Why do our cars get salvaged so easily?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by conehead

Omg dude, you again? Did you even read what I wrote? YOUR insurance doesn't cover that stuff because that is specified in your insurance contract. But if you are not at fault, you haven't made that agreement with the other person's insurance. Then have to pay for all of that. This just happened to me. Do you think the other insurance company paid me more because they "misunderstood"?

I think that the objection to your statements is more that you are applying them to everybody. Not everybody is in California and has the exact same coverage you do. There are 12 States that have no fault systems where your whole argument is invalid. In a no fault system you will not be paid a penny for your mods unless you had them included in your policy and even rental coverage depends on if you included that in the coverage. Doesn't matter who was at fault since everything goes through your insurance. Even in the fault States different policies mean different coverage whether you are at fault or not.

There are hundreds of variables depending on location and policy (for example I have replacement coverage so if my car get's totaled I get one a model year newer no matter what that costs it isn't just the value of my car) and this is why these discussions can go sideways so fast since everybody like to say "well I got..."

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by HKz

bunch of dirty minds out there..

Thanks for the big laugh on your original post! That’s comedy gold, right there. Why do I see this making it into a sitcom one day? If I ever write a screenplay I might have to ask for permission to use that!

Myriad

[bkharmony]

Originally Posted by suzyj

How so? I’m on 7.0 /100km (=33.6 mpg). I thought that was pretty normal?

All stop-go-stop-go city driving. Or maybe it's defective?

[why?]

Originally Posted by conehead

Omg dude, you again? Did you even read what I wrote? YOUR insurance doesn't cover that stuff because that is specified in your insurance contract. But if you are not at fault, you haven't made that agreement with the other person's insurance. Then have to pay for all of that. This just happened to me. Do you think the other insurance company paid me more because they "misunderstood"?

You said you had to fight for it for 2 months. That does not make it sound like they just were going to cover everything without a fight. Did you misspeak? Or did you have to fight them?

I've seen fights with insurance companies that lasted so long the repair place took ownership of the vehicle because the vehicle was worth less than the storage fees, because the insurance companies decided fighting for years was a better deal than repairing the car. Every time you have to deal with an insurance company is a fight. That's the reality we all face.

[conehead]

Originally Posted by why?

You said you had to fight for it for 2 months. That does not make it sound like they just were going to cover everything without a fight. Did you misspeak? Or did you have to fight them?

I've seen fights with insurance companies that lasted so long the repair place took ownership of the vehicle because the vehicle was worth less than the storage fees, because the insurance companies decided fighting for years was a better deal than repairing the car. Every time you have to deal with an insurance company is a fight. That's the reality we all face.

Of course I had to fight with them, it is a negotiation. I had to point out every missing option, and all of the things I just listed, and provide receipts. The adjuster's job is to give you less than what you are owed, and they practice all of their tricks every day. They rely on your ignorance.


I'm sure there are many differences in each state as @Tcoat said. I gave my recent personal example as one explanation for the original question, and you told me all of that was wrong and I just didn't understand.

[why?]

Originally Posted by conehead

Of course I had to fight with them, it is a negotiation. I had to point out every missing option, and all of the things I just listed, and provide receipts. The adjuster's job is to give you less than what you are owed, and they practice all of their tricks every day. They rely on your ignorance.


I'm sure there are many differences in each state as @Tcoat said. I gave my recent personal example as one explanation for the original question, and you told me all of that was wrong and I just didn't understand.

I never said it was "wrong," I said welcome to the club. The state doesn't matter. The last time I had to have repairs, I found the best repair shop that offered the most warranties and were going to make sure I never worried about anything again, and I let them argue. But there was still an argument and a fight. Because insurance companies are evil.

[Jordanwolf]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I think that the objection to your statements is more that you are applying them to everybody. Not everybody is in California and has the exact same coverage you do. There are 12 States that have no fault systems where your whole argument is invalid. In a no fault system you will not be paid a penny for your mods unless you had them included in your policy and even rental coverage depends on if you included that in the coverage. Doesn't matter who was at fault since everything goes through your insurance. Even in the fault States different policies mean different coverage whether you are at fault or not.

There are hundreds of variables depending on location and policy (for example I have replacement coverage so if my car get's totaled I get one a model year newer no matter what that costs it isn't just the value of my car) and this is why these discussions can go sideways so fast since everybody like to say "well I got..."

You again bro?

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by why?

Because insurance companies are evil.

The more aggressive cost cutters actually don't mind you believing that. Such a silly value judgment is a purely emotional response. People who insert emotion into their interaction with the insurance company are easier to manipulate and on average make poorer decisions. You start out afraid of them (because "evil" is something to fear) and are at a disadvantage from the very beginning.

You get more out of the insurer by approaching the claim coldly as a business problem. Attorneys understand this. The average attorney gets better results from an insurance negotiation than the average layman, but it's not because a law degree is magic. It's because as your proxy they aren't emotionally manipulated by the claims manager the way regular claimants trying to handle their own negotiations are.

[why?]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

The more aggressive cost cutters actually don't mind you believing that. Such a silly value judgment is a purely emotional response. People who insert emotion into their interaction with the insurance company are easier to manipulate and on average make poorer decisions. You start out afraid of them (because "evil" is something to fear) and are at a disadvantage from the very beginning.

You get more out of the insurer by approaching the claim coldly as a business problem. Attorneys understand this. The average attorney gets better results from an insurance negotiation than the average layman, but it's not because a law degree is magic. It's because as your proxy they aren't emotionally manipulated by the claims manager the way regular claimants trying to handle their own negotiations are.

or because they do it every day and know how to do it right. Fearing anything is moronic. Finding the correct person for the job is usually the best way to go.

Leave it to you to take a tongue in cheek comment and say that.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by why?

Because insurance companies are evil.

I got what you meant. Just putting that out there. Personally, I need a cool-headed, experienced advocate on my side when negotiating these waters. Business/legal matters are not in my wheel house.