This is for those who followed my earlier topic and the thread about my accident.

I have heard from the insurance co. and are turning this matter over to their "totaling department."

The estimate from the second body shop came in at $10,100. The insurance co. told me that they have valued my car at only $11,250.
I think they got that from Kelly Blue Book. I would like them to find a 928 similar to mine for that much! HA! My 928 has custom wheels and tires and an Alpine stereo system. I spoke to an attorney today and he stated that they MUST consider any upgrades to the car, such as custom wheels and tires and an aftermarket stereo system.

Anyways...I am preparing my case for the payoff. Any hints or help will be greatly appreciated.

I am so pissed about this that I am looking to clamp somebody's nads in a vise and slowly tighten!

Sorry if I have offended you.

 

Dart,
Only way to win in a battle with the insurance guys is in the written contract.
Anything after the fact is an almost certain loss. Keep a poker face let them total the car with an AGREED "yes Mr Dart you get to keep the car as well, here let me put that in writing for you." Do what you can to get the max cash and ownership of the 'wreak' for as little as possible.
If the cash and car are in your hands you can fix it or buy another and use this one for parts... a hard choice, indeed.
You can fix this one after they total it but you would have to live with a salvage title. I could, easily.
Not to intentionally irritate anyone- my old man is an ATTORNEY-. Do you know what the difference between a politician, a real estate agent, a used car salesman, an attorney, or, a child molester is?
Sometimes a child molester feels remorse...
Enough said? There are a lot of hungry lawyers out there who would only be to happy to show you how to win and lose at the same time $$$$$$$ Do what you can within your ability. While your at it get a copy of the accident report from your Ins. co. or local PD you can always pay the cause of your accident a visit down the road. If the adjuster puts an absolute cap on the claim and refuses to budge. You can always up the ante with a few vague references to the orthopedic surgeon and neurology specialist,-by name- MRI's, X'rays, therapy... Point of fact I would visit my primary care giver and ask about symptoms- not nescessarily your symptoms, for reference only.
And take a day or two off from work mentioning that sharp twinge that runs down the left side of your neck and back. And don't forget sometimes the front of your right thigh and the top of your right foot goes numb for no reason. Say! Could this be related to the wreak that TOTALED MY CAR?
Nice guy's finish.......
Later, and heartfelt sympathy.
John S. & Pattycakes

 

Hi Dart,

We need specifics on your car to help with evaluation. You can get online value estimates from NADA, Edmunds, Kelly. If they total the car, you may be able to buy it back for $3 or 4k. Then you can get major portions of the car from salvage yard, then get body work done. Title may not be salvage if you buy it back right away.

HTH

 

John, your advice sounds like a very good real-world approach, even with your tongue-in-cheek delivery. I like it!

 

Dart,

I am an attorney, and I think John makes some good points, but understand that "Oh, by the way my neck really hurts" at this juncture will be met with probably more then a bit of suspicion. You might ask the adjuster what he intends to do for your "loss of use" of the vehicle, assuming they did not get you in a rental. In most states, not having the car or a replacement entitles you to compensation for each day of that condition. However, with that I have another question.

You mentioned that the company has placed the FMV at $11,250. Assume for the sake of argument that this is the figure you have to work with. You THEN say that you have a repair estimate of $10,100, more than $1000 less than the insurer's FMV. In my almost 20 years of practice in CA, I never saw a car totaled UNLESS the cost of repair EXCEEDED the FMV. I am confused as to why the adjuster isn't saying to you, "Your car is worth $11,250. The repair estimate is $10,100. Here is a check for $10,100. Have nice day." By paying you for the repair versus paying you for the car, they are saving themselves over a grand. What am I missing here?

The only "problem" with contacting a lawyer is that they will probably want to be paid. If there is no personal injury claim I doubt they would want to take your case on a contingency, and even if they did their percentage would have to come from whatever you get for the property damage.

Assuming that I might be missing something here, you might consider using the following phrases when you next speak with the adjuster:

1. If you were without a rental for any period of time, ask them what you are going to get for "loss of use";

2. If you had any aches and pains, dizziness, etc. you might inquire as to whether you will be getting anything for "pain and suffering." Keep in mind that if you didn't seek any medical treatment this will be met with some suspicion. However, I would counter this suspicion by noting that you are "not the kind of guy who complains about every ache and pain, and since you figured the aches would go away (as they did) you weren't going to run up unnecessary medical expenses"

3. If you get nowhere, you might mention that you don't feel you are being dealt with in "good faith." This phrase often has an effect in states where the legislature has enacted a basis for both 1st and 3d party insurance bad faith litigation. Again, don't know about Colorado.

4. There is probably some kind of consumer affairs department in your state that deals with/regulates insurance carriers. Dial your state's general info number and find out what they can do to help. Again, if push comes to shove, you might also tactfully mention your intention to file a formal complaint with the state.

With all of that, I am still confused about the repair estimate v their FMV. How can they justify totaling a car when th former is less than the latter?

Think I'll jump back and read your earlier thred and see if that sheds some light. By the way, not to be outdone by John, know how to get an attorney out of a tree? Cut the rope.

Keep us advised.

 

Patrick,

refreshing advise from a member of the bar. I whole heartedly agree that any legal fees to be had in this type of case are minimal and won't secure representation that will effect a settlement increase that is proportionate with the legal expense, stress and time involved. Just me opinion. I've been gone the "principle" road and it sure feels good to tell the insurance company "talk to my Lawyer". But, that 30 seconds of satisfaction comes at a hefty expense in the final analysis.

Patrick: You probably know much more than I with respect to insurance company practices. However, I do have a freind in the business and have been pretty active in the insurance salvage end of things. When the insurance company pays out on a "complete loss", there is a secondary market for those vehicles both for parts and for reconstruction. I've seen the cost of these "rebuildables" skyrocket in the past few years. Consider this: FMV = $11,250, repair est= $10,100 (BUT could, and usually does increase because when the car is desmantled for repair, additional damage is often found). On the other hand, they pay out $11,250 and need only to sell the vehicle for $1200 to come out ahead of the repair costs option. In reality, they'll most likey get $3-4K for that damaged car (either at auction or form the owner looking to keep it) and come out way ahead.

I could be wrong, but I think this how it works and would explain why they would chose to total vs. repair.

Best

 

John,

I don't disagree that they company could proably make a few bucks by paying the FMV and then parting the car out or selling it as salvage. However, the issue is whether they have the RIGHT to do so. There certainly is a secondary market for "total loss" vehicles, but the issue is going to be the fair definition of "total loss."

Think about it. Assume that a decent 928 worth 10k suffers 8k in body damage. Engine still good, tranny still good, seats, etc. ... all still good. I doubt legally that an insurer would be able to say, "Yeah, they can fix your car for 8k but we've decided we can pay you 10k as a total loss, part the car out and end up out of pocket $6500 and that ould be better for us." I don't think that would be supported by any legal theory and certainly not by any equitable theory. If, for example, Dart takes the 17 year old (probably his folks)to court for his property damage, the court is going to decide the damages to which he is entitled based upon the FMV of the vehicle. It won't listen to an argument, by the defendant and/or his insurance carrier, to the effect that it will be better for them to total the car out so they can recoup some of their cash.

The general legal rule of thumb is that an individual claiming property damage is entitled to either (1) the reasonable cost of repair of the property or (2) the reasonable fair market value of the property, whichever is less. The law concerns itself wih making the injured party "whole," not with making things as easy as possible for the person who caused the injury. Things may be different in Colorado, but I seriously doubt it.

I have no problem with the company delaring the car a total loss. However, assuming a common sense definition of "total loss" as the reasonable cost of repair EXCEEDING the reasonable fair market value, the carrier needs to write Dart a check based upon what I understand from the post to be their own decision of FMV.

Anyway, if I get a moment I think I will do a little research on the issue as it is addresses in the Colorado courts and statutes. Hang in there, Dart!

 

Here's a picture and some info on my 928.

'87 S4
5 speed
dual positrol seats w/power lumbar support
"posi" transaxle
black leather interior
Alpine stereo w/indash CD changer
Boston Acoustics speakers
MTX amps (2)
Clifford anti-theft
Kinesis Super Cup Wheels (17x9 front/17/10 rear)
Pireli tires (245 front/275 rear)

This car does have a lot of miles, however, 168000. I had the motor checked out before I bought it. I drove it home from California and it ran great. No problems at all. And still has some cajones!

Picture link: http://www.momentoffame.com/snapshot.html?id=11141

 

I am still confused about the repair estimate v their FMV. How can they justify totaling a car when th former is less than the latter?

The insurance co. (Farmers) is deducting the salvage price of the car which they have stated is $2400. $11250-$2400=$8850, and this is the most they are willing to pay for repairs. So, I think they are planning on handing me a check for $8850 (since I told them I was keeping the car) and be done with it. I plan on hitting them up with a different value of the car to include my comps, the upgrades, towage and storage fees, and "Loss of use" (thanks Patrick).

I don't know what the depreciated values of the wheels and tires and stereo system are, but none of that is more than two years old.

Thanks for the help all. I am listening.

 

Patrick,

Please don't take this as adversarial becuase it's not. I'm not a lawyer and I'm quite sure that you are a good and honorable man (I won't hold that lawyer thing against you ) This is just a topic that strikes a chord with me and I welcome the dialog with folks who share the interest. Nothing but love here... keep that in mind as you read.

We're in complete agreement with respect to legal theory, equitable relief , the laws intent to make the victim "whole", and even good ole "fairness". For most of us however, legal theory, fairness and reatily rarely parallel. Also, your legal contention applies only in a tort where Dart and the 17 year old are the parties in standing before the court AND not the 17 year old's insurer negotiating with Dart (or his insurer). The question you posed, I think, pertains to the insurers "right" to "offer" a settlement to a third party (DART). I don't believe this insurer has a fiducial obligation to Dart, just the insured. I would argue that the insurer has the same right to seek the most equitable remededy as Dart has to refuse the offer. Is it unfair? Only if Dart accepts something he's not comfartable with. But this does happens everyday and I'll take over court trice a day.


In my view, the Tort route rarely results in victims being made whole. My earlier post regarding the price of "principle" are very germain here (and I know first hand as I have spent more than I care to think about in persuit of "right"). In my state, the courts rarely allow compensatory, legal fees or punitive damages. I don't personally know of any prevailing decisions where these have been awarded (never mind collected). And, all the insures actions, ethical or not, are of little consequenee unless someone wishes to take issue with it. I would bet the dealings between Dart and the insurer are not documented such that they could be indefensible acts or clear cut causes of action. I could be wrong but my, experiences have been that insurer is well aware that as long as an agreement is struck, the methods employed to get there are meaningless once accepted, and difficult to prove should the deal go south.

My recommendations are to avoid the legal route at all costs. Negotiate with the insurer with a level head. Never let them get under your skin and don't accept a settlement that you don't believe is fair. BE FAIR YOURSELF.... always come off as the reasnable one! Gather information to support your desired outcome. Tell them what you will accept (counter offer...if you don't ask, you don't get). Never embelish or falsify anything (if they think that you are dishonest, unresaonable or can't be satisfied, they are less likely to negotiate in good faith).

Anyway, sorry for the "soap box". This approach has worked for me in the past and it's just my .02.

 

Well,

I can't say that I'm surprised. Here in the great state of OK cars are totaled every day for 51% and greater damage. Especially cars that are not produced anymore. I would definitely stick to your guns and get the money and the car. You will have a helluva time finding another 5speed car like you have. Also, when it comes time to get it fixed the bodyshops will likely have another price in mind when it is you cutting the check and not the insurance company. You'd be surprised at how reasonable they become.

I learned the hard way about being stubborn and not seeing a doctor for what I thought was minor stiffness/pain. You should definitely get the "Property Side" of this out of the way and keep the "Pain and suffering" side seperate. Good luck and let me know if you get the car back and decide you don't want to fix it. I would love another 5-speed project.

Ross

 

John,

Certainly no offense taken at any of your comments and I don't want to clutter the board with legal analysis. Just note that while the insured will be the one in court, his insurer will be picking up the tab for the defense, something they will be considering when considering the economics of the situation. I'll just do some research and pass it on to Dart to do with as he wishes. Just hate to see insurance companies trying to stick it to people with legitimate claims. Hope Dart will keep us advised.

 

Nonsense Patrick - clutter away.

This is some good repartee that we all might benefit from, plus help a downed brother-in-arms.

 

Again, thanks to everybody for their advise and comments.

You have given me some "skrews" to put to the insurance co. Keep the tips coming should you have any and I'll will definately keep you informed as to what happens on my end.

Thanks again.

 

AWW MAN!! That's the car?!?!?! I remember that car being listed way back when I bought my 928 2 years ago. It was also on Devek's board I believe. I drooled over those pictures. Beautiful car, loved the rims.


K