company.

In the process of doing so now. Also threatening them with small claims
court (I am told that I would sue their customer, not the insurance
company - which will also give me the opportunity in court to point out
to the judge that he left the scene and that I had to chase him for 2
miles - I have pointed this out to the adjuster as wel as the fact that
I don't bluff).

>>>>A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my
>>>>driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total
>>>>out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition
>>>>ones out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were
>>>>sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him
>>>>standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new
>>>>pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them
>>>>and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total
>>>>out value work sheet.
>>
>>>Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill?
>>>What was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it
>>>was not on the car?
>>
>>Prior claim? Where do you get that, and why would you assume I was doing
>>that. But the answer to that is no. It is exactly like I said - the
>>original black paint on the trim was peeling. I went to a junk yard and
>>got perfect conditon chrome trim (from a higher trim pacakge). Pulled the
>>old trim off my car a week before the accident, hadn't put the new trim on
>>yet, and the accident happened during that week. That's it. So you think
>>I was trying to defraud the insurance company.
>
>
> Geezus Bill - chill. I simply asked a question.

It would take a really stupid person to be complaining that he couldn't
get paid twice for the same thing in separate insurance claims. That is
what you were suggesting that I was possibly trying to do. So yes -
that was rather insulting from a couple of standpoints.

> You're awfully touchy.

OK. So I'm touchy.

> I
> didn't recall you stating that peeling paint was what caused you to remove
> thr original trim. Prior damage is simply the most common reason for not
> paying n a particular piece of damage, so I asked if there had been a prior
> claim.

OK - I see where you're coming from on that.

>>>Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I
>>>don't see how you can call it fraudently low.
>>
>>You haven't done honest real world comparisons then. Nor have you
>>compared the condition of the crap you find on the market and level of
>>maintenance. IOW - you didn't actually look at the condition of the
>>vehicles that were selling at the low end NADA values. You would not want
>>to drive a car that was actually selling for the NADA value. Well - maybe
>>you would, but I wouldn't.
>
>
> No - I don't look at the low end crap, but that does not make NADA
> fraudulent. I most certainly have done very real world comparisons and I do
> know what I'm talking about. I'm beginning to see you as whining that
> everything from insurance companies to NADA is against you and you overreact
> to simple questions. You seem to feel you are targeted by the world.

No - I just see insurance companies pulling crap that most people don't
know enough about to even realize they're being taken advantage of. If
that makes me paranoid (I think that's what you described without using
the word), then so be it.

>>>>Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you
>>>>an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of
>>>>buying cars"?
>>
>>>I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true.
>>
>>(see below where you contradict yourself on that point)
>
>
> No contradiction below.

Read your two paragraphs again about the exact same statement of mine.

Here it is again: In response to my claiming they say 'We're not in the
business of buying cars'?" you said "I have never heard such a thing.
In fact quite the opposite is true." Then, regarding my same statement,
you said "They are only in the business of covering your financial loss
relative to the condition of the car at the time of the accident."
Those are contradictory statements regaring the same statement of mine.

>>>When my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance
>>>company even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like
>>>make/model/etc. and their current selling price.

Again - your experience vs. my just as valid experience. In my case,
they are saying it's NADA - nothing else, and no adjustments for
condition or adders.

>>Well, I can't choose the quality of the insurers of the people who destroy
>>my cars, can I. The experiences I have had are that they refuse to do
>>that - they will stubbornly point to the NADA book and insist that that is
>>the only value thay will recognize.

>Sucks to be you then.

Yes - in this situation. Surely I am not the only one here who has
experienced this (and I'll quit calling you Shirley now).

>>>>It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out -
>>>>by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying
>>>>it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for
>>>>you, you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go
>>>>thru the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no
>>>>answer beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little
>>>>experiment and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would
>>>>find one to replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line
>>>>(that he was trained to use if he is ever challenged).
>>>
>>>
>>>He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your
>>>financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the
>>>accident.
>>
>>Yet above, in direct response to my saying "Why do you think their
>>standard line when you challange them to find you an equivalent car for
>>the same money is 'We're not in the business of buying cars'?" you said
>>"I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true."
>>You're contradicting yourself. Now here you just said "They are only in
>>the business of covering your financial loss relative to the condition of
>>the car at the time of the accident." So which of the contradictory
>>things you said is true?
>
>
> This is getting tiring. Let me explain since you clearly didn't try to
> understand yourself. I was stating that I had never encountered the
> attitude you spoke of - in fact I receive quite the opposite attitude. Ever
> think it might have to do with how you present yourself

No. And you don't know how I conducted myself. I gave them opportunity
to make an honest evaluation without assuming anything. Then I started
asking questions.

>>But that's just an obfuscation factor on their and your parts. You are
>>pretending to have missed where I said that I was not asking them to find
>>a replacement car and buy it for me. I was asking them to prove that they
>>could find one in the pre-accident condition of my car for the actual
>>selling price of the NADA valuation.
>
>
> Which commonly proves to be no problem for 99% of the car buying public on a
> daily basis.

99%? I *seriously* doubt that "statistic". I'd maybe believe 60%, with
another 15% not realizing they're being taken.

>>>Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with
>>>two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically
>>>differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on
>>>the cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those
>>>cars were really selling for, or more than the high end.
>>
>>But because your experience is different, mine is invalid - that's what
>>you're saying. Next time, I will put the world in stop motion just before
>>he/she hits me or runs me off the road to get the credentials of their
>>insurer and then let him/her know whether I will allow them to continue
>>the accident. Geez.
>>
>
>
> No Bill - I said no such thing.

Only if you accept that I am in a very small 1% of the majority - that
my experience is extremely atypical. I seriously doubt that.

> You need to learn to read and get off your
> self sympathy jag.

In your opinion.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Re: Automotive ennui
 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:5m9mn6Fc6065U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>>Well, then we are basing both our claims on two very opposite real
>>experiences. Just because your friend is ethical doesn't mean the
>>industry in general is. Progressive (the insurer of the other driver that
>>ran me off the road last week and that I had to chase down for two miles
>>before he stopped) is refusing to add value for *ANY* enhancements, other
>>than for alloy wheels - and that only because NADA lists wheels but
>>nothing else.
>>
>
>
> You do know that you don't have to take their appraisal - right? I'd be
> getting another one. This guy seems to be a jerk and in NY, he wouldn't be
> acting in accrd with the laws that govern the insurance industry.
>
>
>
>>They are absolutely refusing to add for my adding higher-end OEM radio,
>>300M instrument cluster, larger 300M brakes, and some other things to my
>>Concorde.
>
>
> Again - go to another appraiser - or better... to your own company.

In the process of doing so now. Also threatening them with small claims
court (I am told that I would sue their customer, not the insurance
company - which will also give me the opportunity in court to point out
to the judge that he left the scene and that I had to chase him for 2
miles - I have pointed this out to the adjuster as wel as the fact that
I don't bluff).

>>>>A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my
>>>>driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total
>>>>out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition
>>>>ones out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were
>>>>sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him
>>>>standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new
>>>>pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them
>>>>and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total
>>>>out value work sheet.
>>
>>>Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill?
>>>What was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it
>>>was not on the car?
>>
>>Prior claim? Where do you get that, and why would you assume I was doing
>>that. But the answer to that is no. It is exactly like I said - the
>>original black paint on the trim was peeling. I went to a junk yard and
>>got perfect conditon chrome trim (from a higher trim pacakge). Pulled the
>>old trim off my car a week before the accident, hadn't put the new trim on
>>yet, and the accident happened during that week. That's it. So you think
>>I was trying to defraud the insurance company.
>
>
> Geezus Bill - chill. I simply asked a question.

It would take a really stupid person to be complaining that he couldn't
get paid twice for the same thing in separate insurance claims. That is
what you were suggesting that I was possibly trying to do. So yes -
that was rather insulting from a couple of standpoints.

> You're awfully touchy.

OK. So I'm touchy.

> I
> didn't recall you stating that peeling paint was what caused you to remove
> thr original trim. Prior damage is simply the most common reason for not
> paying n a particular piece of damage, so I asked if there had been a prior
> claim.

OK - I see where you're coming from on that.

>>>Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I
>>>don't see how you can call it fraudently low.
>>
>>You haven't done honest real world comparisons then. Nor have you
>>compared the condition of the crap you find on the market and level of
>>maintenance. IOW - you didn't actually look at the condition of the
>>vehicles that were selling at the low end NADA values. You would not want
>>to drive a car that was actually selling for the NADA value. Well - maybe
>>you would, but I wouldn't.
>
>
> No - I don't look at the low end crap, but that does not make NADA
> fraudulent. I most certainly have done very real world comparisons and I do
> know what I'm talking about. I'm beginning to see you as whining that
> everything from insurance companies to NADA is against you and you overreact
> to simple questions. You seem to feel you are targeted by the world.

No - I just see insurance companies pulling crap that most people don't
know enough about to even realize they're being taken advantage of. If
that makes me paranoid (I think that's what you described without using
the word), then so be it.

>>>>Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you
>>>>an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of
>>>>buying cars"?
>>
>>>I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true.
>>
>>(see below where you contradict yourself on that point)
>
>
> No contradiction below.

Read your two paragraphs again about the exact same statement of mine.

Here it is again: In response to my claiming they say 'We're not in the
business of buying cars'?" you said "I have never heard such a thing.
In fact quite the opposite is true." Then, regarding my same statement,
you said "They are only in the business of covering your financial loss
relative to the condition of the car at the time of the accident."
Those are contradictory statements regaring the same statement of mine.

>>>When my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance
>>>company even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like
>>>make/model/etc. and their current selling price.

Again - your experience vs. my just as valid experience. In my case,
they are saying it's NADA - nothing else, and no adjustments for
condition or adders.

>>Well, I can't choose the quality of the insurers of the people who destroy
>>my cars, can I. The experiences I have had are that they refuse to do
>>that - they will stubbornly point to the NADA book and insist that that is
>>the only value thay will recognize.

>Sucks to be you then.

Yes - in this situation. Surely I am not the only one here who has
experienced this (and I'll quit calling you Shirley now).

>>>>It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out -
>>>>by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying
>>>>it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for
>>>>you, you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go
>>>>thru the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no
>>>>answer beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little
>>>>experiment and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would
>>>>find one to replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line
>>>>(that he was trained to use if he is ever challenged).
>>>
>>>
>>>He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your
>>>financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the
>>>accident.
>>
>>Yet above, in direct response to my saying "Why do you think their
>>standard line when you challange them to find you an equivalent car for
>>the same money is 'We're not in the business of buying cars'?" you said
>>"I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true."
>>You're contradicting yourself. Now here you just said "They are only in
>>the business of covering your financial loss relative to the condition of
>>the car at the time of the accident." So which of the contradictory
>>things you said is true?
>
>
> This is getting tiring. Let me explain since you clearly didn't try to
> understand yourself. I was stating that I had never encountered the
> attitude you spoke of - in fact I receive quite the opposite attitude. Ever
> think it might have to do with how you present yourself

No. And you don't know how I conducted myself. I gave them opportunity
to make an honest evaluation without assuming anything. Then I started
asking questions.

>>But that's just an obfuscation factor on their and your parts. You are
>>pretending to have missed where I said that I was not asking them to find
>>a replacement car and buy it for me. I was asking them to prove that they
>>could find one in the pre-accident condition of my car for the actual
>>selling price of the NADA valuation.
>
>
> Which commonly proves to be no problem for 99% of the car buying public on a
> daily basis.

99%? I *seriously* doubt that "statistic". I'd maybe believe 60%, with
another 15% not realizing they're being taken.

>>>Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with
>>>two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically
>>>differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on
>>>the cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those
>>>cars were really selling for, or more than the high end.
>>
>>But because your experience is different, mine is invalid - that's what
>>you're saying. Next time, I will put the world in stop motion just before
>>he/she hits me or runs me off the road to get the credentials of their
>>insurer and then let him/her know whether I will allow them to continue
>>the accident. Geez.
>>
>
>
> No Bill - I said no such thing.

Only if you accept that I am in a very small 1% of the majority - that
my experience is extremely atypical. I seriously doubt that.

> You need to learn to read and get off your
> self sympathy jag.

In your opinion.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Re: Automotive ennui
 

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:5m9mn6Fc6065U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
>>>news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>
>>Well, then we are basing both our claims on two very opposite real
>>experiences. Just because your friend is ethical doesn't mean the
>>industry in general is. Progressive (the insurer of the other driver
>>that ran me off the road last week and that I had to chase down for two
>>miles before he stopped) is refusing to add value for *ANY*
>>enhancements, other than for alloy wheels - and that only because NADA
>>lists wheels but nothing else.
>>
>>They are absolutely refusing to add for my adding higher-end OEM radio,
>>300M instrument cluster, larger 300M brakes, and some other things to my
>>Concorde.
>>
>
>
> Well of course they are. Your not their customer and they don't owe you
> anything beyond what the minimum the law requires.

Yes - ethicaly and legally they owe me the fair market value of the car
based on several things. And that's exactly what they are not doing.

> And if there were no
> witnesses, then Progressive is having to take you at your word as for the
> damage their policy holder caused - and you can certainly imagine their
> policyholder is claiming that the damage is minimal.

No - they (*both* insurance companies) have him on tape admitting fault.
Plus the deputy's witnessing him taking responsibility at the location
where he finally pulled over when the deputy was getting our statements.

> You said you chased him down - did you call the cops? Did he get cited
> for failing to stop at an accident? If not, then looking at it from
> Progressive's POV, you
> could be lying through your teeth.

That part is not an issue - at all. One complication is that the deputy
could not tell which county the accident happened in, so he did not file
an official report. Though his insurance company has already paid to
put the mail box back up. Believe me - the fault of the other driver
and the precise damage caused to my car by his forcing me off the road
is not an issue.

> Just as if you hit someone else, and they made a claim against you, your
> insurance company would nickel-and-dime their claim.

They shouldn't.

> Insurance companies are in the business of acting to protect their
> policyholders.

Funny thing - this is Progressive - the company whose CEO is a huge
contributor to the DNC. You know - the people who complain all the time
about "big business" always screwing the little guy.

> And you as a policyholder would be incensed if you hit someone's piece of
> car old beater and they got your insurance company to give them a brand
> new car. If insurance companies regularly did stuff like this, then people
> would
> be scamming them all the time and premiums would go through the roof.

But that's not what is happening here. I only ask for a fair
settlement. It's not as difficult as they want to make it seem.

>>>>A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my
>>>>driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total
>>>>out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition
>
> ones
>
>>>>out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were
>>>>sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him
>>>>standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and
>
> new
>
>>>>pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them
>>>>and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total
>
> out
>
>>>>value work sheet.
>
>
> Well, that is your fault.

Funny - according to Mr. Marlowe, I'm paranoid ("You seem to feel you
are targeted by the world"). According to you, I'm too trusting for
someone to do the right thing. It never occured to me that he would
subtract out, not only the cost of the parts that I had two of sitting
on the bench, but the 100% new OEM Mazda dealer part cost. That was
just way beyond unreasonable.

> When my wife's minivan was rear-ended a few years ago, one of the things
> that
> was busted was the taillight. Naturally this made it unsafe to drive so I
> bought a
> replacement taillight the following day from a wrecker to use while she was
> driving
> it around while we were waiting for the body shop schedule to open up.
> (this one
> was a real hit and run, the cops came and all of that) The day I took the
> van in to
> the shop (where it was estimated) I made sure to replace the taillight with
> the busted
> one before estimate. Then after the estimate and when the repair work was
> being
> done I gave the shop the good tailight and that was set against the
> deductible with full
> OEM value. Of course I hadn't paid full OEM value to the wrecker.
>
>
>>Well, I can't choose the quality of the insurers of the people who
>>destroy my cars, can I. The experiences I have had are that they refuse
>>to do that - they will stubbornly point to the NADA book and insist that
>>that is the only value thay will recognize.
>>
>
>
> In which case you get your own appraisal and call their bluff in court.
>
> Your a car guy Bill, you know how to access car forums. If you had done
> so at the time you would have been told how to act and how to handle
> the adjusters and what to expect. Then you would have put the trim on
> and gotten credit for it,

I guess I'm too honest and trusting that the adjuster was a reasonable
and honest person (as opposed to paranoid as Mike seems to think). I
bet if I had told someone "Hey - I've got to get home right away and put
the trim back on the car before the adjuster gets there!", on one hand,
one person would be telling me I was just being paranoid by thinking the
adjuster would do such a dishonest thing, and another person would be
telling me that that would be commiting fraud. You know - you just
can't win. You can't please anyone. So rather than try to, I try to do
the right thing.

> and this time around if you follow the advice we
> are giving you you'll do the small claims thing.
>
> It's pointless for you to get all upset about the tens of thousands of other
> car owners out there who get in accidents and get suckered into taking
> a low value for a total. Those people are adults and can choose to come
> to car forums and ask for advice. They don't and so they don't do the
> court route and they get screwed. Their choice. You ought to be happy
> since their rolling over and taking it up the arse is keeping the premiums
> lower for those of us who know how to handle these issues.

I'm not sure you're characterizing me correctly, but OK.

>> I was asking them to prove
>>that they could find one in the pre-accident condition of my car for the
>>actual selling price of the NADA valuation.
>>
>
>
> That's not their job.

Do I believe you or do I believe Mike, and which of his contradictroy
statements on that subject do I go by. According to Mike, 99% of people
in my situation get treated fairly. According to you, it's their job
and primary goal to try to screw me. Which one of you do I listen to?

It's a facetious question on my part. I know what I need to do.

> Their job is to protect the interests of their
> policyholders
> and stockholders and try to pay out as little as possible. It's your job to
> prove what they are offering is too low - something that is simple enough
> that
> we would expect someone with your level of intelligence to be able to do it
> in
> your sleep.

Mike disagrees with you. Again - which one of you do I listen to (he
said with his tongue in his cheek)?

>>>Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing
>
> with
>
>>>two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically
>>>differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on
>
> the
>
>>>cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those cars
>
> were
>
>>>really selling for, or more than the high end.
>>
>>But because your experience is different, mine is invalid - that's what
>>you're saying.
>
>
> He didn't say if he was claiming on his own policy or that of another
> insurers.
>
> If he had comprehensive insurance (which most people do who own financed
> cars, or cars that are worth a lot of money) then if he was hit he would
> make
> the claim against his own policy and his insurance company would go after
> the other driver's policy. Since the other driver would be declared to be
> at
> fault, such a claim wouldn't be set against his own policy and would not
> cause
> his premiums to rise. And of course his own insurance company is going to
> make sure he is happy in how the claim was handled.
>
> You (obviously) carry liability only on your own vehicle. So do I, by the
> way.

No - I carry full coverage *because* I know the value of my car, and I
drive it 80 miles a day, so my exposure (chances for an unavoidable
accident) is high - or statistically much higher than if I only drove,
say, 5 or 10 miles a day. I pay for full coverage because I expect the
car to be repaired to pre-accident condition at someone else's (whoever
caused the accident's) expense and not totalled out based on
non-applicable valuations based on me-too cars.

> Both of us are saving a ton of money because we are doing that. The
> difference
> however is that I have accepted the fact that if I get hit, I will have to
> fight
> the other insurance company for a fair payment - this is the price of the
> money
> savings I am having by not carrying comprehensive. This doesen't bother me
> much since I tend not to own vehicles worth more than a few thousand bucks,
> and when I fight over my nickles with the insurance companies of people
> who hit me, it's not worth it to the other insurance company to pay out for
> a lawyer to fight me back.

But I maintain my vehicles at an extremely high level, and I augment
them with safety as well as comfort upgrades that all go into their
*true* market value (not NADA generic low-ball values).


> You obviously have not accepted this. -

Because I don't do that. You have obviously misjudged me because you
are saying I do what I have not done (as far as coverage).

> perhaps you need to re-evaulate whether liability-only is the correct
> insurance
> product for you to carry.

It's not. Possibly you just made my point.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')