You can't go wrong with insurance
silver
of a posting. I don't appreciate having the words changed in my posting
"Re: You can't go wrong with insurance". I have now twice cancelled that
posting because of that unauthorized editing. However, the posting still
shows as existing.
Tony Braga
In article
<silver-0908...@dialup-63.214.120.35.dial1.boston1.level3.net>,
sil...@colloidalsilversmith.com (silver) wrote:
> Here's another...the supply is inexhaustible.
>
> Re: total loss or fixable?MORE ????
>
>
> [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Sure-Net Message
> Board ] [ FAQ ]
>
>
> Posted by Sure-Net.com on August 08, 19101 at 17:37:39:
>
> In Reply to: Re: total loss or fixable?MORE ???? posted by R. White on
> August 08, 19101 at 06:56:15:
>
> : OK, now the repair cost for the car is $16,000. I paid $21,000 for this
> car 8 months ago and the adjustor says it is NOT totalled because the cash
> value of the car is $22,800. He says he can arrange for ME to sell it to a
> salvage company he knows. In order to do this, I have to pay the car off
> and get the title. Ins company will pay me the $16,000, but I owe %19,000,
> so I have to come up with the difference. Adjustor also says that he is
> the final word, my only choices are to fix the car or take this deal. Any
> suggestions?
>
> If you expect to make a claim for something more than the insurance
> adjuster is offering, you need to collect the
> information to support your claim, i.e., all of the damage estimated
> including open items (it is important to compare scope of work and parts
> of more than one opinion), if the damage is anywhere near the market value
> of your vehicle then salvage bids (actual bids for the salvage of your
> vehicle) establish salvage value. If you deduct the salvage value from
> your claim for total loss (claiming the net amount after deducting salvage
> value), the company may have a problem controlling that part of your
> property that is not part of your claim. Please notice the word
> "your"...you seem to be relying on the insurance company to calculate,
> prepare and file your claim. If the company adjuster maintains your
> vehicle is not a total loss why would he suggest you sell the salvage to
> his recommended salvage company? That sounds as if he is making an
> argument against his own position of repairable vehicle. Another option
> you may have is to request Appraisal (a simplified arbitration
> process)..if it is in your policy conditions. Many policies have
> eliminated it, forcing court instead. Short of being able to do this for
> yourself, you may want to hire a public adjuster. They are listed in most
> major cities phone books, under "Adjusters." Also, you should be reminded
> again: many policies still have a 60 day requirement to file a formal
> claim (proof of loss form). Make sure, if that requirement is in your
> policy, you have been
> given a written extension of time if you go over that time limit.
>
> In the event the insurance company decides to exercise it's option to
> repair or take your vehicle without your
> authorization, please be aware of the following information: the insurance
> company has the option to take, repair or replace the insured property
> with other of like kind and quality within a reasonable time on giving
> thirty day notice after receiving the proof of loss. However, this section
> has seldom been enforced because of all the problems and questions it
> creates. Just to name a few: when the insurance company assumes the role
> of guarantor (when one party promises to make another secure in the
> possession, continued enjoyment, or the like, of something), it runs the
> risk and burden of policyholder satisfaction. This can become very
> difficult if after
> repair or replacement the policyholder is not satisfied. The complaint of
> dissatisfaction is with the insurance company, instead of with the repair
> or replacement firms had the company settled directly with the
> policyholder. How does the company ever convince the policholder of
> satisfaction? Does the company's right to possession wipe out the rights
> of ownership of the policholder ? If the policholder doesn't have the
> right to abandon the property, and doesn't have the right to keep the
> property, at what price insurance?
>
> Where a loss occurs and the insurance company authorizes repairs, the
> contract to pay the loss is superseded by the contract to repair, and the
> one year time limit for the policyholder to sue the insurance company
> would not apply: Lee v. Safeco Insurance Co., 241 S.E. 2d 627 Ga. Ct.
> App., 1978.
>
> You may want to speak with an attorney if this becomes the case.
>
>
> In article
> <silver-0808...@dialup-63.214.118.82.dial1.boston1.level3.net>,
> sil...@colloidalsilversmith.com (silver) wrote:
>
> > In article <ckza7.1372$cd1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Iwom
> > Clark <iwo...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > You can't go wrong with insurance
> >
> >
> > There are a great many ways to go wrong with insurance. Here are a few
> of them:
> >
> > Re: Our Insurance company is making us homeless!
> >
> >
> > [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Sure-Net Message
> > Board ] [ FAQ ]
> >
> >
> > Posted by Sure-Net.com on August 08, 19101 at 05:25:27:
> >
> > In Reply to: Our Insurance company is making us homeless! posted by Anne
> > on August 07, 19101 at 21:10:00:
> >
> > : Our house was destroyed by fire in April of 2000 - Farmer's, our
> > insurance company told us they would
> > pay for our rent for one year while our house was being rebuilt. As the
> > contractor (recommended by the
> > insurance company.... yeah, I know, my first mistake) and architect
> > (recommended by the contractor, my
> > second mistake!) have been working incredibly ineptly and slowly the
> > reconstruction was only just
> > beginning after a year! - so they extended it for two months. The house is
> > still nowhere near being
> > finished - it will be another four months or so - but the insurance
> > company says they will no longer pay
> > for our housing. They said that the contractor will have to pay for it -
> > but now he is refusing ! We just
> > heard today that in four days my three kids and I will have no place to
> > live! I will take whatever legal action
> > is necessary but don't know where to start. Isn't the insurance company
> > obligated to house us until we can
> > move back into our rebuilt home? Please e-mail me any suggestions on how
> > to deal with this - consmuer
> > groups in SF Bay Area? Thanks.
> >
> > The insurance company has the option to take, repair or replace the
> > insured property with other of like
> > kind and quality within a reasonable time on giving thirty day notice
> > after receiving the proof of loss.
> > However, this section has seldom been enforced because of all the problems
> > and questions it creates. Just
> > to name a few: when the insurance company assumes the role of guarantor
> > (when one party promises to
> > make another secure in the possession, continued enjoyment, or the like,
> > of something), it runs the risk and
> > burden of policyholder satisfaction. This can become very difficult if
> > after repair or replacement the
> > policyholder is not satisfied. The complaint of dissatisfaction is with
> > the insurance company, instead of
> > with the repair or replacement firms had the company settled directly with
> > the policyholder. How does the
> > company ever convince the policholder of satisfaction? Does the company's
> > right to possession wipe out
> > the rights of ownership of the policholder ? If the policholder doesn't
> > have the right to abandon the
> > property, and doesn't have the right to keep the property, at what price
> > insurance?
> >
> > Where a loss occurs and the insurance company authorizes repairs, the
> > contract to pay the loss is
> > superseded by the contract to repair, and the one year time limit for the
> > policyholder to sue the insurance
> > company would not apply: Lee v. Safeco Insurance Co., 241 S.E. 2d 627 Ga.
> > Ct. App., 1978.
> >
> > If the insurance company did not enact its option to repair mentioned
> > above, there may still be some
> > responsibility by the insurance company for repairs gone wrong because of
> > its representation that certain
> > individuals were competent to preserve and repair the insured property:
> >
> > The policyholder's lawsuit against the insurance company for fraud,
> > conspiracy to defraud, bad faith, and
> > intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon the insurance
> > company's representation that certain
> > individuals were competent to preserve and repair the policyholder's house
> > and household furniture, when,
> > in fact, these individuals were not competent and did work in a shoddy and
> > unworkmanlike manner,
> > causing more damage, was not subject to the one year time limit to sue:
> > Murphy v. Allstate Insurance Co.,
> > increased cost of repair or reconstruction by reason of any ordinance or
> > law regulating construction or repair." At first glance this appears to be
> > a contradiction, but the above quoted clause applies to partial losses and
> > not total losses. If it is determined that the loss is total, the clause
> > can never come into play: A. H. Jacobson Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance
> > Co., D.C. Minn., 83 F. Supp. 674; Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co.,
> > v. Rochester German Insurance Co., Minn., 88 NW 265; Feinbloom v. Camden
> > Fire Insurance Ass'n., N.J.,149 A 2d 616; Netherlands Insurance Co. v.
> > Fowler, Fla., 181 So., 2d 692; Larkin v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., Minn.,
> > 83 NW 409; Rutherford v. Royal Insurance Co., 4th Cir., 12F 2d 880;
> > Maryland Casualty Co. v. Frank, Nev., 452 P. 2d 919;
> > Firemen's Insurance Co. v Houle, N.H., 69 A. 2d 696; Hamilton County Mut.
> > RALPH WALDO EMERSON