Insurance company's settlement for automobile loss: Is it unfair?
Charles
I was rear-ended here in Florida. Obviously, it's the other guy's
fault. Putting the bodily injury claim aside, I've been trying to put
the property damage claim to rest. My '97 Sunfire (165,000 miles)
appraised to be in good condition was considered a total loss because
of the severe structural damage in the rear. Their offer was a little
over $2,700 (with taxes & fees included). I also persuaded them to
include any work I had done on the car, but they only agreed to that if
it was work done in the last year before total loss was declared. With
receipts, I was able to prove that $2,100 in maintenance had been done
on my vehicle for the 12 months prior. $400 of those repair were done 4
weeks before my accident and another $1,400 of repairs were done the
month before (that's most of the money I spent on car maintenance
alone!). They come back with an additional $300 as an offer for the
repairs, making my grand total a little over $3,000 for my total
property damage settlement.
So, my question is this: Is this fair? I've done my research on
NADA.com and KBB.com and can't really argue with the value they're
offering me for my automobile. However, they've taken my car repair
bills and lowered them by 85% in value! I understand that the repairs
were necessary to maintain my vehicle (which the insurance company
delightfully reminded me) therefore why there's no large increase in
the settlement. I also understand that this is the other guy's
insurance company and they're going to give me only what they
absolutely have to by law.
Considering that $1,800 of $2,100 in repairs were done in the last two
months before the accident, doesn't that account for more than $300
as a return offer? So, what are my options? Talk to someone who
supervises over the adjuster I'm speaking to now? Take them to small
claims court? Hire an independent appraiser to fight it over in
arbitration? The last two ideas sound like they'll take a long time,
and I'd rather get this over sooner, rather than later.
Advice would be appreciated.
Charles
BrightS at AOL
(Email me if you want to respond direct)
Stan Brown
> Ok, here's my story. I got into a car accident a few months ago where
> I was rear-ended here in Florida. Obviously, it's the other guy's
> fault. Putting the bodily injury claim aside, I've been trying to put
> the property damage claim to rest.
> property damage settlement.
>
> So, my question is this: Is this fair?
No, but as long as you don't have an attorney you're not going to get
a fair offer.
Your problems started with "putting the bodily injury claim aside".
Settling your claim piecemeal like this is exactly what the opposing
company wants, which is why it is NOT in your best interest.
Your BI attorney should also handle the PD as part of the total
claim. DO NOT walk unarmed into the arena by trying to settle any
part of your claim yourself -- you WILL get lowballed.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Gerald Clough
I imagine that they would argue that, if the car required that much work
in the last year, it likely would have little or no value without the
work, and they are paying, not for a $2,700 car that was already in good
shape before the work and was improved by $2,100, but for it's value in
present condition, value it would not have had unless you had done the work.
--
Gerald Clough
"Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
> Ok, here's my story. I got into a car accident a few months ago where
> I was rear-ended here in Florida. Obviously, it's the other guy's
> fault.
This is a common misconception and it's not always true that "obviously,
it's the other guy's fault" if you get rear-ended. There ARE cases where
you'd be at fault, such as if you pulled out of a side street or from
another lane right in front of the person where you were going at a greatly
reduced rate of speed than they were and they had no time to react. Also in
some locals (I think it was actually in Europe where this happened but it
may also have been the case in the states) if you braked suddenly for no
reason or for a poor reason (such as to avoid a sqirrel) and they hit you,
you'd be at fault.
--
Mike
Stan Brown
> This is a common misconception and it's not always true that "obviously,
> it's the other guy's fault" if you get rear-ended. There ARE cases where
> you'd be at fault,
True -- rare cases, but they do exist.
> (I think it was actually in Europe where this happened but it
> may also have been the case in the states) if you braked suddenly for no
> reason or for a poor reason (such as to avoid a sqirrel) and they hit you,
> you'd be at fault.
Huh?? I had not heard that the laws of physics were any different in
Europe from those in the United States? Don't drivers in Europe also
have a duty to keep an assured clear distance from the car ahead? If
A and B are traveling in lane and A brakes suddenly, if B was keeping
an assured clear distance then there would be no collision. If there
is a collision, then either B was following too closely (B's fault)
or there was something unanticipated and beyond B's control, like
brake failure.
Anyone know for sure the legal position in Europe? (Has this been
harmonized across the EU, or it is still local option like which side
of the road to drive on?)
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
> Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:30:27 -0500 from <prab...@shamrocksgf.com>:
>> This is a common misconception and it's not always true that "obviously,
>> it's the other guy's fault" if you get rear-ended. There ARE cases where
>> you'd be at fault,
> True -- rare cases, but they do exist.
>> (I think it was actually in Europe where this happened but it
>> may also have been the case in the states) if you braked suddenly for no
>> reason or for a poor reason (such as to avoid a sqirrel) and they hit you,
>> you'd be at fault.
> Huh?? I had not heard that the laws of physics were any different in
> Europe from those in the United States? Don't drivers in Europe also
> have a duty to keep an assured clear distance from the car ahead? If
> A and B are traveling in lane and A brakes suddenly, if B was keeping
> an assured clear distance then there would be no collision. If there
> is a collision, then either B was following too closely (B's fault)
> or there was something unanticipated and beyond B's control, like
> brake failure.
Yes, I agree with you that it's a stupid wa yof looking at things but I do
recall having read it somewhere. I wish I could remember some details on it
but can't and a quick google search didn't turn it up.
> Anyone know for sure the legal position in Europe? (Has this been
> harmonized across the EU, or it is still local option like which side
> of the road to drive on?)
--
Mike
atheism: a non-prophet organization...
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
Barry Gold
>> Huh?? I had not heard that the laws of physics were any different in
>> Europe from those in the United States? Don't drivers in Europe also
>> have a duty to keep an assured clear distance from the car ahead? If
>> A and B are traveling in lane and A brakes suddenly, if B was keeping
>> an assured clear distance then there would be no collision. If there
>> is a collision, then either B was following too closely (B's fault)
>> or there was something unanticipated and beyond B's control, like
>> brake failure.
<prab...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>Yes, I agree with you that it's a stupid wa yof looking at things but I do
>recall having read it somewhere. I wish I could remember some details on it
>but can't and a quick google search didn't turn it up.
I think it's more a matter of culture and underlying assumptions than
the laws of physics, or even necessarily the text of the traffic laws.
In the US, the assumption is that people will drive in the left lane
whenever they feel like it, and if you're coming up from behind you
have to assume they will sit there until they damn well feel like
moving over.
In much of Europe, the assumption is the opposite. They enforce the
rule that the left lane is for faster traffic. If you're cruising
along in the left lane and see headlights flash in your mirror, you
move over at the first opportunity. The driver coming up behind will
asume you are going to do that. If you don't, he'll do his best to
avoid hitting you, but it may be too late by the time he realizes
that you've decided to play bookends. If that happens, it's probably
your fault under their rules.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
Stan Brown
> In the US, the assumption is that people will drive in the left lane
> whenever they feel like it, and if you're coming up from behind you
> have to assume they will sit there until they damn well feel like
> moving over.
That "assumption" runs counter to the law in New York, and I'm sure
in other states as well. In my defensive driving class we were told
that the law requires keeping right on expressways except to pass.
Stuart A. Bronstein
>> In the US, the assumption is that people will drive in the left
lane
>> whenever they feel like it, and if you're coming up from behind
you
>> have to assume they will sit there until they damn well feel like
>> moving over.
>
> That "assumption" runs counter to the law in New York, and I'm sure
> in other states as well. In my defensive driving class we were told
> that the law requires keeping right on expressways except to pass.
In California, too. But I've never seen or heard of anyone ever
being stopped or ticketed for it.
The English rule is that you are required to drive in the slow lane
(in our case the far right lane) unless you are passing. I've seen
people there pulled over for driving in the wrong lane.
Stu
Ernie Klein
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:46:24 -0500 from Barry Gold <bg...@nyx.net>:
> > In the US, the assumption is that people will drive in the left lane
> > whenever they feel like it, and if you're coming up from behind you
> > have to assume they will sit there until they damn well feel like
> > moving over.
>
> That "assumption" runs counter to the law in New York, and I'm sure
> in other states as well. In my defensive driving class we were told
> that the law requires keeping right on expressways except to pass.
California also (section 21654 of the CVC).
--
-Ernie-
"There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have
suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will."
Have you done your backup today?
Barry Gold
>> In the US, the assumption is that people will drive in the left lane
>> whenever they feel like it, and if you're coming up from behind you
>> have to assume they will sit there until they damn well feel like
>> moving over.
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>That "assumption" runs counter to the law in New York, and I'm sure
>in other states as well. In my defensive driving class we were told
>that the law requires keeping right on expressways except to pass.
Yes, it's also counter to the law in California. Nonetheless, how
often do you see the left lane clear of everybody except those
going faster than traffic to the right? How often do you see people
in the left lane being passed by traffic in lanes 2, 3, or even 4?
What the law says and the way people drive are not always in synch.
Mike Jacobs
> Yes, it's also counter to the law in California. Nonetheless, how
> often do you see the left lane clear of everybody except those
> going faster than traffic to the right? How often do you see people
> in the left lane being passed by traffic in lanes 2, 3, or even 4?
My $0.02? The difference between Europe and USA keep-to-right laws
is that in many countries in Europe, it is legal to go as fast as your
vehicle reasonably and safely can on certain multi-lane, limited access
highways (the kind we're talking about -- freeways, autobahns etc.).
If a Porsche or Ferrari is cruising at over 200 kmh (120 mph) in the
fast lane, the slowpoke in a wheezing 2cv darn well better pull over or
he will become a hood ornament. Safe and courteous practice, as well
as the law, calls for separation of traffic that has a very large speed
differential. if everybody obeys the rule, traffic actually flows
pretty smoothly and everyone can more or less maintain a steady speed
at whatever pace they choose or are capable of, by choosing their lane
and staying in it except to pass slower cars in that lane. Both
economy, safety, and ultimate point-to-point speed are best achieved if
most traffic can maintain a steady pace rather than constantly having
to speed up (acceleration burns more energy unnecessarily) and slow
down (braking also wastes energy which has to be regained to get back
up to cruising speed).
In USA, very few jurisdictions allow speeds over 65 mph on rural
freeways or 55 in urban areas. Even the slowest 40 hp VW can usually
keep up with those speeds. The "slower traffic keep right" rule may
have some use in hilly areas or on a long upgrade where trucks, buses,
underpowered cars and vehicles pulling trailers can't maintain the
speed limit or keep up with the flow of traffic. Also, on a rural
road that is only 4 lanes, if there is little traffic around, all
vehicles should keep right unless they are passing. On urban-area
roads with more than 2 lanes in each direction, especially If traffic
is heavy but moving at or near the speed limit, the speeds in each lane
will jockey back and forth and it does not make sense, either from a
safety or total speed of traffic flow (in number of vehicles that pass
a given point per unit of time) point of view, to have all of the
traffic keeping the speed limit stay in the right lane so that
lawbreakers (the only ones going over the limit) can have a free hand
to pass in the left lane. It makes even less sense where the speed of
flow of traffic is significantly lower than the limit due to
congestion, weather etc. All available lanes will then likely be in
use to maximize traffic flow. Still, someone who is not willing or
able to keep speed with the general flow of traffic should stay as far
to the right as possible. Even granting all the above, IMO a driver
keeping up with the general flow of traffic at or slightly above the
limit, during periods of heavy traffic where he himself would become
bogged down in slower traffic if he moved to the right, has no
obligation to pull to the right if a person desiring to speed even
faster than that, pulls up behind him and flashes his highbeams. The
law does not require a person maintaining a reasonable speed to
inconvenience himself and sacrifice his own steady pace in order to
accomodate a lawbreaker. OTOH, if one can do so without getting bogged
down, it's probably prudent, if only to avoid a "road rage" situation
with the impatient tailgater.
That's not exactly what the law says in some states, but IMO it's
basically what good traffic flow and safety sense call for and as Barry
says, ir pretty much the way the law seems to be interpreted in most
USA states.
Potential flamers, save your breath. I'm not trying to encourage
"left-lane lurkers" doing 55 when everybody else is doing 65-70. I'm
talking about foax doing the same speed as everyone else on the highway
during rush hour when someone comes up behind him all in a hurry
wanting to do 80 or 90 or more. In most cases, this is a speed they
will not have achieved yet, except in short bursts, unlike the European
situation, since (lacking the benefit of a whatever-you-can-do-safely
speed limit) they do _not_ have a clear shot at a left lane where
everyone (except the occasional slower car who is there just
temporarily, to pass someone even slower in a lane to his right, and
who will move over as soon as he completes his pass if he values his
life) is in a fast, good-handling car doing very high speeds.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
David Chesler
> Both
> economy, safety, and ultimate point-to-point speed are best achieved if
> most traffic can maintain a steady pace rather than constantly having
> to speed up (acceleration burns more energy unnecessarily) and slow
> down (braking also wastes energy which has to be regained to get back
> up to cruising speed).
You're double-counting. There is a fuel cost in accelerating
versus maintaining a speed, but there is no actual fuel cost
[excluding brake wear] in braking. It merely sets up the
fuel cost in the acceleration back up to speed which will
most likely follow. (OTOH, you undercounted the items for
use with "both", one of the rare words that remembers English's
old "dual" case :-) .)
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
John F. Carr
>> In the US, the assumption is that people will drive in the left lane
>> whenever they feel like it, and if you're coming up from behind you
>> have to assume they will sit there until they damn well feel like
>> moving over.
>
>That "assumption" runs counter to the law in New York, and I'm sure
>in other states as well. In my defensive driving class we were told
>that the law requires keeping right on expressways except to pass.
I have a web page listing the "keep right" laws in each state:
http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
Most states follow the Uniform Vehicle Code which requires
drivers moving slower than the normal speed of traffic to
keep right. Some states and toll road authorities require
drivers to keep right when not passing or prohibit obstructing
the left lane.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
Many (most?" states use the term "normal speed of traffic" but rarely define
that. The normal speed SHOULD (IMHO) be no more than the speed limit and
some judges will define it as that even if the average speed may be over
that. To define "normal speed" as something like "the speed that 85% of the
drivers drive at or under" would require someone to be out there clocking
all the drivers and calculating the speed, etc. and (again, IMHO) would be
too vague as a definition in that a "reasonably prudent person" wouldn't be
able to easily tell if he was driving at, under or over that speed and would
allow for too much subjective interpretation of whether or not someone was
knowingly driving at, under or over the "normal speed." But you can't,
reasonably, argue that "I didn't know if I was driving over the speed limit
or not."
--
Mike