dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8061
share rss forum feed

raythompsontn

join:2001-01-11
Oliver Springs, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to billydunwood

Re: wife in accident

said by billydunwood:

Also regarding Progressive not paying diminshed value, it doesn't matter their policy. What matters is the law. If his state says he can collect it, he can.

It may be the law, but getting Progressive to pay it is an entirely different matter when OEM parts are used. Progressive can argue there was no diminished value as the car is back to original condition. The only way to prove otherwise is to sell the car. Then that becomes a problem of who determines what the car was worth. KBB is used as a standard but then it becomes at what level condition the vehicle was in at the time of the sale. There is nothing in KBB that is for vehicles that have been repaired from an accident.

I played these games with Progressive. They do not want to pay and will do anything possible to not pay. The only recourse is an attorney and attorneys will not take diminished value cases on a contingency fee so the cost of an attorney is more than what you would get from Progressive. Progressive knows this.

Working with insurance companies is like mud wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig likes it because they created the mud pit.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to rody_44
Diminished value is no longer a option. The only way i could get that was by going after the at fault person. He was driving a 92 ranger so doubt i could get anything from him. Cant even get the full damage out of his insurance company. Sure aint getting it out of him.

Heres the kicker regarding that. State law says i could get diminished value if i trade the vehicle within two years of the accident from the at fault persons insurance or him. In other words if it was my wifes fault i could get it from her insurance but because it was the other guys fault i cant get it. Strange how that works out.

Pa sucks when it comes to there insurance law and yes 5000 property damage is among the lowest in the states. Did i mention the law hasnt had any changes in 45 years.
OEM or not i was entitled to it and technically still am. But we get into you cant get blood from a stone.


guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to rody_44
In Florida we have the option to insure for under-insured / no insurance, which I do every year. I've heard 1/3 of the drivers around here carry no insurance ( combination of illegals / or people whom can't or choose not to insure there vehicles , laws don't seem to mean much as we are no-fault as well)

In PA you have the same options, for UM ( Uninsured Motorist ) and UIM ( Underinsured Motorist ).

»www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/se ··· optional

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast

4 edits
LOl, it was added this morning. We had uninsured but we didnt have underinsured, added rental too. Neither uninsured or underinsured covers property tho so even if i had it i would still be in the same boat. Its actually a gimme to the insurance company in pa tho. As in pa doesnt matter who is at fault your own insurance pays medical bills. Helps if you sue tho. Something i dont do. Our insurance laws are written to cover the insurance company, not us. But yea i added it just in case in the future the laws change. Fat chance tho since all that is 45 years old.

Uninsured Motorist (UM) — This coverage applies to you, your family and your passengers for bodily injury if you are hit by an at-fault uninsured motorist. This does not cover damage to property.

Underinsured Motorist (UIM) — This coverage applies to you, your family and your passengers for bodily injury if you are hit by an at-fault motorist who does not have enough insurance to cover your claim. This does not cover damage to property.

tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2
reply to rody_44
Rody, I'm guessing you did not opt to save a few bucks on your insurance with the Limited Tort option? If you have Limited Tort your wife won't be able to collect from the other carrier for her injuries. Regardless, _your_ carrier will be paying the medical bills your wife incurred and the other person's insurance will only be considering her "pain/suffering" (again, as long as you did not opt for Limited Tort).

I'm pretty sure I understand your situation... as I see it, your carrier will address your loss less your deductible and you will be paying out of pocket for your rental. Your carrier will then collect the $5,000 property damage limit from the other carrier and keep this for themselves. Is this how the adjuster explained it to you? If so, call that adjusters supervisor and let that person who that as you understand it, PA is a Made Whole State. As such, your carrier needs to make sure that you are "made whole" before keeping any of that $5,000. This includes your deductible and rental (you could also argue diminished value if you are so inclined).

»www.mwl-law.com/CM/Resources/MAD ··· 470).pdf

tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2
reply to rody_44
said by rody_44:

We shall see made the appointment to see a lawyer tomorrow he will be calling with info. No intention of sueing for injury but have every intention of getting what is owed. Tryed to stop repair on the vehicle was informed thats not possible. Probably wouldnt have been smart to do that anyway. But it was the heat of the moment decision. Some shit about prorating the rental charges we pay up front and get a fraction back later. Doesnt sound like a plan to me. Lets see if the tune changes when she starts running up medical bills. Her back has been sore since the accident she keeps saying its fine its just stiff. Been telling her all week to get it looked at and advil isnt the answer.

No "tune" will change... it is what it is. The other owner/driver is liable and responsible to pay your loss. The state allows the other person to drive as long as they have $5000 in property damage coverage. The other carrier was paid to provide this $5,000 in coverage. They are not simply going to give their insured more coverage then they were paid for. No company just hands out millions of dollars each year for the heck of it. If their insured did not pay for more then $5000 worth of coverage, the carriers hands are tied. If you want to file an injury claim... they is your choice.

Let me ask you a question.... would your wife have sought treatment and would you have filed an injury claim if the other person had more then $5,000 in coverage?

An attorney will take 33% off the top of your injury settlement. Your carrier will pay for the medical bills and the other carrier will take an offset for this amount. Example... lets say your wife has $3000 in medical expenses and the other carrier values the claim at $6,000. Let's just say that is the correct amount for the sake of this post. The other carrier then takes the $3,000 offset for what your carrier paid on the medical bills which leaves $3000. Your attorney takes $990 of this, leaving around $2,000 for you. So you'd collect $2,000 in a $5,000 claim. $5,000 worth of expenses were racked up in order to collect $2,000. Something to think about.

You might also note that it does not take an attorney to collect on an injury claim. You'd only need to gather and submit the medical bills to the other person's carrier and make a demand then negotiate. But you need to review the information in my prior post as well.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
Thank you very much for that info. You hit everything pretty well exact. She wont be going to the doctors and i wont be getting a lawyer. I will be looking at the made whole clause you speak of. I wasnt aware of that. I think there out on that tho is going to be because i dont have rental on our policy. In any case after i calmed down the plan now is just to get the car fixed and be done with it. I guess the best thing would be to take the guy to small claims court for the rental. You know really dont think i want to put someone else in any bad positions. So im just going eat the rental and be done with it. Got a call from the body shop they said its going to paint already but projected complete time is 2nd of next month.

tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2

1 edit
said by rody_44:

Thank you very much for that info. You hit everything pretty well exact. She wont be going to the doctors and i wont be getting a lawyer. I will be looking at the made whole clause you speak of. I wasnt aware of that. I think there out on that tho is going to be because i dont have rental on our policy. In any case after i calmed down the plan now is just to get the car fixed and be done with it. I guess the best thing would be to take the guy to small claims court for the rental. You know really dont think i want to put someone else in any bad positions. So im just going eat the rental and be done with it. Got a call from the body shop they said its going to paint already but projected complete time is 2nd of next month.

The thought behind "made whole" and the reason many states have these laws is because otherwise a person would be penalized for having too much insurance available. Granted, this thought process really applies to "double dipping" (where you can get paid twice for things such as medical bills) but it's true of made whole as well. _You_ suffered a loss and should be put back to where you were prior to your loss. So you should be able to collect every penny from the other person. That includes 100% of your property damage and 100% of your rental (loss of use). Now... _you_ also pay your carrier money to protect you against a loss to your vehicle. That agreement allows them to take over your right of recovery to pay themselves back. A situation that this creates is that because _you_ are paying to protect yourself... you are screwing yourself over. If you were not paying your carrier to provide you protection, you would have recovered _all_ of your loss from the other person. You have a right of recovery for what your carrier did not pay and they have a right of recovery for what they paid. Who is first in line or should be be split. The state recognizes that the carrier is collecting a premium and in return has agreed to accept this exact risk. Also, _you_ are the one paying them for that risk. So they should be second in line when it comes to the right to collect. It's only fair.

I said all of that partially as you seem to be willing to allow your carrier to collect what they paid and you feel it's okay to be out of your rental expense. Heck no! You paid your carrier premiums month after month for the coverage they provided... you paid for their assumption of this kind of risk. They have done the math. They know how many times they won't collect 100% from an at fault party and they have worked this all into the premium they charge you.

Made whole is _only_ about the amounts _not_ paid by your carrier. Nothing else. So it _specifically_ applies only to your deductible and your rental. I seem to recall they they might "waive" your deductible? Um, yeah... they are probably "waiving" it because they _HAVE TO_! I'm betting the adjuster just thinks that is what they do to be nice. Um, no... they waive it because PA is a made whole state. I'm guessing the adjuster does not know _why_ they waive it so he/she does not know that they need to waive all of your out of pocket expenses.

Next week either call the adjuster or that person's supervisor (you may want to speak to the supervisor but it's whatever you feel comfortable doing). Let them know, as you understand it, PA is a "made whole" state... that this is why they are "waiving" your deductible and you understand it should also apply to your other out of pocket expenses (rental (loss of use) and if you want, you could argue diminished value). When talking to people holding my money I always like to "lead" them to a conclusion and not back them into a corner.

Sorry that I was a little long winded.

Edit: I deal with a lot of states but that also means I don't know all the details about one. I'm thinking PA is a made whole state by what I found on the Internet. But I'm pretty sure that information is correct.


Cho Baka
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-23
there
kudos:2
You are the kind of insurance agent I would like to have.
--
The talented hawk speaks French.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
reply to tcope
I dont know if i have tort limited tort or what. Not even sure what that gets me.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to tcope
You bring up a interesting detail as pa is a made whole state yet insurance companies use pro rata rules.

From the April 2010 issue of Claims Magazine • Subscribe!
Understanding Made-Whole Doctrines

By William Sylianteng

April 2, 2010 • Reprints
Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 68

Accordingly, the insured made-whole doctrine, at its heart, is concerned with the priority of the distribution of settlement funds. It dictates that the insured's claim is given first priority over the insurers when faced with a tortfeasor who does not have enough funds to cover both.

When faced with an insured made-whole situation, note that in most instances the subrogation claim has the lesser priority, and you may not be able to assert the claim until both the insurance payment has been made to the insured and the insured is determined to have been made whole.

The Pro-Rata Approach

Only two states have sanctioned the pro-rata approach to handling third-party distributions in which there is an insured with underinsured losses. Those two states are New Hampshire and New Mexico. However, neither state authorizes the pro-rata approach for all situations.

In fact, New Hampshire only sanctions it in situations where there is a reduced recovery "settlement." In other words, it is allowed in situations where the insured settles for less than his total claim with the third-party tortfeasor and thus forecloses even the possibility of a subrogation recovery by the insurer.

Meanwhile, New Mexico does not rely on direct pro-rata (in proportion with the respective losses of the insurer and insured). Rather, it sanctions an "equitable apportionment" approach, which dictates that the court sitting in equity makes the decision on how to best, in an equitable fashion, split up the proceeds of a third-party recovery. Unfortunately for the insurer, in situations where there is an underinsured innocent insured, equity will likely favor making the insured "whole" prior to providing the insurer with a subrogation recovery.

Insurer Made-Whole Rule

Only a few states follow the insurer made-whole rule, and only one opinion has truly stated it in its purest form. In Maryland, a retired judge who was specially assigned to the Stancil v. Erie Insuarnce Company case, set forth the pure essence of an insurer made-whole rule by stating that the insurer should have the right to recover prior to its insured because an insurer should not be precluded from recovering its proper subrogation claim because of the failure of an insured to adequately insure his property.

Unfortunately, although the underlying principle enunciated in the Stancil opinion has merit, the rule in its purest form is not applied very often, if at all, beyond the Stancil opinion. As you can imagine, without commenting on whether it is fair or not, more often than not a judge sitting in equity will have a hard time pronouncing that equity favors the insurer over the underinsured "innocent" as opposed to negligent or comparatively negligent insured.

Accordingly, if a court were to apply the principles of the rule, it would likely be done as it is in New York, as an "insurer-equal" scenario. In an "insurer-equal" state, the insurer's rights are divisible and independent from its insured. As stated by a New York Court in Winkelmann v. Excelsior Insurance Company, the insurer's subrogation claim arises, "upon payment to insured without regard to whether insured was made whole."

billydunwood

join:2008-04-23
united state
kudos:2
reply to rody_44
said by rody_44:

Thank you very much for that info. You hit everything pretty well exact. She wont be going to the doctors and i wont be getting a lawyer. I will be looking at the made whole clause you speak of. I wasnt aware of that. I think there out on that tho is going to be because i dont have rental on our policy. In any case after i calmed down the plan now is just to get the car fixed and be done with it. I guess the best thing would be to take the guy to small claims court for the rental. You know really dont think i want to put someone else in any bad positions. So im just going eat the rental and be done with it. Got a call from the body shop they said its going to paint already but projected complete time is 2nd of next month.

Just make sure you ask the body shop for receipts to prove it is OEM parts and make sure you look and see the "Toyota" stamp on the parts. I like when you said you will have the dealer inspect it. I hope it turns out great
--
No Victim=No Crime

itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA
reply to rody_44
Make sure your wife gets her back checked out and whatever medical care is needed to make it better. You don't want to mess with the back.

Submit everything to whoever (your's, theres, etc) and keep accurate records of your expenses and monies you receive. Once everyone stops paying, sue the driver and/or owner of the car that was at fault. Probably won't get much but if nothing else pursue it to a garnishment. You deserve to have your fair expenses and such returned to you.

tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2
said by itguy05:

Submit everything to whoever (your's, theres, etc) and keep accurate records of your expenses and monies you receive. Once everyone stops paying, sue the driver and/or owner of the car that was at fault. Probably won't get much but if nothing else pursue it to a garnishment. You deserve to have your fair expenses and such returned to you.

Just for the record, the OP's own carrier will pay up to $15,000 in medical bills under his own policy of which they have no right of recovery. The other carrier won't pay a dime until the OP agrees to settle for an agreed to amount. Once the OP agrees to settle, the OP can no longer sue the other driver (as the injury claim is "settled").

If the OP elected for the Limited Tort option in PA, he cannot collect from the at fault party for injuries unless (his wife) has some type of permanent injury. PA courts are pretty clear that this needs to be a substantial permanency.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to rody_44
Just wanted to let you guys know its suppose to be done friday. Way before the projected complete time. Only unplanned thing so far is they lined everything and it wouldnt line up. Its at the alignment shop now trying again. He said it failed to line up so they brought it back and replaced the control arm. They are hoping it lines up now. I didnt ask him but if it turns out not to be a oem control arm im gonna be pissed.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to rody_44
The car is no longer projected to be done tomorrow. Looks like now they replaced both struts and control arms. They still cant get the car to align. Dont know what else is left for them to replace at this point but they said they ordered 2 more suspension parts, the car def goes straight for a 4 wheel alignment before i bring it home. Im wondering when they say enough is enough and just decide its close enough.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to rody_44
Went and spoke to them yesterday. They are replacing front hub bearings and they are hoping it passes alignment after that. Not sure what the bearings have to do with alignment but have to give them kudos for not rushing it out the door. Im a little worried about the fact that the unibody was straightened with all these damaged parts still on the car But have to believe at this point they know what they are doing.


Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18
said by rody_44:

Went and spoke to them yesterday. They are replacing front hub bearings and they are hoping it passes alignment after that. Not sure what the bearings have to do with alignment but have to give them kudos for not rushing it out the door. Im a little worried about the fact that the unibody was straightened with all these damaged parts still on the car But have to believe at this point they know what they are doing.

Where the bearing mounts (ears/tabs) could be bent but it is a long shot, it almost sounds like a spindle issue and if not then the attachments points need to be rechecked on the laser alignment rack as it sounds like something is still tweaked.



--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast

2 edits
Doctor olds, Is it true that a mechanic can change perimeters in them lazer liners so they get a green light? They already know its going straight to another alignment shop to have it checked. But very concerned that they dont seem to know exactly why it wont align. They did mention that the insurance company requires a readout where it was green lighted but not really sure what they mean by that. A friend mentioned that a alignment machine can be faked to give the green light. But it would be pretty stupid for them to do that knowing the car is going to be checked out of the garage. I have faith at this point. The way i see it if they release it and it isnt within perimeters they get it back. The difference being when they get it back they get to fix it on their dime than compared to the insurance companies dime now.


Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18
I would hope not otherwise why bother with obtaining the original manufacturer's full frame and/or uni-body specifications?

On the better systems you should have a print out that shows the damage and shows the restore plan.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
I dont know anything about alignments. But i was talking about the wheel alignment. I didnt know they had a spec sheet for the unibody alignment. The body shop said there is no way to fake the results of the wheel alignment. The toyota mechanic i know said sure there is and that one can just change the perimeters in the machine and get a green light. I have no clue what he was talking about. In any case i made sure the shop knew the car was going to another alignment shop to make sure everything is good. They did offer to send the car to a shop of my choice for the final wheel alignment but i declined as i want it checked by two independent shops. Hopefully its all mute at the end of today since i believe it will probably be done today. Cant imagine what else they could possibly replace.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast

2 edits
reply to rody_44
Still not done. No explanation why today. They just said maybe tomorrow. Ok, Now the traction control light is on and its going back to the service center to troubleshoot. They are saying it passed alignment now. Sure would be nice if they did the collision work and mechanical at one location. Now im worried they just clear the code out and send it on its way. Wont be fun at all if i end up going back and forth with the dealer and body shop over computer issues. Im hoping it was just a sensor that went out.


Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18
said by rody_44:

Still not done. No explanation why today. They just said maybe tomorrow. Ok, Now the traction control light is on and its going back to the service center to troubleshoot. They are saying it passed alignment now.

Read this when you have time.

»www.carparts.com/alignment.htm
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast

3 edits
Thanks for the read, Turned out to be the flat tire light on. Now im left to wonder if its possible to align the car properly when it has a flat tire. Not really a flat tire but low all the same. From my experience the light usually comes on around 24 to 26 lbs of pressure. The question remains can a proper alignment be done with a low tire? I went in and looked at the car yesterday when noone was around. As far as the bodywork was concerned i was very happy. One little snake eye in the paint but not enough to gripe about and i am hoping they do something about it. Overall very satisfied on the looks of the car. The low air pressure light is supposed to come on when one tire goes 4lbs pressure under the other three but for some reason mine goes to 8 lbs or so less. In any case at them pressures the light comes on before you can physically notice the tire is low.


ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA
reply to rody_44
said by rody_44:

Went and spoke to them yesterday. They are replacing front hub bearings and they are hoping it passes alignment after that. Not sure what the bearings have to do with alignment but have to give them kudos for not rushing it out the door. Im a little worried about the fact that the unibody was straightened with all these damaged parts still on the car But have to believe at this point they know what they are doing.

I have always heard that once a unibody is bent, it is done.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
reply to rody_44
Picking up car today. Now they are saying it was a ABS light that was on. In any case its getting cleaned up and is ready to go.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
reply to rody_44
Well picked the car up. Its to late for decent pictures but im happy. It was to late to have the car rechecked but im real happy. Car drives straight and i am hard pressed to see that it was ever in a accident.

billydunwood

join:2008-04-23
united state
kudos:2
OEM parts? Make sure you get the dealer to check it, and verify it has genuine Toyota parts. Im glad to hear it all worked out
--
No Victim=No Crime


Cho Baka
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-23
there
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to ropeguru
said by ropeguru:

I have always heard that once a unibody is bent, it is done.

It is only "done" if it isn't properly repaired.
--
The talented hawk speaks French.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to billydunwood
I didnt get all oem parts but got mostly oem parts. The hubs and hub bearings slipped thru the cracks and was from napa. It would have been nice to have all oem but it is what it is and the most important thing is im happy with the work they did. I got three different spec sheets for the wheel alignment with only the last passing. Apparently straightening the unibody isnt like the days of the past. They explained its all done by lasers and computers now. Once they explained that the hubs and bearings were installed and were from napa i wasnt going to be a dick and have them swap them out since they explained it was a mistake. People make mistakes and i understand that.