Vehicle burned, what is my recourse

[SP-Electronics]

What is the name of your state? Arizona
Back in March of this year my 1988 Range Rover burned up in a local auto repair facility, and their insurance company is not being very cooperative with compensation. They took 2 months to contact me the first time, and at the time they made a very LOW settlement offer of $2246 minus a $500 deductible, for a total of $1746. This is well below what I had invested in the vehicle, so I of course declined their offer. I sent them a demand letter for $8800 (actual value of vehicle including upgrades, contents, spare engine which was at shop as well, etc. was betwen $12,000 and $16,000), and they did not respond within the time I had requested (15 days).

I later called them to see what the status was, and they got back to me with a new offer of only $3300 based on recalculating the value, and some of my receipts that I provided. They are willing to give me the $3300 and my vehicle back, but I still do not think this is fair compensation for my losses. I don't know any attorneys that handle this type of case in my area, and I hate to take it to that level if it's possible to avoid it, but what is my recourse at this point? Is the ball in my court, and do I hold all the cards as far as this situation goes, or am I at the mercy of the insurance company? They originally based their value on some outside company that provides vehicle valuations, but I found out this other company has had a class action suit against them, and that they continue to provide false data and undervalue most vehicles. The second offer was based on blue book value, and some advertisements I submitted showing that these vehicles are fairly difficult to find, and are usually in the $4000-7500 range in STOCK configuration, and would have to be shipped or picked up out of state which would add additional cost. Now, in my opinion kelley blue book values are a ROUGH valuation, and are not a true indicator of market value, because these vehicles regularly sell for MUCH higher than blue book due to several factors, and equipped like mine is/was, with the fairly low mileage, would be of even greater value. My spare engine alone cost over $2000, and was in the shop when it caught fire. I have lost my vehicle, all contents (several thousand dollars invested in the alarm, cb, stereo, etc.), the upgrades (suspension lift, oversized tires, push bar, brush guards, etc.), and the spare engine, and they don't seem to want to compensate me for any of this. They want to give me basically low blue book value, which is nowhere near actual REPLACEMENT value as the policy states.

The fire was caused by improper installation of a hot water heater which sparked a gas spill inside the shop, but the insurance company claims this is not the responsibility of the shop owner because he was just a "tenant" of the building, and the landlord is responsible for the code violation.

Where should I go from here? Should I just accept their lowball offer and be done with it, or should I continue to demand more money, or ? I really hate to hire an attorney for such a minimal amount of money, and end up paying them a large chunk of it (I'd probably end up with the same amount of money as the insurance company is offering....), and have a long drawn out battle still ahead of me. I am hoping that this can be settled a little faster, since it has already been 5 months, going on 6 since the vehicle burned, and I know how lawsuits can often run on (I'm in the middle of a personal injury suit now, and it's been in the process for over a year now).

Does anyone have any suggestions, tips, tricks, advice, etc. that may help me get what this vehicle is worth, so I can quit pulling my hair out?

Thank You for any assistance you can provide.

 

[seniorjudge]

Whose fault was it that the car burned?

 

[SP-Electronics]

Whose fault was it that the car burned?

The shop burned due to a fuel leak from another vehicle being worked on. The shop owner told me that another person was working on a van and broke a fitting on the fuel line, and gas spilled on the floor. This gas flowed over into a small closet area that contained the hot water heater, and the heater kicked on and ignited the gas, causing the fire. The van they were working on was totally burned, while my vehicle actually was mostly damaged by heat and smoke, and water from fire hoses, but they considered it a total loss (the interior is very melted, headliner dripped down on all the leather upholstery, etc.).

The shop owner leases space from another person, and that other person also operates his auto repair business in the same space, so they are "sharing" the space. According to the insurance agent the "landlord" is responsible for the fire due to the code violation (hot water heater mounted directly on the slab, instead of a minimum of 18 inches above the floor as per AZ code). He says that his client is not responsible for the "cause" of the fire, so there is nothing they can do as far as that goes. They also told me that I have to pay the $500 deductible on the policy because this insurance was purchased "for me" technically, making it "my" policy as far as insured parties go.

I considered filing suit against the shop owner, and his landlord (other shop owner), but the owner of the shop really is a decent guy, and afterall he had insurance to protect against this. It would just end up going to his insurance anyway, so it doesn't really seem worth the hassle to go through all that, IF it can be avoided. I just want fair compensation for my loss, and I figured $8800 was a fair request considering the $12,000-16,000 investment (and to build another similar to it). I calculated all of the add-ons, etc., and the cost of building it, and then figured on a 25% devaluation for the age, and the fact that the parts were added approximately 2 to 3 years ago.

Thanks for any info/advice.

 

[stephenk]

You are not responsible to pay any deductible since you are a third party claimant and not a named insured. If the adjuster insists you owe a deductible, ask for a copy of the policy provision that supports their position.

Was your vehicle insured? if yes, you should make a claim with your own carrier and then let your carrier go after the garage and landlord for reimbursement.

 

[justalayman]

[

QUOTE=SP-Electronics].(actual value of vehicle including upgrades, contents, spare engine which was at shop as well, etc. was betwen $12,000 and $16,000),

Prove it. You sem to be overvalueing your vehicle. When you talk of tires, you fail to take into consideration that you cannot simply add the cost of your tires on top of what a RR is worth. The difference in value between a standard tire and your tires is what you add. The same as any other addition to the vehicle.

I later called them to see what the status was, and they got back to me with a new offer of only $3300 based on recalculating the value, and some of my receipts that I provided.

How can you expect them to pay you for something you cannot prove the value of?

They are willing to give me the $3300 and my vehicle back, but I still do not think this is fair compensation for my losses.

am sure that what you think is fair and what is actually fair are two very different prices.

and some advertisements I submitted showing that these vehicles are fairly difficult to find, and are usually in the $4000-7500 range in STOCK configuration,

What they are priced at is meaningless. It is what they actually sell at.

and would have to be shipped or picked up out of state which would add additional cost.

That is not what they have to pay you for. They would only owe you for the value of the cvehicle.

Now, in my opinion kelley blue book values are a ROUGH valuation, and are not a true indicator of market value, because these vehicles regularly sell for MUCH higher than blue book due

our opinion. And you are an automative pricing proffessional? Your opinion is not worth a whole lot unless you are a certified appraiser. You are going to have to prove the vehicles sell for more than KBB states, not just yell about it.

[ My spare engine alone cost over $2000,

If you had an aditioanl engine in the shop as well, that should be additive. Why did you have an additional engine at the shop?

, all contents (several thousand dollars invested in the alarm, cb, stereo, etc.), the upgrades (suspension lift, oversized tires, push bar, brush guards, etc.), and the spare engine, and they don't seem to want to compensate me for any of this. They want to give me basically low blue book value, which is nowhere near actual REPLACEMENT value as the policy states.

Reciepts are going to be neccesssary. As well, you need to realize that unless all of the items were brand new, their value as a used item is far below what it would cost to replace them and that is what you get, actual value at the time, not replacement value. What policy states replacement value anyway??

The fire was caused by improper installation of a hot water heater which sparked a gas spill inside the shop, but the insurance company claims this is not the responsibility of the shop owner because he was just a "tenant" of the building, and the landlord is responsible for the code violation.

Probabley right. Unless the tenant had knowledge of the improper installation of th ewater heater or should have known, he is probably not going to be held responsible. Just in case, sue both of them.

First, you need to be reasonable. The reading here tends to make me believe that you have, at least, unrealistic expectations. Your valuation of the base vehicle is way off. You are adding prices without balancing them with the loss of the original item. You are expecting replacement value rather than market value. An entire vehicle is worth around $2k. How can you value an engine only at that same $2k?

I just want fair compensation for my loss, and I figured $8800 was a fair request considering the $12,000-16,000 investment (and to build another similar to it). I calculated all of the add-ons, etc., and the cost of building it, and then figured on a 25% devaluation for the age, and the fact that the parts were added approximately 2 to 3 years ago.

I would say 25% is a bit on the low side as well. It seems you want more than fair market value but actually not by a great margin. The fact they are giving you back the vehicle along in their offer makes me believe there is some value in the car as well. You seem to be passing this off as nothing. As you posted, it porblably would not be worth it to utilize an attorney to actually sue them but you may benefit by an initial retainer and have the attorney contact them on your behalf. Sometimes the threat of beiong serious will shake a couple bucks loose.

 

[SP-Electronics]

[Prove it. You sem to be overvalueing your vehicle. When you talk of tires, you fail to take into consideration that you cannot simply add the cost of your tires on top of what a RR is worth. The difference in value between a standard tire and your tires is what you add. The same as any other addition to the vehicle. -

I provided receipts showing the prices of the items in question. The alarm alone was $1600. The tires were valued accordingly, as were any other components, and your statement is actually not correct, because the factory parts that are removed are often more expensive than the aftermarket parts that replaced them. The value of the part is the value of the part, regardless of the part it replaced. Old worn out parts have very little value, but a new factory replacement part is much more costly than the aftermarket equivalent like my suspension and tires. Heck, if I can claim the factory parts value instead, then my claim would be even higher. lol

[How can you expect them to pay you for something you cannot prove the value of?

Who said I couldn't prove the value of any of it? I provided RECEIPTS showing what I paid for my parts, and the spare engine, etc..

[am sure that what you think is fair and what is actually fair are two very different prices.

What they are priced at is meaningless. It is what they actually sell at.

And I provided evidence showing what they actually sell at, and also what the listed price at dealerships and private parties were. Some were OBO, some were FIRM, and I know quite well what these vehicles sell for since I have bought and sold them several times over, and am also a member of a large club that is dedicated to these vehicles.

That is not what they have to pay you for. They would only owe you for the value of the cvehicle.

And the value of the vehicle is much higher than they are claiming. They initially used a company that has already been sued for providing fraudulent appraisals, and when I pointed out all the mistakes they made on their valuation report, and provided pricing information as well as receipts they changed their offer. Supposedly this company comes out and actually looks at the vehicles, and will list all add-on's, etc. and take them into consideration, but they did not provide a single bit of information about any of my additional equipment, nor did they list the correct factory components. They listed it as having cloth interior when I have full leather, which tells me they didn't actually come out and look at the vehicle.

our opinion. And you are an automative pricing proffessional? Your opinion is not worth a whole lot unless you are a certified appraiser. You are going to have to prove the vehicles sell for more than KBB states, not just yell about it.

I never yelled about it, and I provided proof of what they sell for.

If you had an aditioanl engine in the shop as well, that should be additive. Why did you have an additional engine at the shop?

The vehicle went to the shop to have a burnt valve replaced, and I told them they could just swap heads from my spare engine if they wanted to, but we ended up deciding on having the heads rebuilt on the original engine. The work was 99% completed at the time of the fire.

Reciepts are going to be neccesssary. As well, you need to realize that unless all of the items were brand new, their value as a used item is far below what it would cost to replace them and that is what you get, actual value at the time, not replacement value. What policy states replacement value anyway??

The shop owner and his insurance company told me they have "replacement" insurance. The receipts were provided, and the items were brand new when installed. The vehicle was taken to the shop shortly after these items were added as well. That is also why I did a 25% devaluation, which is pretty standard for "used" items of the age and type. I know because I am in the business of buying, selling, and installing these items.

Probabley right. Unless the tenant had knowledge of the improper installation of th ewater heater or should have known, he is probably not going to be held responsible. Just in case, sue both of them.

He definitely should have known, he had been in that shop for quite some time before this incident, and HE is the one that pointed out the cause to me. He was quite forthcoming with information after the fire.

First, you need to be reasonable. The reading here tends to make me believe that you have, at least, unrealistic expectations. Your valuation of the base vehicle is way off. You are adding prices without balancing them with the loss of the original item. You are expecting replacement value rather than market value. An entire vehicle is worth around $2k. How can you value an engine only at that same $2k?

How do YOU know what the entire vehicle is worth? How do you know the value of the engine? I KNOW the value of the engine because I was the one that purchased it, and I am the one that provided the receipt for $2100 for it. From reading here I am guessing you have NO IDEA what parts for Land Rover products sell for, or what the vehicles themselves tend to sell for. I have a lot of experience with them, and I have the receipts showing what the value of everything was, and I believe I fairly devalued the total. JUST the rear hatch on these vehicles, used, sell for anywhere from $600-800, a set of axles might get $1200+. These vehicles have aluminum bodies, and all aluminum engine blocks as well as other components. The engine is worth anywhere from $900-2800 used, as is the transmission and transfer case. Technically my actual amount requested was about 50% less than the value at the upper end of what I found through my research, and with my receipts. 25% devaluation was if I were fortunate enough to be able to buy a stock replacement at the lower end of the price range, closer to blue book value, as a starting point... There was $12,000 to $16,000 in "value" based on a replacement vehicle, and adding any of the additional components. These vehicles do not come stock with most of the items I had on mine, and only a couple of the parts I added were "replacements" to other parts. Most of what I added to the vehicle was done in the 6 months to a year prior to dropping it off at this shop (which had it for many many months when it was supposed to only take 2 weeks to be done), and I requested only $8800. Whether that is a little on the high side or not, it's a good and fair starting point for negotiation. The insurance offer went up after my demand for $8800, but still is not quite where I feel it should be if I want to be able to start over and build another equivalent vehicle. Even if we were to say $2000 for the vehicle value itself, and then you add in the receipt for my engine, and my alarm ($1600+), stereo, cb, brush bar, etc., then they are still coming nowhere close to a replacement value with their offer.

I would say 25% is a bit on the low side as well. It seems you want more than fair market value but actually not by a great margin. The fact they are giving you back the vehicle along in their offer makes me believe there is some value in the car as well. You seem to be passing this off as nothing. As you posted, it porblably would not be worth it to utilize an attorney to actually sue them but you may benefit by an initial retainer and have the attorney contact them on your behalf. Sometimes the threat of beiong serious will shake a couple bucks loose.

They did not plan to let me have the vehicle back, nor did they offer it, they requested the title be signed over, etc., and after discussing their latest offer I specifically said "I could POSSIBLY see this offer making a little more sense if you were also allowing me to keep the vehicle, but you want me to sign it over to you". The agent then said "if you want it, you are welcome to keep it, it has no value to us, and it will actually cost us to tow it". This is a similar song and dance I have heard from other insurance companies in the past though, in hopes that you'll think they're trying to accomodate you and they're being fair. Just the fact that they jumped from $1700 to $3300 with some of my receipts and my paperwork showing what stock ones are selling for, especially after initially INSISTING that the $1700 was all it was worth and that there is no way they'd pay more no matter what, and that they don't cover contents, tells me they were trying to lowball me in hopes I'd just get out of the way. I'm upset that they took 2 months to initially contact me after the fire, and then failed to respond at all to me after that, and I had to call their client and them before I got any further response. AZ law says that insurance co's must settle claims in a fair and TIMELY fashion, and so far nothing about this has been timely. lol

You are right in that maybe getting a lawyer to at least make some contact would assist in pushing them in the right direction. I am going to speak to my attorney next week and see if she is able to assist with this as an aside to what we are already working on, but I was hoping to get someone that specifically works on these types of cases, without throwing out too much extra dough.

I apologize for the lengthy posts everyone. I'm just extremely frustrated with the whole mess.

 

[SP-Electronics]

You are not responsible to pay any deductible since you are a third party claimant and not a named insured. If the adjuster insists you owe a deductible, ask for a copy of the policy provision that supports their position.

Was your vehicle insured? if yes, you should make a claim with your own carrier and then let your carrier go after the garage and landlord for reimbursement.

That was actually one of the insurance agents arguments with me. He said I should have had insurance so I could have them pay me for the vehicle. I told him I DID have insurance, when the vehicle first went into the shop for the "2 week" repair job, but when that 2 weeks turned into MONTHS I had to buy a replacement vehicle to drive, and had to switch the insurance over to the new vehicle. I couldn't afford to keep insurance on a vehicle that was not being driven, nor did I think it was a necessary thing to do since it was sitting inside this shop for so long, not going anywhere.

I didn't think I was responsible for the deductible either, but he insists that I am. He claims that in this case "I" am the actual insured party, that the shops insurance was "purchased on my behalf, to protect me in case of loss or damage, and therefore I am technically the insured" because of this. I may call him on Monday and request a copy of the policy that states this. Just the fact that I didn't SIGN anything when I left my vehicle at this shop, nor was anything about loss/damage discussed, nor were there any signs that I saw stating that any loss or damage was my responsibility, should negate me from being the "insured" in this case anyway. I didn't opt for this insurance, it was the shops business liability insurance, not MY policy, so I shouldn't be responsible for the deductible. I was hoping to find a lawyer that works specifically in this type of area that could provide more information on that stuff, so I would know how to proceed when I call the insurance company back next week.

Thanks for the info and suggestion!

 

[justalayman]

First, I am not totally against your claims,just that I feel your claims are a bit high.

Now with the getting the car back, you are the one who posted:

They are willing to give me the $3300 and my vehicle back,

Here you go if you want to replace yours.

http://www.automotive.com/1990/65/land-rover/range-rover/county/new-jersey/neptune/199595144/113/index.html?index=0

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1989-Range-Rover-Classic-by-Land-Rover-High-Low-AWD_W0QQitemZ320020585538QQihZ011QQcategoryZ6295QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The tires were valued accordingly, as were any other components, and your statement is actually not correct, because the factory parts that are removed are often more expensive than the aftermarket parts that replaced them.

If you replace a stock item with a lesser value item, you lower the value of a vehicle, not increase it. The other thing you are having a problem with is that maintaining a vehicle does not mean that the direct cost is added to the vehicle. To value any vehicle, a level of maintainance is used to establish it's value. Adding new tires does not increase the value but merely maintains it within a standard of maintainance. Having extremely worn out parts would devalue the vehicle. You do not get to claim original costs plus simply add in the maintainance you have provided, especially when you used parts of lesser value than the original.

The receipts were provided, and the items were brand new when installed.

As well, you stated you added many of these items 2 or 3 years ago. Now they are very used parts. 25% reduction,,,,good luck with that. Many many aftermarket automotive parts become nearly worthless as used items, 25% is definately not enough depreciation for 2 or 3 year old parts. If you can prove otherwise, go for it. I have found in my experience in life that this is not the case generally.

And I provided evidence showing what they actually sell at, and also what the listed price at dealerships and private parties were. Some were OBO, some were FIRM, and I know quite well what these vehicles sell for since I have bought and sold them several times over, and am also a member of a large club that is dedicated to these vehicles

. Still, you claim that a listing price is a selling price. I don;lt care how "firm" somebody claims to be, that does not provide proof af the selling price. If you want to provide proof that ALL of the auto pricing guides are wrong, you are going to have to provide actual proof of sales that are higher than what the guides claim as value, not just an advertisement of a listed price.


Concerning the "replacement value" insurance. Totaly irrelevant.. Whomever is liable only is going to be required to pay you for your vehicle is only required legally to pay you for fair market value. It makes no diff what kind of insurance he has.

To your mechanics knowledge of the water heater situation:

He definitely should have known, he had been in that shop for quite some time before this incident, and HE is the one that pointed out the cause to me. He was quite forthcoming with information after the fire.

His knowledge as you present it is after the fact knowledge. After the cause of the fire is determined, of course he can show you what the cause was. You are going to have to prove the he not only knew before the fire of the situaion but the he was aware that is was not to building code requirements and caused an unsafe situation. Not claiming he didn;t know, just you have to prove it. "Should have known" does not equate to "did know". He is a mechanic, not a plumber or builder. He would not be required to know the pertinent building codes.

As far as the "yelling", that was more in the rhetorical sense that literal. Not meant as an insult or chastisement.

I am not intending to totally knock you out with your claims, just that you are going to provide actual proof of the value of your vehicle. It may require an automotive appraiser to do so. So far, most, if not all of your value claims have been anecdotal, not actual.

One of the largest problems you have is that your entire claim is low enough to make it possibly not worth engaging an attorney for, which you have already acknowledged. Without that assistance, you are against an insurance company that has little to lose by stalling and arguing with you. Your claim is more than likely too large for a small claims case, at least to claim the entire amount. Do understand though that this could be brought in a small claims case but your award would be limited by the limits imposed upon the court. If they can award no more than $5k, then that is all they could award you, no matter what your actual damages are. Because of the dollars involved, that may be your best recourse.

Just be sure to bring proof, not advertisements. The courts are going to rely on things like KBB and others for their valuation as well. You have to prove otherwise.

as defendants, I would bring in both your mechanic and the shop owner as well. The judge can release either they feel does not actually have any liability.

and one more quicky: the deductable, it's on the liable parties responsibility plate, definately not your cost or concern. You are not the insured, the shop owner or your mechanic is. It is his liability insurance you are dealing with. The deductable is for the policy holder to pay, not the injured.

 

[SP-Electronics]

First, I am not totally against your claims,just that I feel your claims are a bit high.

]

I understand you may feel that way, but again, you don't know the ACTUAL value of these vehicles in the marketplace. I do, I have bought and sold enough to be very familiar with them. I have also worked in the automotive industry for many years.

As well, you stated you added many of these items 2 or 3 years ago. Now they are very used parts. 25% reduction,,,,good luck with that. Many many aftermarket automotive parts become nearly worthless as used items, 25% is definately not enough depreciation for 2 or 3 year old parts. If you can prove otherwise, go for it. I have found in my experience in life that this is not the case generally.

Again, you don't know the value of these parts, you may assume that they become nearly worthless as used items, but the reality is, they do not lose much value at all, and in some cases they actually INCREASE in value for these vehicles. We have parted out a few of these over the years, and the PARTS can be in high demand (remember, this is a british vehicle that had limited import, and there are just not that many available through salvage yards). As stated previously, the engine alone can bring in more than what the insurance company offered initially.

. Still, you claim that a listing price is a selling price. I don;lt care how "firm" somebody claims to be, that does not provide proof af the selling price. If you want to provide proof that ALL of the auto pricing guides are wrong, you are going to have to provide actual proof of sales that are higher than what the guides claim as value, not just an advertisement of a listed price.

No, I did not claim that a listing price is a final selling price, I used the listed prices as an indicator of the broad range of prices for STOCK vehicles, and I already stated that I provided proof and receipts showing what they sell for. I have provided finished auction listings, and sales receipts showing a range of prices, some in the $8500 range. Either way, a list price, especially through a dealer, is quite often a GREAT INDICATOR of what the vehicle is going to actually sell for. I have been in the business, and I still know people that own car dealerships (family still works in that field), and not many dealers are willing to lower their prices significantly from the listed price. If we list a car for $5000, you can rest assured we are NOT going to drop to $3000 or less.

Concerning the "replacement value" insurance. Totaly irrelevant.. Whomever is liable only is going to be required to pay you for your vehicle is only required legally to pay you for fair market value. It makes no diff what kind of insurance he has.

Replacement value means "comparably equipped", and I have proven fair market value. It is NOT based on kelley blue book or any cookie cutter valuation report that the insurance was trying to use. I'm also guessing you don't know what kind of value there can be in a stereo system, alarm system, etc.. I have several vehicles with over $10,000 invested in stereo equipment and alarm alone (not this one though). The alarm was $1600+ though. It all adds up fast.

I am not intending to totally knock you out with your claims, just that you are going to provide actual proof of the value of your vehicle. It may require an automotive appraiser to do so. So far, most, if not all of your value claims have been anecdotal, not actual.

No, almost all of my value claims have supporting documents that I have sent in to the insurance company, and are NOT anecdotal. They are ACTUAL and FACTUAL. I provided the receipts for $2100 for the spare engine, receipts for the $1600+ alarm system, $160+ for cb radio, etc., etc. etc..

One of the largest problems you have is that your entire claim is low enough to make it possibly not worth engaging an attorney for, which you have already acknowledged. Without that assistance, you are against an insurance company that has little to lose by stalling and arguing with you. Your claim is more than likely too large for a small claims case, at least to claim the entire amount. Do understand though that this could be brought in a small claims case but your award would be limited by the limits imposed upon the court. If they can award no more than $5k, then that is all they could award you, no matter what your actual damages are. Because of the dollars involved, that may be your best recourse.

Exactly. That's the problem. It's a catch-22 basically. lol
However, the insurance company does have an obligation to settle the claim in a fair and timely fashion, according to AZ State Law. I have actually already downloaded the complaint forms from the AZ Department of Insurance, so I can request assistance if these people keep dragging their feet.

and one more quicky: the deductable, it's on the liable parties responsibility plate, definately not your cost or concern. You are not the insured, the shop owner or your mechanic is. It is his liability insurance you are dealing with. The deductable is for the policy holder to pay, not the injured.

Do you have any information to support this? I have been trying to find something to support that myself, because I also didn't think that I was responsible for the deductible. So far I've only heard that from a few random people that may or may not have any evidence to support it, so I can't really be 100% sure. I guess my hunt continues.

Thanks for the information.

 

[SP-Electronics]

During some more digging today I found out that REPLACEMENT coverage means "pays the cost of damaged property and goods WITHOUT deduction for depreciation". Actual value insurance is different, and is "replacement of proper and goods after deducting for depreciation". SO, if this shop did have REPLACEMENT coverage as stated, they should be responsible for paying me for my losses COMPLETELY, and not with any depreciation or "estimated" value calculations.

I guess I need to contact the insurance agent and ask for a copy of the policy so I can see that it is actually replacement value coverage, or something else, and also to show whether I am responsible for the deductible or not.

This at least looks a bit more promising, but still not quite good enough yet. lol

 

[justalayman]

During some more digging today I found out that REPLACEMENT coverage means "pays the cost of damaged property and goods WITHOUT deduction for depreciation". Actual value insurance is different, and is "replacement of proper and goods after deducting for depreciation". SO, if this shop did have REPLACEMENT coverage as stated, they should be responsible for paying me for my losses COMPLETELY, and not with any depreciation or "estimated" value calculations.

It makes no difference if the insurance claims it will pay for the moon. What is important is what they are legally required to pay you and that is only fair market value. If they pay more than that, enjoy and feel good, you are among the few.

They are only legally responsible and required to pay you for fair market value only.

 

[SP-Electronics]

It makes no difference if the insurance claims it will pay for the moon. What is important is what they are legally required to pay you and that is only fair market value. If they pay more than that, enjoy and feel good, you are among the few.

They are only legally responsible and required to pay you for fair market value only.

Well, they would be legally responsible to abide by the insurance policy/contract, which is REPLACEMENT. According to all the insurance information I have read regarding REPLACEMENT VALUE insurance, it is pretty clear that they are REQUIRED (that would be by LAW, CONTRACTUALLY) to pay replacement value of all property lost, without DEVALUATION. So, my vehicle was $7000+ ($2550-$3315 if we only went by blue book and a STOCK vehicle in TODAYS market, when I bought it kbb would have been much higher, at around what I paid), spare engine was $2100, my alarm was $1600+, etc., etc., all adding up to well over their offer (they devalued everything when they made the offer), should have to be paid. REPLACEMENT of those other goods/items would be HIGHER than what I paid for them originally, other than the vehicle itself, and higher than the receipts provided, because they are difficult to find items, and the equivalent replacement item is more expensive in todays market.

Do you have ANY actual insurance, or legal training/background, or any experience at all with this type of situation? I guess when I originally posted my question/s I should have asked for responses from those actually experienced with insurance law in Arizona.

 

[justalayman]

Well if you would like to post anything that shows that the garage owners or the mechanics insurance has any responsiblity to YOU, give a link.

You see, the insurance company is contracted to the policy holder to pay for their liability (if liability insuranse) or to replace the policy holders items if it is theft, fire, etc. in those circumstances it would apply.

The insurance company has nothing to do with you.

Good luck with your RR. Let us know when you get that $10k to $15K payday.

 

[SP-Electronics]

Well if you would like to post anything that shows that the garage owners or the mechanics insurance has any responsiblity to YOU, give a link.

You see, the insurance company is contracted to the policy holder to pay for their liability (if liability insuranse) or to replace the policy holders items if it is theft, fire, etc. in those circumstances it would apply.

The insurance company has nothing to do with you.

Good luck with your RR. Let us know when you get that $10k to $15K payday.

You're a real smartass, and obviously have nothing helpful to share, so why are you even here? I never said I expected 10-15k. I said the estimated value of all items lost was between 12 and 16k, but that I asked for $8800, which is a FAIR and reasonable amount, with no return of the vehicle in my request. BIG DIFFERENCE!

It is quite obvious that the the shop owner and his insurance company has a responsibility to me, because it was afterall HIS shop that burned down, and HE had business liability insurance specifically for THIS TYPE OF SITUATION! DUH! His shop burned down, taking 3 vehicles with it, and the insurance policy was there to protect the shop owner in case this ever happened, and therefore he is responsible and has an obligation to me as the owner of a vehicle that was burned, and/or his insurance company has an obligation to him to protect him from a lawsuit. That's why we all have insurance isn't it? Simple as that.

I found out that his insurance policy was "ACTUAL" value though today, not REPLACEMENT as he stated, so that allows devaluation unfortunately. I have however gotten them to raise their offer to a much higher amount AND the vehicle, but they still expect the deductible, which I questioned again today. I also asked if they could provide a copy of the policy or anything in the policy that states I am responsible for that, and he said he could NOT provide ANYTHING without a subpoena, not even to his client. He also said I am NOT technically responsible for the deductible, but they will NOT pay it, and that if "I" want to request that the shop owner pay it for me I am welcome to do that. I feel it is the insurance companies responsibility to do that, not mine, but we'll see where things go from here. Everytime I find more info and contact the insurance company with it, I seem to get results, so at least that is something!

 

[SP-Electronics]

If anyone has anything helpful to add, instead of just opinion or smartaleck comments, please feel free to contact me. I'm closing the thread so we don't have to be subjected to anymore of justalayman's comments.

He's probably an insurance agent and he's upset that someone wants to get paid for their losses instead of just losing their shirt by taking their ridiculously low offers. If nobody challenged insurance companies, the lies would continue, and nobody would ever get what their property is worth!