In reply to vwcorvette:
In all things legal or other ways, "It depends.".
Now, I could have easily "made" $40 on the fender I previously mentioned. I had a wholesale Ford dealer account at the time, so I could have easily supplied that part and left the body shop $40 poorer. So did I or did I not commit fraud?
In reply to Ranger50:
Just something I was pondering.
Ranger50 wrote: In reply to SVreX: I know it's heaven forbid here, but people are required to have comp and collision of varying deductibles if you are making payments on a vehicle to protect the loan holders interests. That is NOT voluntary. So if I am making payments on said vehicle aren't I making a it better for the loan holder by keeping their interests in place by asking for OEM parts?
There's no law that says you have to buy a vehicle you need to borrow money to buy.
It's still voluntary.
Plus, it's not a law. It's a requirement of the lien holder.
And, once the lien is paid off, there is NO requirement to have comp.
I haven't had comp in 20 years. Lots of people I know do not have it.
vwcorvette wrote: So if I get hit, demand higher price or OEM parts, ask them to cut the check to me, have a lowball shop do the repair or do it myself, in the end "making" money on the deal am I committing some kind of fraud by accepting the $ and not using the higher priced/OEM parts?
No.
The insurance compensates you for the value of your loss. If you choose to use the money in a different manner, that is your choice.
I have a friend who had a 7 figure insurance claim for the losses to his business after a fire. He replaced almost none of what had been lost, as the focus of the business had changed and he needed different equipment then that which was lost.
He was compensated for his loss. The business was his property (with a particular value), and the insurance company replaced it with cash (of equal value), which he used to buy other stuff (again, of equal value). He ended with the same value he started with, but distributed differently into different assets.
SVreX wrote: There's no law that says you have to buy a vehicle you need to borrow money to buy. It's still voluntary. Plus, it's not a law. It's a requirement of the lien holder. And, once the lien is paid off, there is NO requirement to have comp. I haven't had comp in 20 years. Lots of people I know do not have it.
I bet the courts have something different to say about that. While it may not be a law from the legislative or executive branches, I would bet there is a court case and its ruling stating it as so.
Oh and I am not saying you HAVE to buy something on payments or having the cash to buy what you want to avoid insurance, but not everyone wants to drive a "crapcan" like you.
Sonic wrote:vwcorvette wrote: So if I get hit, demand higher price or OEM parts, ask them to cut the check to me, have a lowball shop do the repair or do it myself, in the end "making" money on the deal am I committing some kind of fraud by accepting the $ and not using the higher priced/OEM parts?No, but don't expect them to pay for the OEM parts again if you get hit in that area again. Really, you don't even need to fix the car at all. They have paid you to get you back to whole, if you choose to put that money into repairing the car, or chose to use it to go on vacation or smoke crack and still have a busted ass car, that's your choice.
QFT. When they stroked me a check, I had to sign a release saying I would not go after them for THIS ACCIDENT! again. Now, if I got hit again that was a completely different story.
I do know people who collected $ from a wreck, beat the car out just enough so it was driveable and drove it just like that, they spent the $ on other things. Sorta like they hit the lottery. It's not fraud UNLESS there is a lienholder involved. Their interest must be protected as well so if the car is not repaired and the lienholder winds up repopping the car they have every right to go after the owner to get the car repaired properly.
In reply to Curmudgeon:
Okay, I get it. So when my room mate of a few years back got a check for $1200 to rebuild the right front corner of the Volvo wagon he bought from my boss and i found plenty of used parts and had a friend paint the panel it was okay that we spent the rest of the money on beers and steaks that summer!
Yep, if there's no lienholder it's whatever floats yer boat. But dang I wish you'd have invited me! 
Just realize that one the release is signed the ins co won't pay any more for that particular incident.
Many years ago a buddy's dad bought a Toyota Corona 4 door for $250.00, needed tires but that was about it. Tires ~$150.00. Bought some tires and put his kids in it, one of his sons was driving in traffic and got sideswiped, all cosmetic damage, ins co paid $400.00. No repairs done because the doors etc still opened and closed fine, just a real long scrape. Then the other son got rear ended at a traffic light, car still driveable but the trunk wouldn't open, ins co paid $850.00. We pulled the back seat, crawled into the trunk and opened it, then pushed everything sorta back in alignment with a scissor jack and some 2x4's. Bent the trunk lid back with a rubber mallet, it closed fine and if you didn't look close you couldn't tell it had been hit. Drove it another year, put front brakes on it, maybe $40, then sold it for $375.00. Profit over ~3 years, $1185.00. Not bad, huh?
Ranger50 wrote: Oh and I am not saying you HAVE to buy something on payments or having the cash to buy what you want to avoid insurance, but not everyone wants to drive a "crapcan" like you.
Who says I drive a crapcan? I don't. I own a few, but my dd, my wife's dd, and all my work vehicles are decent vehicles.
I just don't borrow money for cars. And I don't pay for compensation insurance for cars I can afford to replace.
My wife's car was only 9 months old and had less than 10K on it when we bought it. Still paid cash.
You really seem to be struggling with this...
Ranger50 wrote: I bet the courts have something different to say about that. While it may not be a law from the legislative or executive branches, I would bet there is a court case and its ruling stating it as so.
What is that supposed to mean? First off the executive branch doesn't write laws. But are you suggesting a court case ruling required something that was never a law?
I think you need a nap. You are not thinking too straight.
SVreX wrote:wbjones wrote:I'd have to disagree. Most states require liability, not comprehensive. Anyone who is complaining about their insurance company not making repairs to their own vehicle is probably referring to a comprehensive policy. That's voluntary. I know there are some exceptions, but most of the time it's voluntary.z31maniac wrote: Some of your guys attitude about insurance is laughable. "I'm pissed about a contract I voluntarily entered and didn't understand, so yeah its their fault." Wow.stop and reconsider for a moment ... auto ins ISN'T something any of us necessarily enter into voluntarily..... the state requires it .... in most states maybe all by now.... ( at one time in Tenn you could post a bond to get out of liability ins)
guess I didn't make myself clear.. I was really referring to the OP's situation ... that being that it was the other persons fault... the fact that he might or might not have coll/comp coverage doesn't seem to be the issue ... it's whether or not the other persons ins co is going to repair his car the way he wants it
me, personally, I'd accept used parts as described in some of the posts on here, but not aftermarket parts... assuming I could get used OEM parts
Yes, if a 3rd party insurer is paying for the repairs then you are more at the mercy of them. That's why it's nice to have full coverage and you can use it to fall back on to perhaps get something more to your liking.
Lienholder/lease vehicles do require a different standard of handling. Some leases will specify OEM parts only. The insurers generally have to abide by that if it's in writing. Not many do, however. If you have a lease on your car and turn it in with damage, you get charged. If you turn it in with substandard repairs, you get charged. If you have the insurer's direct repair shop fix it and it's substandard...hooray, they have to deal with it. I get those every now and again. (An aside...never, ever lease from Hahn Financial. They nitpick every car and charge you for every door ding and curb scape. Nobody leases from them twice).
The reason cars get salvage titles/totaled when we see something that's an easy fix is pure economics. We total cars at 75-80% of their normal value. On a '86 LeBaron convertible, needing a headlight and fender will do that. Right now we're junking Isuzu's pretty frequently because getting parts for them is a problem. We junked a lot of Daewoos before GM bought them. If we're footing the bill for a rental and we don't know when/if we can get a wiring harness for you Saturn Vue, we can decide it's not economically sensible to bother fixing it if we can document why.
Not a week goes by that I don't hear someone say "I can't afford to replace it for that". I'm immune to it now. If you don't carry collision on a car worth $6000 and you only have $500 in the bank, you're making bad decisions. I can't help that. If you're driving a 200,000 mile turd but aren't willing to replace it with another 200,000 mile turd because you're only getting $1200, I can't help that. If you owe $7000 at a buy here-pay here ripoff joint for a '96 Cherokee worth $3000 (yes, this has happened), sorry, I can't help you. The number of colossally bad financial decisions I see would blow your mind. Yet, I never penalize the folks who bought a super clean Crown Vic from the grandpa next door who quit driving for $500 and it's worth $5000. It's worth what it's worth.
I was trying to decide whether to continue carrying collision/comp on the Trooper a few years ago, a buddy asked a question that made sense: can you afford to replace it if it gets totaled? No? Then carry comp.
Hi, this is the OP's wife. (He will be mad at me for writing under his profile, but I'm not registering for just this one post - sorry babe.)
I have a feeling the $804 they are allotting for the repairs aren't going to cut it. We use a top-notch shop where they service Ferraris and other exotics. They do great work. They also charge commensurately for their great work. I just have this bad feeling that we are going to have to fight.
All I want is a matching door that works perfectly, looks perfect, has a perfect window regulator (which I recently had replaced), and uses my tinted window. I also want a rental for as long as it takes to fix properly. Our shop has a history of long repairs.
I'm assuming the shop and Geico will need to fight it out. I don't want to involve our ins (USAA) unless we absolutely have to.
Carry on!
That doesn't sound unreasonable, except for the $840.00 part. I agree that sounds way too low. But I'd say tell GEICO what you expect, let the lizard and the shop fight it out, don't get concerned about recycled parts.
Disclaimer: I work in the insurance industry and handle some third party liability claims.
You can be expected to be made whole. As said that does not mean you are owed a new door when a used is available. You can absolutely have the repairs done when and where you choose or alternately not at all.
They are not going to pay for two weeks of rental because your shop works slow. They do not owe repairs to be made at a shop that charges a higher hourly rate than the majority of shops in the area. You do not need to accept their initial estimate and can provide a couple alternate estimates. Just be aware they are not going to take $2500 estimate when their is $804 and they have two others in the $1500 range.
Good luck. If all else fails go through USAA but you can expect similar road blocks on the rental and shop rate/time frame issues.
You have to carry no fault insurance in FL. By law-not because you have a lien.
No Fault (at least in FL) does not at all mean that there is no at fault party. In fact it has nothing to do with property damage. You do not need to carry any type of collision or comprehensive on your car.
What it is is that every auto policy also carries personal injury protection (PIP) ($10,000 min) for the driver and occupants. This is meant to reduce lawsuits against the other driver and their company for "minor" bodily injury claims. It pays 80% of your lost wages and medical bills.
What it does in reality is increase lawsuits and insurance fraud. Its my understanding that FL is #1 in the country for insurance fraud. Basically you rear end someone. They get an attorney and treat for about 6 -12 months and run out that $10k in medical payments. Then a doctor gives them an impairment rating and they sue your insurance co for policy limits. It gets settled and the lawyer pays the doctor a reduced fee for the remaining 20%. This is why you see so many lawyer commercials down here.
nderwater wrote: I also want a rental for as long as it takes to fix properly. Our shop has a history of long repairs.
Check with a few other shops and find out how long it would take them to do the job. This is what I do when I have a "slow" shop. If it's reasonably close (a few days) then I don't worry. If they are going to take weeks (for an $850 or so job? No way...) then I tell the customer it's unrealistic and they will have to pay the extra days. That's fair. Just because a shop works on Ferraris doesn't give them carte blanche to burn up rental days while the car sits.
In Connecticut, by law, you can request new parts, and to pick your repair facility. That doesn't mean it all goes smoothly. Insurance companies are requiring the use of aftermarket parts on year old vehicles, if the owner doesn't watch out. You need to be involved with the repair.
You'll need to log in to post.
