Having accident causing persons insurance replace aftermarket parts

[Stomachbuzz]

Some of y'all are missing the point entirely in your arguments about semantics of fine print.

Here's the deal:
If they break it, they buy it.
Period. The end.

It doesn't matter if you were driving a 1990 Honda Civic, or a 2020 Ferrari. If someone else damages your property, they owe you for the damage.
It also doesn't matter what's in or ON the car.
If they damage your property, they need to make you whole.

It doesn't matter if you have the newest, hottest, fly-est wheels and coilovers on your car, or whether you declared that to your own insurance company, OR NOT! It's irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if you had the Mona Lisa sitting in the passenger seat of your grandma's 1998 Buick.
If it's damaged, they pay for it. PERIOD

It's the same if someone rear-ends your car, or blows through the front wall of your home. Property is property.

The ONLY limit is the limit of the insurance coverage. If the person only has a $25k policy, that's all the insurance company is on the hook for.
If you have a strong case, and threaten to go to court, they might throw you $30k just to absolve guilt, but that's it.
You have to sue the insured for the remainder.

the fact that people don't understand this is...concerning to say the least.
People think someone can wiggle out of their obligations to replace your broken property with "you didn't declare your Volk wheels to your ins co so I don't have to pay you back!"
crazy...

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Stomachbuzz

Some of y'all are missing the point entirely in your arguments about semantics of fine print.

Here's the deal:
If they break it, they buy it.
Period. The end.

It doesn't matter if you were driving a 1990 Honda Civic, or a 2020 Ferrari. If someone else damages your property, they owe you for the damage.
It also doesn't matter what's in or ON the car.
If they damage your property, they need to make you whole.

It doesn't matter if you have the newest, hottest, fly-est wheels and coilovers on your car, or whether you declared that to your own insurance company, OR NOT! It's irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if you had the Mona Lisa sitting in the passenger seat of your grandma's 1998 Buick.
If it's damaged, they pay for it. PERIOD

It's the same if someone rear-ends your car, or blows through the front wall of your home. Property is property.

The ONLY limit is the limit of the insurance coverage. If the person only has a $25k policy, that's all the insurance company is on the hook for.
If you have a strong case, and threaten to go to court, they might throw you $30k just to absolve guilt, but that's it.
You have to sue the insured for the remainder.

the fact that people don't understand this is...concerning to say the least.
People think someone can wiggle out of their obligations to replace your broken property with "you didn't declare your Volk wheels to your ins co so I don't have to pay you back!"
crazy...

Maybe that is how it works where you are but it is NOT universal.
We have what is called "no fault" insurance here. Doesn't matter who caused the accident it all goes through your own insurance company so if your policy doesn't include it you are not getting paid.


I thought I was very clear in saying rules vary depending on location but I guess you figure what applies to you is the same for everybody. It ain't.

[p1l0t]

If you can prove they damaged it they are liable.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

If you can prove they damaged it they are liable.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Police here don't even cite people for it. My boss got rear ended 3 weeks ago at a stoplight, it is all going through his insurance. Other dude didn't have insurance at all. The only thing he can do is sue in small claims for his deductible back.

Hell, my cousin got hit by a car crossing the street. The driver took off. He gave them a description of the driver, vehicle, and plate number. They said since there was no injury or property damage, not their problem

the fact that people don't understand this is...concerning to say the least.
People think someone can wiggle out of their obligations to replace your broken property with "you didn't declare your Volk wheels to your ins co so I don't have to pay you back!"
crazy...

If that was the case, people wouldn't need special collector car insurance for their restored vehicles. They should be able to just submit a pile of receipts, right?

[Jordanwolf]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I called my broker up. They said what are the mods and how much do they cost? I told them and they said OK that will be $10 a year. It was that easy. Couldn't even tell you what the actual company is since it changes from year to year depending on what the best deal my broker can get me.

Well, I have insurance through my work so I don't have a broker to interface, but might just make a call and see what can be done.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

If you can prove they damaged it they are liable.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

In a perfect world. This one is not.

[p1l0t]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Police here don't even cite people for it. My boss got rear ended 3 weeks ago at a stoplight, it is all going through his insurance. Other dude didn't have insurance at all. The only thing he can do is sue in small claims for his deductible back.



Hell, my cousin got hit by a car crossing the street. The driver took off. He gave them a description of the driver, vehicle, and plate number. They said since there was no injury or property damage, not their problem









If that was the case, people wouldn't need special collector car insurance for their restored vehicles. They should be able to just submit a pile of receipts, right?

Well I did say IF you can prove it.. having the police not cite an at fault driver makes that harder. I live in a state where if you are not at fault the other driver has to make you whole again.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

Well I did say IF you can prove it.. having the police not cite an at fault driver makes that harder. I live in a state where if you are not at fault the other driver has to make you whole again.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I get what you mean

. Like @Tcoat, I am stuck in no fault state purgatory

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Stomachbuzz

Some of y'all are missing the point entirely in your arguments about semantics of fine print.

Here's the deal:
If they break it, they buy it.
Period. The end.

It doesn't matter if you were driving a 1990 Honda Civic, or a 2020 Ferrari. If someone else damages your property, they owe you for the damage.
It also doesn't matter what's in or ON the car.
If they damage your property, they need to make you whole.

It doesn't matter if you have the newest, hottest, fly-est wheels and coilovers on your car, or whether you declared that to your own insurance company, OR NOT! It's irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if you had the Mona Lisa sitting in the passenger seat of your grandma's 1998 Buick.
If it's damaged, they pay for it. PERIOD

It's the same if someone rear-ends your car, or blows through the front wall of your home. Property is property.

The ONLY limit is the limit of the insurance coverage. If the person only has a $25k policy, that's all the insurance company is on the hook for.
If you have a strong case, and threaten to go to court, they might throw you $30k just to absolve guilt, but that's it.
You have to sue the insured for the remainder.

the fact that people don't understand this is...concerning to say the least.
People think someone can wiggle out of their obligations to replace your broken property with "you didn't declare your Volk wheels to your ins co so I don't have to pay you back!"
crazy...

Depends on where you are and the company. I've never heard of wheels specifically being a concerned but other performance parts, yes. Engine swaps, turbo kits, etc won't be made whole generally here unless you purchased extra coverage from your own insurance provider and then they cover that.

In all the examples of things not being paid out have been total losses though so might be different for light damage.

Like @Tcoat - Florida is a no fault state.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

Well I did say IF you can prove it.. having the police not cite an at fault driver makes that harder. I live in a state where if you are not at fault the other driver has to make you whole again.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

And sadly I live in one the insurer of a driver arrested for a DUI and obviously charged with the accident doesn't have to pay without arbitration/court.

[Chuckls]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

If you need to, involve your own insurance or a lawyer when it starts going south.

Good thing I went with a lawyer lol.

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Chuckls

Good thing I went with a lawyer lol.

I've had to my last couple accidents. No shame in it, they help mediate a lot and kind of take the worry away to an extent. At least if you have a good one.

Unfortunately I have way too much experience getting hit.

[Stomachbuzz]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Maybe that is how it works where you are but it is NOT universal.
We have what is called "no fault" insurance here. Doesn't matter who caused the accident it all goes through your own insurance company so if your policy doesn't include it you are not getting paid.


I thought I was very clear in saying rules vary depending on location but I guess you figure what applies to you is the same for everybody. It ain't.

First of all, it looks like you're in Canada, so....
Second, here's a website talking about fault vs. no-fault states and their rules
https://accident-law.freeadvice.com/...-accidents.htm

And here's a quote from that website:


Third, if you want to accept some bullshit excuse and get screwed, that's fine. You do you, bro.
But I won't get caught being made worse off because some clown hits my shit.

Someone damaging your property and not being properly reimbursed is literally against America. The Pursuit of Property is one of the inalienable rights that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were built on.
The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights has several amendments and mentions in it to specifically protect citizens and their property.

Originally Posted by p1l0t

If you can prove they damaged it they are liable.

Yes.

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Police here don't even cite people for it. My boss got rear ended 3 weeks ago at a stoplight, it is all going through his insurance. Other dude didn't have insurance at all. The only thing he can do is sue in small claims for his deductible back.

Hell, my cousin got hit by a car crossing the street. The driver took off. He gave them a description of the driver, vehicle, and plate number. They said since there was no injury or property damage, not their problem




If that was the case, people wouldn't need special collector car insurance for their restored vehicles. They should be able to just submit a pile of receipts, right?

#1 - police are lazy. They do not want to file a police report. It is more paperwork for them to write a formal report vs. handing you a "case number" on the back of their business card.
If you ask them, they may give some answer such as "we only file a report if someone is injured and needs an ambulance"
The truth of this can vary by state, but it is in your best interest to pressure them to write a report. It will make fighting your claim much easier.

If there is no police report written, it can make it easy for the 'bad' driver to wiggle out of it being their fault, or lessen the severity of the accident. This mostly applies to accidents that 'could be argued'. For example, someone slams into your rear end at a red light, that's pretty much open and shut, but other collisions aren't as clear-cut.
As a result, you will need to rely on other evidence to prove it. Dash cam footage, pictures you might take of damage on the vehicles, their testimony, etc.

#2 you cousin got hit by a car crossing the street and there was no injury? That doesn't even make sense. Moving on...

#3 special collector car insurance for their restored vehicles
Not really the same thing... Those kinds of cars are not easily appraised, so a regular car insurance company (who specialized in insuring Toyota Corollas or similar) cannot properly gauge the value of the car.
Also, collector car insurance usually means the car is rarely driven, if at all. That's why it is often cheaper.
People would get this insurance for their show car, rarely driven, and it's mostly for peace of mind in case of theft, a natural disaster, or etc.

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

I get what you mean

. Like @Tcoat, I am stuck in no fault state purgatory

Again, no-fault state applies to personal injury, only. Not property damage.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Stomachbuzz

First of all, it looks like you're in Canada, so....
Second, here's a website talking about fault vs. no-fault states and their rules
https://accident-law.freeadvice.com/...-accidents.htm

And here's a quote from that website:


Third, if you want to accept some bullshit excuse and get screwed, that's fine. You do you, bro.
But I won't get caught being made worse off because some clown hits my shit.

Someone damaging your property and not being properly reimbursed is literally against America. The Pursuit of Property is one of the inalienable rights that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were built on.
The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights has several amendments and mentions in it to specifically protect citizens and their property.


Yes.


#1 - police are lazy. They do not want to file a police report. It is more paperwork for them to write a formal report vs. handing you a "case number" on the back of their business card.
If you ask them, they may give some answer such as "we only file a report if someone is injured and needs an ambulance"
The truth of this can vary by state, but it is in your best interest to pressure them to write a report. It will make fighting your claim much easier.

If there is no police report written, it can make it easy for the 'bad' driver to wiggle out of it being their fault, or lessen the severity of the accident. This mostly applies to accidents that 'could be argued'. For example, someone slams into your rear end at a red light, that's pretty much open and shut, but other collisions aren't as clear-cut.
As a result, you will need to rely on other evidence to prove it. Dash cam footage, pictures you might take of damage on the vehicles, their testimony, etc.

#2 you cousin got hit by a car crossing the street and there was no injury? That doesn't even make sense. Moving on...

#3 special collector car insurance for their restored vehicles
Not really the same thing... Those kinds of cars are not easily appraised, so a regular car insurance company (who specialized in insuring Toyota Corollas or similar) cannot properly gauge the value of the car.
Also, collector car insurance usually means the car is rarely driven, if at all. That's why it is often cheaper.
People would get this insurance for their show car, rarely driven, and it's mostly for peace of mind in case of theft, a natural disaster, or etc.



Again, no-fault state applies to personal injury, only. Not property damage.

The last line of your attachment summarizes it all. Yes somebody is "at fault" but it all goes through your own company. In that case your company will not pay for items that you did not pay premiums on. Why should they? There is also the very valid option of suing but that was the point of discussion about coverage.