Insurance settlement for totalled S4
10-30-2010, 09:04 PM
#31
Advanced
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as Agreed Value policies, I certainly agree it would be ideal, but I discovered when hunting for better insurance for my 944 that American companies only do these policies on "collector car" low mileage vehicles. As soon you say "daily driver" or "10,000 miles per year" the jig is up, and such a policy is not available for your car.
For my 944 I have a so-called "appraised value" policy with daily driver status and unlimited miles. This supposedly uses my initial appraisal as a baseline, which would aid in the accurate determination of ACV later on in the event of a loss. Naturally it is not helpful unless you keep having your own car appraised at your own expense, probably every 2-3 years. I will likely use the same policy for my 928 or whatever I end up getting.
For my 944 I have a so-called "appraised value" policy with daily driver status and unlimited miles. This supposedly uses my initial appraisal as a baseline, which would aid in the accurate determination of ACV later on in the event of a loss. Naturally it is not helpful unless you keep having your own car appraised at your own expense, probably every 2-3 years. I will likely use the same policy for my 928 or whatever I end up getting.
I've not read an 'appraised value' policy. Appraisal is always an option in negotiating a settlement on an ACV policy - but the carrier is not required to accept an appraisal you furnish. Perhaps you meant Stated Value which really means 'lower of Stated or ACV'. If the words ACV are anywhere in your policy, you have an ACV policy and will likely end up fighting over valuation in the event of a claim.
10-30-2010, 09:09 PM
#32
Rennlist Member
Your response that going through the car owner's insurance might be limiting options and recovery made me think we were not on the same page. I already knew what the other company was offering and they weren't budging. They were quite specific in what their justification was, though I didn't agree with it.
I did consult an attorney, who suggested I could sue them for all my costs, plus "lost of use", and the damages. A friend, who is a car loss adjuster for a third insurance company, gave me her opinion that, althought their use of craigslist for valuation wasn't valid, the attorney's opinion wouldn't fly in a Colorado Springs courtroom and I would be unlikely to gain much.
It was my insurance company that suggested bringing in the appraiser. And I didn't have to file the claim before getting the appraisal results. Since the appraiser's numbers sounded reasonable, I then went ahead with the claim through my company.
I did consult an attorney, who suggested I could sue them for all my costs, plus "lost of use", and the damages. A friend, who is a car loss adjuster for a third insurance company, gave me her opinion that, althought their use of craigslist for valuation wasn't valid, the attorney's opinion wouldn't fly in a Colorado Springs courtroom and I would be unlikely to gain much.
It was my insurance company that suggested bringing in the appraiser. And I didn't have to file the claim before getting the appraisal results. Since the appraiser's numbers sounded reasonable, I then went ahead with the claim through my company.
10-30-2010, 09:58 PM
#33
Rennlist Member
What you don't seem to understand or even know, is that your insurance company has a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH closer relationship with the other guy's insurance company than YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY HAS WITH YOU. What is good for one of them is good for the other of them. What is good for the both of the insurance companies is NOT GOOD FOR YOU!!!!!
You might think that the deal you got from you own insurance company was great, but it did not include the items that you might have been entitled to from the other guy, that were excluded in your own policy; and even though your insurance company collected some, or all of the amount they paid you, and including your deductible, they probably did so in intra-industry arbitration, and not in court, and I assure you that they both went away smiling about the damages they did not have to pay you that you were probably entitled to.
In short, you got screwed. You might think that you got kissed first and that it was therefore ok, but you got screwed.
Jerry Feather
You might think that the deal you got from you own insurance company was great, but it did not include the items that you might have been entitled to from the other guy, that were excluded in your own policy; and even though your insurance company collected some, or all of the amount they paid you, and including your deductible, they probably did so in intra-industry arbitration, and not in court, and I assure you that they both went away smiling about the damages they did not have to pay you that you were probably entitled to.
In short, you got screwed. You might think that you got kissed first and that it was therefore ok, but you got screwed.
Jerry Feather
10-30-2010, 10:20 PM
#34
Rennlist Member
The guy bought a car for $9000 without at PPI that was probably worth somewhere close.
He posted questions about his possible overpayment soon afterwards on rennlist.
He discovered he had several thousand of maint pending just to handle the tb/wp.
He drove the car a few miles if that. Owned it a few weeks.
The settlement is for $11,000
Securing much more payment, by any means, would be evidence of a screwed up system.
End of story.
He posted questions about his possible overpayment soon afterwards on rennlist.
He discovered he had several thousand of maint pending just to handle the tb/wp.
He drove the car a few miles if that. Owned it a few weeks.
The settlement is for $11,000
Securing much more payment, by any means, would be evidence of a screwed up system.
End of story.
10-30-2010, 10:35 PM
#35
Shameful Thread Killer
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I can't believe you're all missing this. The settlement is coming from the shop's carrier, not the car owner. So, the shop, being an enterprising profit-maximizing place has decided to play fast and loose with the 'invested value' of their time and materials.
"Oh yeah - that 928 on the rack, we've got $2100 parts, and $1100 labor on that one. And that 911, we've got $3600 parts, and $1600 labor on that one....." They are entitled to get that loss from the insurance company. But the OP delivered a car, at a specified value to the dealer. There is assumed liability while it's in the shop. The OP is entitled to the specific value minus nothing to the shop.
If they want to get picky, go ahead and settle for the specific price, less the WIP loss, and have the shop cut you(the car owner) a check for the balance that they are not entitled to, because they did not give you a car back with all that work, and parts performed. They gave the insurance company a charred wreck, and are trying to make up funny numbers to increase their settlement.
The parts and labor are sunk costs, unless or until you go to the shop, pay the man, get the car, and drive out the gate. Until then, all those costs are sunk, and cannot be deducted from any settlement.
"Oh yeah - that 928 on the rack, we've got $2100 parts, and $1100 labor on that one. And that 911, we've got $3600 parts, and $1600 labor on that one....." They are entitled to get that loss from the insurance company. But the OP delivered a car, at a specified value to the dealer. There is assumed liability while it's in the shop. The OP is entitled to the specific value minus nothing to the shop.
If they want to get picky, go ahead and settle for the specific price, less the WIP loss, and have the shop cut you(the car owner) a check for the balance that they are not entitled to, because they did not give you a car back with all that work, and parts performed. They gave the insurance company a charred wreck, and are trying to make up funny numbers to increase their settlement.
The parts and labor are sunk costs, unless or until you go to the shop, pay the man, get the car, and drive out the gate. Until then, all those costs are sunk, and cannot be deducted from any settlement.
10-30-2010, 10:40 PM
#36
Rennlist Member
Agreed. The question is the specific value.
11K on a nominal 9k buy in this market seems reasonable, unless there was some very special additional value here.
I haven't seen it, just read all the posts associated with his own rationalization of its value. Which he articulated in a more descriptive and strategic manner in the interview. Nothing wrong with that. I just don't understand where all this "sue" "hold out" lingo is coming from.
11K on a nominal 9k buy in this market seems reasonable, unless there was some very special additional value here.
I haven't seen it, just read all the posts associated with his own rationalization of its value. Which he articulated in a more descriptive and strategic manner in the interview. Nothing wrong with that. I just don't understand where all this "sue" "hold out" lingo is coming from.
10-30-2010, 10:46 PM
#37
Rennlist Member
If he paid 9000 for it and it is worth 15000, there is something called the value of his bargain. He is entitled to recover for that. If he laid 9000 for it and has "sorted" it, the actual value may very well be 15000, even though another S4 might be had for 11000 that still needs to be sorted.
Jerry Feather
Jerry Feather
10-30-2010, 10:50 PM
#38
Rennlist Member
Your theory is fine.
Facts, though, are it is highly unlikely, based on the posts.
C'mon. These are 928's. You buy an S4 for 7 to 9K and you need 5K maint. just to catch-up partway.
He was already heading down that path.
Facts, though, are it is highly unlikely, based on the posts.
C'mon. These are 928's. You buy an S4 for 7 to 9K and you need 5K maint. just to catch-up partway.
He was already heading down that path.
10-30-2010, 10:59 PM
#40
Rennlist Member
Jerry Feather
10-30-2010, 11:07 PM
#41
Rennlist Member
Yes, but that is the essence of his first question. If he is down that path why should me have to discount the insurance settlement for what he is paying to sort the car? If it is going to be sorted for the cost of his maintenance that they want to discount, he should be dealing with a much higher "theoretical" value. You know and I know that we can find a nice S4 for $8000, but the insurance company does not know that, and when we get it we will still have to pay the cost of "sorting."
Jerry Feather
Jerry Feather
Just wondering, because it would not seem that it would.
In the end..the best the ins company can be forced to do..is pay out what a knowledgeable market would for it...which will be somewhere between the current lowball and a good specimen in well sorted state.
He also gets to define deferred maintenance against REPAIRING maintenance and argue which it was in for, exhaustively. Without previous knowledge of a 24yr old 928...I would say that top-end maintenance alone would scare the hell out of most people and it would end up in "broken POS" territory in their minds.
Its up to both sides now to paint a picture of what a knowledgeable market places for value on an everyday S4 of that year/model.
Can likely forget about sorted+pristine value.
Just IMHO..without any legal advice.
10-30-2010, 11:24 PM
#43
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Seems to me that a reasonable valuation would be the price he paid plus buying expenses (tax dues rego costs, transportation from where he bought it etc.) plus some compensation for his time in buying a replacement.
That said I'ld go all out to get as much as possible above that figure as we all enjoy the opportunity to screw over the insurance companies (getting our own back for them screwing us) especially when it's not affecting his deductible.
That said I'ld go all out to get as much as possible above that figure as we all enjoy the opportunity to screw over the insurance companies (getting our own back for them screwing us) especially when it's not affecting his deductible.
10-30-2010, 11:33 PM
#44
Rennlist Member
Seems to me that a reasonable valuation would be the price he paid plus buying expenses (tax dues rego costs, transportation from where he bought it etc.) plus some compensation for his time in buying a replacement.
That said I'ld go all out to get as much as possible above that figure as we all enjoy the opportunity to screw over the insurance companies (getting our own back for them screwing us) especially when it's not affecting his deductible.
That said I'ld go all out to get as much as possible above that figure as we all enjoy the opportunity to screw over the insurance companies (getting our own back for them screwing us) especially when it's not affecting his deductible.
They pay you cash...its up to you to spend it on hookers or another car..
Of course, he is welcome to sue the shop for 'other costs' including mental anguish/etc, but he would then legally be forced to pay THAT to the insurance company to cover their losses...he cant profit twice off of the same incident without first covering the insurance losses back to the paying company. One of the wildest things ive seen a suit from after a car loss, was 'loss of consort'. Didnt work out well after months of delay, the suing parties wife was preggers...anyhow, anyone CAN sue for anything in the US..generally without penalty as long as you can afford to annoy the other party deeper into their pockets, than you're paying to annoy them with your own.
So..if he gets $20k out of a civil suit, he'd be able to keep $10K after paying $10k to the covering agency (if they paid 10)..and then pay the lawyers.
And IIRC, then comes the state and IRS on the income gained AFTER that.
10-30-2010, 11:46 PM
#45
Chronic Tool Dropper
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Fortunately, settlement funds for loss are not taxable. Values are offsetting.