Insurance Company Reneged on their acceptance of liability
Biff Malone
not have collision insurance, so I filed forms with the other driver's
insurance company.
After listening to my side, the other driver's side and my passenger's
side of the story, the insured's insurance agent told me (via email)
that they would be accepting 100% liability and would be sending an
appraiser to see my car.
Last week, my car went into the shop and I rented a car on the other
insurance companies reservation.
Today, a day before the work is to be complete, I got a call from the
insurance company telling me that a supervisor overrode his decision
and that they will not be able to pay me at all!
This is AFTER I've had work done on the car -- which I wouldn't have
had done if I knew I'd have to pay for it on my own.
Besides the fact that I believe that I am not at fault, are they
legally allowed to renege on their acceptance of liability after the
whole process has begun? It seems that when they found out I did not
have comprehensive insurance that they would deny the claim. This
seems illegal!
John
"Biff Malone" <biffm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f2efd06c.03050...@posting.google.com...
Todd Copeland
and/or paying the claim then they should be responsible for following
through. My advice would be to contact your state Dept of Ins and file a
complaint. Provide them with a copy of the letter sent by the insurance
company. Did the other carrier offer to set up a direct billing for the
rental vehicle? If so, offer this as additional proof that they accepted
liability and offered to pay for the loss. I'd also fax over a letter
addressed to a manager of the insurance company in the meantime explaining
what has occurred and ask them to look into the matter. Perhaps another set
of eyes in the insurance company will see the light while you are waiting on
the DOI to review your complaint.
What commercial insurance company? Perhaps someone here knows someone in the
claims dept and could look into the matter for you.
I don't see that not having collision coverage under your policy would
change anything on their end. It would not matter to them whatsoever.
"Biff Malone" <biffm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2efd06c.03050...@posting.google.com...
bg4006d
> legally allowed to renege on their acceptance of liability after the
> whole process has begun?
Try to get a free consultation with a local lawyer.
If the e-mail was from an agent (as opposed to an insurance broker),
you might very well have a claim of contract and/or detrimental
reliance.
John F. Carr
Todd Copeland <to...@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>I don't see that not having collision coverage under your policy would
>change anything on their end. It would not matter to them whatsoever.
If you have collision insurance the other company knows you have
lawyers to back you up.
I'm going to have to go to court over a minor accident because it is
below my insurance deductible. A driver whose desperation exceeded
his skill damaged my bumper trying to park his car in a small space
behind me. I have a picture of his license plate lined up perfectly
with the gouges in my plastic bumper. But his insurance company won't
pay because my insurance company isn't involved and they think I won't
sue on my own.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
John F. Carr
John <nor...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Isn't Mass. a "no-fault" state? If so, I don't think they are obligated
>to cover your damages if they are under the tort threshold.
Only for personal injury under $2000 (last time I checked).
There is no mandatory coverage for damage to your own car.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Todd Copeland
news:v7gdbvsdsfurj35i3...@4ax.com...
> In article <b90c5a$p3h$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Todd Copeland <to...@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>
> >I don't see that not having collision coverage under your policy would
> >change anything on their end. It would not matter to them whatsoever.
>
> If you have collision insurance the other company knows you have
> lawyers to back you up.
Incorrect. Most carriers are members of Arbitration Fourm Inc, which does
not allow for lawsuits to be filed against member companies. Also, those
that are not members seldom pay attorneys to file suit. To have an attorney
appear in court costs about $2600. This is a little more then the average
collision claim. So financially it's just not worth the expense.
> I'm going to have to go to court over a minor accident because it is
> below my insurance deductible. A driver whose desperation exceeded
> his skill damaged my bumper trying to park his car in a small space
> behind me. I have a picture of his license plate lined up perfectly
> with the gouges in my plastic bumper. But his insurance company won't
> pay because my insurance company isn't involved and they think I won't
> sue on my own.
I doubt that is the reason. Have you tried speaking to a supervisor? I'm
betting the adjuster is both over worked and not good at managing his/her
time. To help put things in perspective I'm assigned 25-35 claims a week
(about 100 claims/month). Each claim has an average of 2 claimants, so that
is about 200 claimants a month I need to deal with. Is it possible that a
drop the ball on one or two? Certainly.
Nutmegger
"John F. Carr" wrote
> Todd Copeland wrote:
>
> >I don't see that not having collision coverage under your policy would
> >change anything on their end. It would not matter to them whatsoever.
>
> If you have collision insurance the other company knows you have
> lawyers to back you up.
That isn't true.
>
> I'm going to have to go to court over a minor accident because it is
> below my insurance deductible. A driver whose desperation exceeded
> his skill damaged my bumper trying to park his car in a small space
> behind me.
Desperation or lack of experience?
> I have a picture of his license plate lined up perfectly
> with the gouges in my plastic bumper. But his insurance company won't
> pay because my insurance company isn't involved and they think I won't
> sue on my own.
Is there a police report?
You know, on the day of my sisters wedding I was leaving from a
hairdresser's appointment and I was late, in a rush and driving a truck with
my wedding dress handing on the passengers side which blocked my view.
Parked next to me was a RX7 which I didn't even see. I cut the wheel too
hard and the bumper of my truck caught his light and ripped the headlight
right out. I got out, looked around couldn't see anyone and actually went
looking for whose ever car it was. I found him and his gf eating pizza. He
wasn't upset at all that I damaged his vehicle. We start to exchange
insurance info and he gives me his card. He is a lawyer! No police were
involved, which probably was not wise. Anyway, my insurance paid his claim
then proceeded to drop me two months later.
>
>
> --
> John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
>
Robert Bonomi
Todd Copeland <to...@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>"John F. Carr" <j...@mit.edu> wrote in message
>news:v7gdbvsdsfurj35i3...@4ax.com...
>> In article <b90c5a$p3h$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> Todd Copeland <to...@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't see that not having collision coverage under your policy would
>> >change anything on their end. It would not matter to them whatsoever.
>>
>> If you have collision insurance the other company knows you have
>> lawyers to back you up.
>
>Incorrect. Most carriers are members of Arbitration Fourm Inc, which does
HOWEVER, any such suit gets filed against the *DRIVER*, not the insurer.
The insurer is contractually obliged to defend the driver in such a suit,
but the insurer is not a 'named defendant'. Well, except in cases where the
liable driver is suing -his- carrier for failure to perform on their policy.
Todd Copeland
news:i1rsbvg25ivvo2hjg...@4ax.com...
> >> If you have collision insurance the other company knows you have
> >> lawyers to back you up.
> >
> >Incorrect. Most carriers are members of Arbitration Fourm Inc, which does
> >not allow for lawsuits to be filed against member companies. o
>
> HOWEVER, any such suit gets filed against the *DRIVER*, not the insurer.
> The insurer is contractually obliged to defend the driver in such a suit,
> but the insurer is not a 'named defendant'. Well, except in cases where
the
> liable driver is suing -his- carrier for failure to perform on their
policy.
I mistated my point. Carriers who are members of Arb Forum are not allowed
to file suit against the owner/driver of the other vehicle if that parties
carrier is also a memeber of AF (I stated that they could not file suit
against the other "carrier"). Again, this applies to the owner/driver of the
vehicle, not just that parties insurance company.
If I've not paid a claim, for whatever reason, it has never entered my mind
if the person has insurance (as it relates to not paying the claim... if I
know they have collision I'd recommend filing under their own policy if
there was going to be a delay on my end). I've also never heard of this
information being considered when not paying a claim. It might happen in
very rare occuances but it's more likely that they adjuster either has
another reason or no reason at all. My money is on the adjuster just over
looking the payment or overlooking the handling of the claim period. I know
I've been guilty of that :(.