Other guys insurance co is making me deal with my own salvage and deducting the salvage value

[Irefuse2bTakenAdvantageOf]

Ok, I got rear ended. The totaled my car. I do not have collision ins bc the car is only worth 3k.

Other guys insurance co is making me deal with my own salvage and deducting what they say is the salvage value.

This is what they want. They totaled the car. They appraised the car, we said ok to the value to speed things up BUT they want us to accept the value of the car MINUS what they appraise the salvage value to be. From there I can do whatever I want with the car according to them. I don't want the car. I don't want to deal with the salvage. If they are going to proclaim that their driver totaled the car and it is not worth repairing, then pay me for it and take it away.

No I do not misunderstand what they are asking. This is what they are demanding. This has been going on since August and we still have a wrecked car in our yard. They say they do NOT take possession of 3rd party vehicles. I told them they don't make the rules

I spoke with the dept of ins and they say it's not legal

Is this legal? How can they force me to do this?

If it turns out it is truly illegal for them not to pay the ENTIRE value of the car do I have a bad faith claim?

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state?

 

[Irefuse2bTakenAdvantageOf]

What is the name of your state?

Arizona

 

[Taxing Matters]

Ok, I got rear ended. The totaled my car. I do not have collision ins bc the car is only worth 3k.

First, the other driver's insurer has no direct responsibility to you. It's contract is with its insured (the other driver) and that is the person to whom it is obligated. In general, that liability is to pay out what its insured must pay as a result of his/her negligence, up to the limits specified in the policy. In short, if you sued the other driver and got a judgment against him/her as a result of his/her negligence the insurer's obligation to the insured is to pay you that judgment so that the insured doesn't have to pay it out of his/her pocket.

Second, if you sue the other driver what you are entitled to get is the lesser of (1) cost to repair the car back to the condition it was just before the accident or (2) the value of the car just before the accident. So if the value of the car right before the accident was $3,000 then $3,000 is what you ought to end up with in the end. This means that if you are holding the wrecked car and that wreck is worth $250, what you'd be entitled to get from other driver is $2,750 since that amount plus the $250 you'd get selling the wreck totals $3,000, the value of the car just before the wreck. The insure is not obligated to take the wreck off your hands for you, though if it does then it would owe you the full $3,000 because now you don't have the wreck to sell any more. Either way, you end up with $3,000 in your pocket at the end.

If you don't think the insurer is offering you enough, your remedy is to sue the other driver, not the insurance company, and hope that you get a judgment for more than what the insurer has offered you.

 

[adjusterjack]

Refusenik, please go back to the other site so I don't have to repeat myself.

 

[Zigner]

I'll repeat myself: The problem is that the OP had the vehicle towed to his/her house. The OP is in possession of it now, vs it being at a salvage yard.

 

[Redemptionman1]

Insurance companies are legal ponzi schemes, most all of them invest the money they take in and minimize claims at every accident.

Lots of companies these days self insure through a bond at the state that they operate in. Is this only property that you are dealing with? No injury? If it is then you will probably have a hard time finding an attorney to take this. I would settle the claim with them and then call up a donation/ salvage yard and see if they want the vehicle for parts.

Good Luck with it.

 

[zddoodah]

most all of them . . . minimize claims at every accident.

Anti-insurance drivel is as annoying as anti-lawyer drivel.

That said, I'm not going to repeat what I wrote on the other site.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Insurance companies are legal ponzi schemes,

A very inaccurate statement of insurance. A Ponzi scheme and insurance are very different.

most all of them invest the money they take in and minimize claims at every accident.

Of course they do. That is what they are supposed to do. Why in the world would they pay out more than they are contractually obligated to pay?

 

[Redemptionman1]

A very inaccurate statement of insurance. A Ponzi scheme and insurance are very different.



Of course they do. That is what they are supposed to do. Why in the world would they pay out more than they are contractually obligated to pay?

Well by definition they could pay out what they are contractually obligated to, or by not paying in a timely manner to have injured party to beg them for some sort of money to cover their expenses. That is the "Bad Faith" portion of what the OP referenced but that deals mainly with bodily injury and not property.

As it is unrelated the liability company salvaged his vehicle which means they are paying. The only way it would work differently would be had they not totaled the vehicle and he was allowed diminished value or economic loss of use. I would end up donating the vehicle to a charity or salvage yard. Lots of places out there would want it for the parts alone.

As far as Anti- insurance, I guess you would call me anti corruption/ lobbyist payoffs to politicians to get favorable legislation passed which benefits large companies and screws over accident victims of any sort. Its public information but you can see how much money insurance companies give to political campaigns and politicians. It is in multiple millions of dollars and just a normal part of their business.

 

[Zigner]

Well by definition they could pay out what they are contractually obligated to, or by not paying in a timely manner to have injured party to beg them for some sort of money to cover their expenses. That is the "Bad Faith" portion of what the OP referenced but that deals mainly with bodily injury and not property.

That is not "bad faith" insofar as insurance matters are concerned.

As it is unrelated the liability company salvaged his vehicle which means they are paying. The only way it would work differently would be had they not totaled the vehicle and he was allowed diminished value or economic loss of use. I would end up donating the vehicle to a charity or salvage yard. Lots of places out there would want it for the parts alone.

They are paying for the value of the vehicle, less the salvage value of the vehicle. The OP can now sell, donate, or take any other action with his vehicle that he feels is appropriate.

As far as Anti- insurance, I guess you would call me anti corruption/ lobbyist payoffs to politicians to get favorable legislation passed which benefits large companies and screws over accident victims of any sort. Its public information but you can see how much money insurance companies give to political campaigns and politicians. It is in multiple millions of dollars and just a normal part of their business.

Every insurance company interaction I've personally had is the opposite of what you've said here.

 

[Redemptionman1]

Every insurance company interaction I've personally had is the opposite of what you've said here.

Good for you then you have a great insurance company.

 

[Zigner]

Good for you then you have a great insurance company.

Yes, I do, but this also includes dealing with others' insurance. While your experience(s) may be bad, not everyone's is.

 

[JerryDonalds]

Everything is quite legal . As we wrote above , the best option will be the option with a court and subsequent compensation.

 

[Redemptionman1]

Yes, I do, but this also includes dealing with others' insurance. While your experience(s) may be bad, not everyone's is.

Okay, this would most definitely change if you are facing a min insured state liability limits of 10-15k and have 50-60k in medical expenses along with 25-30 grand in property damage with multiple vehicles. I believe insurance companies that can get away with damages of a lot less than the state mins do so via shady body shop agreements and sliding things under those limits. The person who is negligent is made whole quicker than the victim who may never be made whole no manner the amount of state limits paid or UIM received.

Bet your thoughts on insurance companies would be different then.