Do I really have to pay this?

[aj_frustrated]

What is the name of your state?
Maryland

Back on 12/18/2007 this older guy came across the yellow line and struck my vehicle. It has been in the shop ever since. When the repair shop called me and gave me a preliinary estimate, they told me that insurance would not cover the full cost to replace my shredded tire. They said it fell under their betterment clause (or something like that) and that since it could increase the value of my vehicle, they wouldn't cover it fully. I drive an SUV and the tires are approximately 150.00 each. They want to charge me 44.66 for the new tire.

Can they really do this? What recouse do I have other than contacting the other driver directly and asking him to pay it?

 

[fcobarr]

Was the tire brand new prior to the accident? If not, insurance is supposed to bring the car to it's pre-accident condition, if they give you a new tire (an your's wan't new)...they have improved the car (betterment).

Explain your logic as to why you are entitled to the full value of the new tire.

You can certainly tell the body shop to get you a used tire so you don't have any out of pocket expenses.

As for asking the other driver... if he's smart he'll just refer to you his insurance (that's why he has it).

 

[aj_frustrated]

It never even occurred to me to ask the body shop to get a used tire for the truck and if they do this, how do I know the condition of this used tire is as good as the one I already had on my truck.

My logic is that while the tires are not new now, they were new when I first got them on the vehicle. I know what wear and tear has been done to the tires on my truck and if it weren't for this other driver's irresponsibility then I wouldn't need a tire at all new or used so they should cover the cost.

 

[fcobarr]

the shredded tire was new at some point...so was your car, but the insurance isn't responsible for the new value. They are responsible for the value at the time of the accident. The adjuster made a determination that based on the tread left vs. the tread on a new one and assigned a betterment value. It makes complete sense that there is a betterment value associated to it.

Let's say your tire was 1 year old...your new tire will last a year longer now. I don't really understand why you wouldn't just pay betterment value and be done with it.

I personally wouldn't recommend a used tire, and the body shop may not get involved either. You would have to check with them to see if it's even an option.

I don't know what else to tell you. Good luck.

 

[aj_frustrated]

Well thanks for the different point of view. I may not agree with it but at least your explanation clears it up for me.

 

[Happy Trails]

I know this article isn't about Maryland, but I did find it interesting.

http://consumeraffairs.com/news04/texas_insurance.html

Personally, I think the insurance company is being petty over $44.66. However, they may have the legal authority to do so.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

tell them you arent 100% sure you werent hurt during the accident and have an appointment with your doctor and chiropractor and then see if they are willing to pay for the tire

i kid. (kinda)

 

[You Are Guilty]

It appears the insurance company is under the impression that your tire was 70% worn (i.e. they're paying for the 30% tread life that's left). How many miles were on the tire (if they are OEM tires, how many miles on the truck?) And what's the model of the tire (what's it's "rated" lifespan)?

That is, if you have a 60,000 mile-rated tire with 40,000 miles on it, the insurance company is probably not going to listen to your arguments. On the other hand, if the 60k tire has 10k miles on it, then you're entitled to more than 30% of its value.

 

[aj_frustrated]

Thanks for the feedback. The consumer affairs article was an interesting read. I may have to check with the Maryland Attorney General to see if there is a pending lawsuit here in MD.

I don't know what an OEM tire is but I only have 17,500 miles on my vehicle total so this would be the miles on the tire. I had just had routine maintainance done shortly before and they said the tires were still good but I don't know exactly how much tread was left.

While I understand the argument that replaing a used tire with a new one is increasing the value, I agree that they are just being petty and should still cover it because it was their policy holders fault.

My point of view is that since this wasn't my fault, I should not have to come out of my pocket for anything.

 

[tammy8]

tell them you arent 100% sure you werent hurt during the accident and have an appointment with your doctor and chiropractor and then see if they are willing to pay for the tire

i kid. (kinda)

It is crap like this that makes our insurance rates so high. Why do you even post such a thing?

 

[fcobarr]

OP - please clarify, but as I read your post they are asking you for $44...therefore they are saying the tire is 30% worn and they are covering 70%.

 

[You Are Guilty]

OP - please clarify, but as I read your post they are asking you for $44...therefore they are saying the tire is 30% worn and they are covering 70%.

Yikes! You are correct. I misread the first post to indicate they were paying $45, not collecting.

Although my math skills leave something to be desired, that equates to a tire with a ~23000 mile tread life. Seems kind of low - that's what "performance tires" typically get, not truck tires. A more accurate way to check is to measure the tread depth of any of the remaining tires and see how much they've worn down. New tires have treads from 10/32" to 11/32" deep.

However, since all this stems from paying $45 for a new tire, it seems the trouble involved arguing more than outweighs the benefit of having a nice, new tire?

 

[ecmst12]

You are not going to win the betterment argument. You are not entitled to have your vehicle made in better condition then it was before the accident at the expense of the other driver or his insurance company. Theoretically, you should replace the tire opposite that one too, since it's not usually a good idea to have a new tire on the left and a partially worn tire on the right...and THAT would be out of your pocket as well. Your logic of "the tire was new at one point" is completely flawed and will not work.

And incase you are tempted to try Veronica's dumb*** idea, the PD adjuster doesn't care whether you were injured or not, and it will not affect how he pays the claim.