Jim Devine

Point out to them that if you were doing an insurance job, you would not have had Greg do the motor first...
That was an exceptional car.

safulop

I read some internal insurance company documents that train employees what "red flags" to watch for that signal fraud. I don't see what, in this instance, would make them suspect there was a fraud. I mean, who sets his own car on fire but then puts it out before it causes catastrophic damage? It's a funny kind of insurance fraud if you ask me.

Ducman82

Someone who hates driver side fenders?

vanster

Maybe I can convince them I really want an Ariel Adam

Imo000

Someone that has a spare car/parts to transfer over to the burnt one. You are all looking at this from the OP's point of view. Instead need to look from the Company's side and ask why does this case has so many red flags. Once the insurance company made up their mind, it is very difficult to change it without litigation or some really good proof. I think the OP is doing all the wrong moves to convince the insurance to change their opinion.

vanster

It would be cheaper in the long run just to pay for the repair out of my pocket and walk away from the insurance company. How can they complain about this tactic? Then I would cancel my policy and go to someone like Haggerty or Lealand. I have 5 other cars with them including two homes and I have been with USAA for over 25 years without a claim.
Maybe I didn't do this the best way but it's not as if I was ever trying to cheat anyone. When you get legal involved no one wins. At this point it appears to me that USAA is rather spiteful and all they want to do is report it to DMV as a total loss regardless.

hwyengr

That's probably a joke, but don't point out to them that you aren't committing fraud. That's like saying 'bomb' at the airport.

vanster

I had a long chat this AM with the supervisor and I have a feeling that they will be helpful. They understand the a branded title is unacceptable as well as the value of the cars. Their biggest concern appears to be structural damage which is understandable.
They say now that they will work with me to make sure that I can keep the title clean. The conversation might have changed a bit when I told them that I didn't want a pay out. Just go away and leave me alone.

FLT951

Fire is often an overriding factor in an Insurance Company decision to report "salvage title". Especially if it involves the engine. Add the 51% factor and you have a near certainty. They have a huge obligation re the after the fact repair. Money is not the primary concern for them.

Jim Morton

I'm a little uncomfortable posting here as I no longer own a 928... but I have gone through a vehicle fire loss claim within the last couple of years and think I have relevant comments for the OP.

As I read through this thread, I find one thing that seems alarming from the perspective of an insurance adjuster. This is that you elected to proceed with the repair work prior to agreeing on a settlement. This may seem like a nuisance within the repair process, but if you think from the perspective of the adjuster/underwriter, what control does the insurance company have now that you are already incurring costs related to a repair ?

From the adjuster's point of view, did you submit more than one estimate for repair ? How did you select who performed the work ? How were "like" parts going to be sourced or was there an assumption that all new parts would be used ? Who decides new vs. used ? Etc. These are common control points negotiated by both parties, owner and insurance company, prior to work being performed. From review of this thread, it reads as if only one shop, one not local to you was the only resource that could make the repair(s). It seems reasonable that forcing the repair on the insurance company would come across as suspicious. You might not have liked waiting and having to do negotiating prior to starting the work but what choice did you give the adjuster ?

As to title and status... When I went through my fire claim, final status of the title was the center of my negotiation. If the car were to be branded "salvage" or "repaired", I did not want it and only wanted to agree on a $$$ amount.

The process of working with the adjuster took several weeks and about four visits by the adjuster to the car. Lots of photos were taken of the damage before any item was disturbed. Being able to photograph the "as-is" seemed to help a lot we went into our negotiation. There were several back and forth items over what was normal wear/patina on the car vs. fire damage. The suspected temperature of the fire was a large piece of the investigation related to mandated total loss. Lots of back and forth on this too. Burned sample materials were collected by the adjuster. Collecting the samples seemed extreme at first but it made sense as we discussed mandated total loss or not. As suspected, it all came down to $$$.

I was able to agree on a cash settlement for the loss but probably a lot less that had I insisted on the car being totaled and getting full value. I suspect I got about 60 percent of what I might have if I fought for full value. All during this time the car remained untouched by me and available to the adjuster throughout the close out of the process. It was over a cup of coffee with both of us looking at the car that we came to a verbal understanding of what the adjuster would submit to the underwriter for settlement.

In the end, I got a check, did not have to surrender the car or tltle. I ended up selling the car as I did not want to deal with the smell of smoke in the interior. The current owner has never had issue with registration renewal.

I hope the above story helps with perspective. I wish you the best of luck with how your claim and car turns out.

Imo000

Keep in mind that telling the insurance company “let’s just forget all this and pretend it never happened” can lead them to think you’ve tried to defraud them and it didn’t work. Be careful what you say and do.

FLT951

+++ 0n #40
Beginning repairs without carrier approval is a huge gaff and could, in itself, be irreparable. It implies all sorts of problems to a carrier that may not even be true. Not the least of which, is "who the hell does this guy think he is?". If the carrier can't see, photo, evaluate and interview prior to adjusting they have only one possible possible. HARD!
I play gin rummy with my son. I never leave the room when it is his turn to deal. SMIRK! Same principal.

GT6ixer

I don't have any knowledge of how insurance company's do their business with regards to what sequence should or shouldn't be followed. And you may very well be correct with the adjusters concerns. However if it were my car I would do what Van has done in taking directly back to the shop (GB) that restored the engine in the first place. Having the work done by GB is a tangible investment that can be cited in multiple listings and be argued adds value to any 928. If he had taken it down to Bob's V-Dubs and More before the fire and then sent it to GB after, then they might have a point. Sure the adjuster may not know about the GB effect yet but in the end no way would I take it anywhere else, nor would I allow the insurance company to force my hand in that matter. The endgame would be that it is going to get fixed by GB again because that is what you pay the insurance company to do in the first place, i.e. insure a car that in pertinent part was restored by GB and because of that work was then worth more than it was before.

Either way the weeks of negotiating and going back and forth are going to happen. At least this way the car is closer to being ready at the end of it. Now does he end up with less $$$ because of this decision? Maybe maybe not, but if it were me I'd weigh that few thousand against having access to my car quicker.

FLT951

I agree with ^. Starting repairs is another issue. I have no idea what happened here but highly recommend against usurping the carriers authority. I am 100% an advocate of selecting who will do the work and holding fast. That is not an issue to most carriers. I recommend not doing anything to usurp authority no matter whether it is time or money. The carrier is on your side until you make it not so.

docmirror

No I don't. That's what the insurer's atty staff is for. I said it before, but maybe it pays repeating. The insurer set the premiums. The insured paid those premiums. There was a claim, and the insured has been completely above-board in his handling of the repairs. If there was any indication of nefarious activity, would we be reading about it? Would the owner let investigators have free run of the car(prior to them acting like asshats)?

This 'respect the other side' mishigoss is for all those clamoring for others to respect and encourage diversity and opposing viewpoints. Except they are the LEAST understanding to any viewpoint but their own. If the insurer wants to claim some kind of fraud, or double dealing - go right ahead. Tell it to a jury. My bet is they'll get slammed down hard.