Mazdax605 said:How'd they miss that hydrant?
By millimeters is my guess. Seriously.
Mazdax605 said:How'd they miss that hydrant?
By millimeters is my guess. Seriously.
The drunks insurance company just told my wife that they won’t release the insurance check until we show them a Bill Of Sale.
That’s BS because as long as we have a title, we don’t need a BOS. And yes, we have a title.
they also said they’d pay for two bags of topsoil from Home Depot at $6.00 each (they conveniently send me a link to Home Depot) and another few dollars for labor for a grand total of $36.00
In reply to Klayfish :
Insurance is telling us they NEED the RMV1 with the price I paid for the truck and the mileage. They want what I paid to low-ball me is my guess. I REALLY need to know what the law says.
They already sent someone to total it, they should’ve gotten the mileage then.
Buying price is not relevant to the value.
iceracer said:Buying price is not relevant to the value.
Klayfish agreed and so do I. My problem is that I need to know if in Ma, does the insurance company have the right to DEMAND to know. They told my wife (who’s a freakin’ pit bull when it comes to his stuff) that they’re emailing us a form showing that they can demand to know what we paid...
Sounds suspicious to me.
Think I found your answer and you are probably not going to like it.
From here:
https://www.mass.gov/service-details/frequently-asked-questions-on-auto-insurance
Bolding added by me
Q: My auto was declared a total loss following an accident. Is my company required to give me the replacement cost?
A: When your auto is declared a total loss, your insurance company will pay you only the actual cash value of the auto as of the date of the loss, not the cost to replace it. Your auto's value is determined by the following factors: the retail value for an auto of like kind and quality prior to the accident; the price paid for the auto plus the value of prior improvements to the auto at the time of the accident; the decrease in value of the auto resulting from prior unrelated damage which is detected by the appraiser or for which a claim has been paid; and the actual purchase cost of an available auto of like kind and quality.
If your auto has substantial value because of its exceptional condition such as an antique, classic, or restored auto, you should have it appraised and then insure it for the appraised value.
My take on this is that they have a right to know. Especially with you only having the vehicle for an hour. I think they are going to say to bad on the good deal you got and pay you what you actually paid for the car. Technical I bet they are with in the law. Technically if they do this you are made whole prior to your purchase of the vehicle. I would be looking for some help siting condition and comps in the area but as I read it they have a leg to stand on if they offer you purchase price plus tax title and registration. In this case especially due to the extremely short ownership time.
I also am almost positive that the RMV keeps a copy of the bill of sale and the old title so those records should be obtainable by the insurance company if you don't provide it. This will obviously slow down the process.
You really need someone that knows this stuff for sure to advise you on this.
I actually sent my Agent an email asking about this as I needed to send her something anyway. I will see if she has any comment on this.
This is the e-mail that they just sent:
“As advised from my conversation with Mrs. Richardson, I need the Bill of Sale /Purchase Agreement for the purchase of your vehicle. Per the MA State Standards, we need this in order to move forward with your total loss claim.
133.05: Determination of Values
(1) Actual Cash Value: Whenever the appraised cost of repair plus the probable salvage value may be reasonably expected to exceed the actual cash value of the vehicle, the insurer shall determine the vehicle's actual cash value. This determination shall be based on a consideration of all the following factors:
(a) the retail book value for a motor vehicle of like kind and quality, but for the damage incurred;
(b) the price paid for the vehicle plus the value of prior improvements to the motor vehicle at the time of the accident, less appropriate depreciation;
(c) the decrease in value of the motor vehicle resulting from prior unrelated damage which is detected by the appraiser; and
(d) the actual cost of purchase of an available motor vehicle of like kind and quality but for the damage sustained”
Am into take this as “I have to prove what I paid for the truck according to Massachusetts State Law”?
In reply to ebonyandivory :
Thanks for the help Dean!
ebonyandivory said:Am into take this as “I have to prove what I paid for the truck according to Massachusetts State Law”?
My read is yes in this case.
What have they offered you?
In reply to dean1484 :
They won’t even offer anything without knowing what I paid. I don’t want to violate the law but I also don’t want to show my cards if it’s NOT required by law.
And that form has A, B C and D. That means they have to use all 4 methods then. I mean they can’t just use B and ignore A, C and D right?
B is the only one that can negatively affect me, the other 3 could only benefit me.
What does your own agent have to say about all this crapola?
I think you need to step back. I know you are frustrated and this whole thing has been a HUGE pain in the A$$ but that is not there problem. Non of that is the insurances companys problem and has no bearing on there payout. The law is more than likely written this way to prevent people from abusing the system some how. In fact I am betting that the extremely short ownership time with your case raised some flags for them. As it should!!! I am not saying you should accept there first offer. You can argue replacement cost condition etc just don't expect them to roll over. Expect a fight. By the way I read the law I can see a very good argument that paying you the price you paid for your truck is making you whole.
Personally I would like to see you get more just because of the circumstances but insurance payouts are not based on circumstance or emotion. People forget this.
Be thankfull that they are not saying you have to file with the rental car people for part of the damage as some of the damage to your truck was caused by the rental car hitting it.
I will circle back and say this is why having a competent insurance agent (not an agent that is basically a insurance sales person). I would have filed this through my insurance and let them deal with it. To me it seems they passed the buck and made you do all the work and yet they are still collecting their percentage of your premium. This is just my take from a VERY limited narrow snapshot of this situation. Hopefully I am wrong.
ebonyandivory said:And that form has A, B C and D. That means they have to use all 4 methods then. I mean they can’t just use B and ignore A, C and D right?
B is the only one that can negatively affect me, the other 3 could only benefit me.
I am not qualified to answer this. Why are you not sitting at your agents office getting answers? They are supposed to be working for you. That is what I would do. If they don't know have them get some one on the phone that does know. I was having a chat with my agent yesterday and she actually has a fiduciary responsibility to me because I am paying her. She can be sewed if she gives bad or wrong advice and/or mis information to me. This came out of a conversation we were having. As business owners we were comparing our coverage and rates for E&O.
Unfortunately I’m not getting a lot of help from the agent. They’re trying, I’ve known them for many years. These circumstances are just too crazy for them.
Our local Fox affiliate, Fox25, came to the house and we were on at 6:30, 10:00 and the entire next morning. They did a live broadcast from my driveway! And I posted pictures from the local newspaper already.
Calling Plymouth Rock (my policy holder), we learned that if we felt we were getting screwed, we could go through MY insurance and they’d subrogate but this could take longer.
In reply to ebonyandivory :
Sounds like you need to ditch your agent with respect to this matter and as I believe klayfish advised speak with a person in claims at your insurance company.
Something that may or may not be relevant but if they have already determined that your car is a total loss they have to have a value in mind for the car. You could ask to see how they determined your car was a total. I don’t know if they have to share that with you but it would at least let you see what they are seeing. Also remember what they use as a value for a total is probably not any kind of binding number with respect to payout but who knows if they do share that info it may be something you can use to support your position that it is worth more. The problem is the way the law appears to be written it is against you in this situation. This is an extremely unusual situation and that is your problem.
The way I see it is that at the moment they have not offered anything. Get an offer of settlement and go from there. Who knows they may surprise you.
Oh and you have the eye of the media now. I am sure FOX 25 would want to add to there story and put your situation with the insurance company in the court of public opinion. I really do not think this is a wise idea.
Not sure what your very last sentence meant. The INSURANCE company wouldn’t want it to be made public or WE don’t want it to be made public?
FWIW, the two news outlets covering this have ZERO to do with the insurance company. They wanted to cover it because it’s at least the 7th time something similar has happened and that we don’t live on a corner or dangerous intersection.
Honestly, as you had owned the truck less than 24 hours. I would certainly hope they would at least pay you what you bought it for.
ebonyandivory said:This is the e-mail that they just sent:
“As advised from my conversation with Mrs. Richardson, I need the Bill of Sale /Purchase Agreement for the purchase of your vehicle. Per the MA State Standards, we need this in order to move forward with your total loss claim.
133.05: Determination of Values
(1) Actual Cash Value: Whenever the appraised cost of repair plus the probable salvage value may be reasonably expected to exceed the actual cash value of the vehicle, the insurer shall determine the vehicle's actual cash value. This determination shall be based on a consideration of all the following factors:
(a) the retail book value for a motor vehicle of like kind and quality, but for the damage incurred;
(b) the price paid for the vehicle plus the value of prior improvements to the motor vehicle at the time of the accident, less appropriate depreciation;
(c) the decrease in value of the motor vehicle resulting from prior unrelated damage which is detected by the appraiser; and
(d) the actual cost of purchase of an available motor vehicle of like kind and quality but for the damage sustained”
Am into take this as “I have to prove what I paid for the truck according to Massachusetts State Law”?
Sorry it took so long for me to respond. I'm in a training seminar this week, in Temecula, CA. Hey, it's a tough job to be where it's sunny and 81 degrees on January 31st, but someone's gotta do it.
Every state has a slightly different twist on how they accept determining actual cash value (ACV in insurance speak). In looking at Maine's, the way I read it is that they need to take A, B, C and D into consideration...the language specifically spells that out. My guess is they're trying to follow state guidelines. I'd suggest giving them the info. See what their offer comes back as. If it's low, ask for their supports, and if you have comparable vehicles you can find, show them. The guidelines also say "...shall be based on a consideration..." It doesn't specifically spell out HOW each of these factors should be considered, what weight each one should have, etc... So my argument to them would be based largely on what comparable vehicles are selling for. IMHO, the purchase price shouldn't really be as big of a factor in determining ACV as there are so many variables there...a vehicle gifted to someone, or conversely someone who dramatically overpaid at a "Buy here/pay here" place.
ebonyandivory said:Not sure what your very last sentence meant. The INSURANCE company wouldn’t want it to be made public or WE don’t want it to be made public?
What I was getting at is some people would take the opportunity to let the news people know that not only have you had many cars come and visit your property but now you feel like you are getting hassled by the insurance company. I don’t take you to be that kind of person but just in case the thought crossed your mind I am suggesting that option not be used.
I know people that would be calling the news people back to tell them that the big corporate insurance company is now screwing them. I bet FOX would be there ASAP as it makes for great tv. The little guy getting screwed by the big corporate insurance company makes for a great sympathy tv.
I know it sucks when it happens to you, and we feel for you. Remember the overall concept of insurance is to make you whole to just before the event. In this case, with the duration of ownership, they can make a strong claim that means what you paid. Or another way, why should the insurance company be your “flip customer” and pay you a 30% profit over what you have in it? Now, this doesn’t mean that you can’t pitch a fit to get more, but it may not be easy. Sometimes life isn’t fair, and unfortunately this may be one of those times.
SWMBO is an insurance agent and part of what drives her is to be the first line of support for clients. You need help navigating through the system and ending up whole, and whole in this case is more complicated than most. You are both more emotionally involved and passionate about cars than “the system” which is why you need your insurance posse to be your advocates.
Good luck, we know this whole thing sucks.
Based on the law quoted in this post, what you paid is a factor, it's not the factor, to establish actual cash value. Assume market value of the vehicle is $10,000. If you paid $3,000, they can't write you a check for $3,000 and call it done. If you paid $15,000, you probably cannot expect a check for $15,000 either.
I would not be surprised if they start at what you paid if it's close to market, because it's the most recent data point available in the market. But if there are other cars out there that clearly set the market higher than what you paid, you can show them those values and argue your case. For some insurers that processes is easy and you may be pleasantly surprised at the offer. For others it's harder and you have to fight for what you think's the right value.
dean1484 said:ebonyandivory said:Not sure what your very last sentence meant. The INSURANCE company wouldn’t want it to be made public or WE don’t want it to be made public?
What I was getting at is some people would take the opportunity to let the news people know that not only have you had many cars come and visit your property but now you feel like you are getting hassled by the insurance company. I don’t take you to be that kind of person but just in case the thought crossed your mind I am suggesting that option not be used.
I know people that would be calling the news people back to tell them that the big corporate insurance company is now screwing them. I bet FOX would be there ASAP as it makes for great tv. The little guy getting screwed by the big corporate insurance company makes for a great sympathy tv.
No offense, but this is exactly where some of the issues come in. From what I am reading, what is it that "the little guy getting screwed by the big corporate insurance company"? I can't see their file, so I can't say precisely what is going on, but what I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt is that they are NOT sitting at their desk saying "How can we screw this guy over?" In fact, it's quite the opposite. The faster they can pay what they owe and get it settled, the better. Trying to "screw" someone would take a ton of time, which they simply don't have. It sounds to me like they're following Maine protocol for valuing a total loss. I haven't worked with Maine in years, but reading that statute that's what my guess is. If they didn't ask for proof of what he paid, then they could get nailed for not following Maine guidelines. As I said before, the way I read it is that they have to gather that info, but it doesn't mean that's what they'll pay.
You'll need to log in to post.
