Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and out.
Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during a storm.
Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the vehicle yet,
but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his Ins Co will say the
vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co? Obviously the
settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a higher settlement
be negotiated based on the previous good condition of vehicle? Anything
specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
stuff snipped

Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and out.
Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during a storm.
Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the vehicle yet,
but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his Ins Co will say the
vehicle is totaled.

Know the Bluebook (and other sites/pubs) value for said vehicle in excellent
condition - collect a few notices from the classifieds listing same
make/model and note their price. Look up prices on Ebay Motors. Unless you
had modifications to the van the your insurance company was aware of
(handicapped controls, etc) all you're ever likely to see is high Bluebook
value for a 10 year old car.

I would be unhappy with their first offer just as a matter of principle -
the principle being they'll lowball you every chance they get. (-:

Get estimates on the damage anyway - maybe you can find someone to do the
work for less than what they would offer you to total it.

I hope you at least got to make or sale firewood from the tree that attacked
your vehicle.

--
Bobby G.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and
out. Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during
a storm. Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the
vehicle yet, but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his
Ins Co will say the vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co?
Obviously the settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a
higher settlement be negotiated based on the previous good condition
of vehicle? Anything specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

I was successful in raising the payout a few hundred when my wife flipped
her car a few months ago - I was also successful in getting more when my
Sportster was totalled no question about totalling in either case by
showing the "improvements and modifications" warranted the extra money .
When the \76 FLH got hit , they wanted outside verification of value , but I
was also successful in getting close to what it was worth pre-crash .
The best strategy is to go prepared with documentation of your claims ,
like recent tire receipts , etc . Aftermarket additions too , if documented
..
--
Snag

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:44:50 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and out.
Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during a storm.
Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the vehicle yet,
but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his Ins Co will say the
vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co? Obviously the
settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a higher settlement
be negotiated based on the previous good condition of vehicle? Anything
specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

You get Blue Book value based on miles as far as I know. The price
range difference between "excellent condition" and "good condition"
is a couple hundred bucks for a 10 year old Chevy.
Look up the car on Kelley. I've had a couple cars totaled and never
talked to an adjuster, but the other driver's insurance paid.
The adjuster will see what condition the vehicle was in.
I bought back one of them from the insurance company for a hundred
bucks and fixed.
There is no "strategy" for an adjuster. They've seen them all.
Politeness is my strategy.

On 6/18/2014 3:44 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and out.
Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during a storm.
Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the vehicle yet,
but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his Ins Co will say the
vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co? Obviously the
settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a higher settlement
be negotiated based on the previous good condition of vehicle? Anything
specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

Bus ran over my motorcycle.
They tried to settle for blue book.
Showed them several local newspaper ads asking three times that.
They caved.

"mike" wrote in message
...
On 6/18/2014 3:44 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and
out.
Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during a storm.
Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the vehicle yet,
but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his Ins Co will say
the
vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co? Obviously
the
settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a higher settlement
be negotiated based on the previous good condition of vehicle? Anything
specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

Bus ran over my motorcycle.
They tried to settle for blue book.
Showed them several local newspaper ads asking three times that.
They caved.

smart move, having your buddies place those ads!

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:44:50 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and out.
Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during a storm.
Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the vehicle yet,
but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his Ins Co will say the
vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co? Obviously the
settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a higher settlement
be negotiated based on the previous good condition of vehicle? Anything
specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

If the car is totaled, owner would like to keep the car he can ask the
adjuster about buying it back. He would need to check state law and if
the ins. co. will give him a policy for a "salvage" vehicle.

_How is the buy back of your car, after it is totaled, determined?_

http://www.carinsurance.com/kb/content39152.aspx

just sayin'

DerbyDad03 wrote:
Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and
out. Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during
a storm. Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the
vehicle yet, but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his
Ins Co will say the vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co?
Obviously the settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a
higher settlement be negotiated based on the previous good condition
of vehicle? Anything specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

Add to what others said - if the insurance company refuses to budge, tell them
you will rent a car on their bill until you can come to an agreement.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:21:09 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:
Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and
out. Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during
a storm. Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the
vehicle yet, but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his
Ins Co will say the vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co?
Obviously the settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a
higher settlement be negotiated based on the previous good condition
of vehicle? Anything specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

Add to what others said - if the insurance company refuses to budge, tell them
you will rent a car on their bill until you can come to an agreement.

Apparently your knowledge of "comprehensive coverage" is lacking.
Typically, comprehensive coverage does not include rental cars.
Therefore, your suggestion of renting a car wouldn't make even a
rookie adjuster flinch.

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:21:09 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:
Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside
and out. Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree
during a storm. Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not
seen the vehicle yet, but based on the age and damage, the owner
assumes his Ins Co will say the vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co?
Obviously the settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can
a higher settlement be negotiated based on the previous good
condition of vehicle? Anything specific to say (or not to say) to
the adjuster?

Add to what others said - if the insurance company refuses to budge,
tell them you will rent a car on their bill until you can come to an
agreement.

Apparently your knowledge of "comprehensive coverage" is lacking.
Typically, comprehensive coverage does not include rental cars.
Therefore, your suggestion of renting a car wouldn't make even a
rookie adjuster flinch.

It was very effective when dealing with the insurance company of the guy that
hit my car. Sorry if I don't know the details of every kind of claim.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:57:05 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:21:09 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:
Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside
and out. Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree
during a storm. Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not
seen the vehicle yet, but based on the age and damage, the owner
assumes his Ins Co will say the vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co?
Obviously the settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can
a higher settlement be negotiated based on the previous good
condition of vehicle? Anything specific to say (or not to say) to
the adjuster?

Add to what others said - if the insurance company refuses to budge,
tell them you will rent a car on their bill until you can come to an
agreement.

Apparently your knowledge of "comprehensive coverage" is lacking.
Typically, comprehensive coverage does not include rental cars.
Therefore, your suggestion of renting a car wouldn't make even a
rookie adjuster flinch.

It was very effective when dealing with the insurance company of the guy that
hit my car. Sorry if I don't know the details of every kind of claim.


Someone hitting your car has NOTHING to do with "comprehensive"
insurance coverage.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:28:02 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:21:09 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:
Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and
out. Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during
a storm. Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the
vehicle yet, but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his
Ins Co will say the vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co?
Obviously the settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a
higher settlement be negotiated based on the previous good condition
of vehicle? Anything specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

Add to what others said - if the insurance company refuses to budge, tell them
you will rent a car on their bill until you can come to an agreement.

Apparently your knowledge of "comprehensive coverage" is lacking.
Typically, comprehensive coverage does not include rental cars.
Therefore, your suggestion of renting a car wouldn't make even a
rookie adjuster flinch.
If you have "loss of use endorsement" they pay rental regardless of
cause of damge.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:21:09 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:
Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and
out. Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during
a storm. Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the
vehicle yet, but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his
Ins Co will say the vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co?
Obviously the settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a
higher settlement be negotiated based on the previous good condition
of vehicle? Anything specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

Add to what others said - if the insurance company refuses to budge, tell them
you will rent a car on their bill until you can come to an agreement.

I have found providing price of 3 or more "local market" equivalent
vehicles for sale will cause an adjustment in price if warranted. If
there is no equivalent condition vehicle, show what is avaialable at
what price and demonstrate the difference in value (sometimes by
producing a newer vehicle , same condition but higher mileage, for
instance, ) Friend had his pristine 2004 Taurus written off and got
$1000 more than the first offer by producing a 2002 Taurus with the
same mileage for more than they were offering, for sale in the same
city. "out of market area" pricing (for instance E-Bay motors) doesn't
carry much weight

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:05:42 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:21:09 -0700, "Bob F"

wrote:



DerbyDad03 wrote:

Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and

out. Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during

a storm. Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the

vehicle yet, but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his

Ins Co will say the vehicle is totaled.



Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co?

Obviously the settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a

higher settlement be negotiated based on the previous good condition

of vehicle? Anything specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?



Add to what others said - if the insurance company refuses to budge, tell them

you will rent a car on their bill until you can come to an agreement.



I have found providing price of 3 or more "local market" equivalent

vehicles for sale will cause an adjustment in price if warranted. If

there is no equivalent condition vehicle, show what is avaialable at

what price and demonstrate the difference in value (sometimes by

producing a newer vehicle , same condition but higher mileage, for

instance, ) Friend had his pristine 2004 Taurus written off and got

$1000 more than the first offer by producing a 2002 Taurus with the

same mileage for more than they were offering, for sale in the same

city. "out of market area" pricing (for instance E-Bay motors) doesn't

carry much weight

To me, *completed transactions* on Ebay would carry
a lot more weight than ads that just show what buyers
are dreaming of getting. If you're using CL or newspaper
ads, they better be way above what the insurance company is
offering. If I was the adjuster and offered $5000 based
on Blue Book sources, ads showing people asking $6000 wouldn't
do much to impress me.

On 6/18/2014 3:44 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and out.
Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during a storm.
Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the vehicle yet,
but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his Ins Co will say the
vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co? Obviously the
settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a higher settlement
be negotiated based on the previous good condition of vehicle? Anything
specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

Buy back the vehicle for insurance salvage value, and part out.

Steve

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:44:50 -0700, DerbyDad03
wrote:

Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and
out.
Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during a storm.
Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the vehicle yet,
but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his Ins Co will say
the
vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co? Obviously
the
settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a higher settlement
be negotiated based on the previous good condition of vehicle? Anything
specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

Somewhat similar. Tree was 'topped' and left. Trunk then rotted out, then
fell onto car flattening it! Trunk was 3 ft diameter or so. Very heavy.

Insurance company said here's your check. Awfully small. So went and did
some homework. I had a car, don't have a car, need a car. pay me more,
went back and forth, sat in their office for hours bothering them, until
received a better check,about twice what first check was.

Argument based upon 'replacement' value [must use words carefully] do NOT
use words 'loss', because loss value is NOTHING! Now, replacement value,
that costs some money. Keep repeating, I had a car, I don't have a car
now. Again, do not EVER say, loss, or I lost the car, because loss value
is based upon nothing.

On 6/18/2014 6:44 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and out.
Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during a storm.
Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the vehicle yet,
but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his Ins Co will say the
vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co? Obviously the
settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a higher settlement
be negotiated based on the previous good condition of vehicle? Anything
specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?


I've gone through this a couple of times. It can be exasperating.
Squeezed a few extra bucks out of one as in the two weeks it too them to
evaluate it the book value had gone down.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:44:50 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and out.
Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during a storm.
Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the vehicle yet,
but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his Ins Co will say the
vehicle is totaled.

Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co? Obviously the
settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a higher settlement
be negotiated based on the previous good condition of vehicle? Anything
specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?

I did not read all the other replies yet so some may have covered
this. This past April I was sitting at a traffic light and a lady
texting on her phone rear ended my 14yo PT Cruiser w/102K miles, never
in an accident and meticulously maintained. Her insurance company
would only total it because CT has a law that states the insurance
company only has to pay 75% of average fair market value. Although I
obtained several estimates for repair (all over $5K) the insurance
only offered me approx $3.6K. I was very unhappy. I contacted my own
insurance co for advice (useless) and our states insurance department
(also useless) so based on information I found searching the net I
made pdfs of all my maintenance records and auto parts purchases over
the past year and send them off to the ins adjuster. I also wanted to
purchase the car back as salvage.

After weeks of back and forth negotiation I settled on a total of
$4.9K and received their check shortly thereafter. This amount
already included my buy back of $250.

Next I found an independent repair shop that had good reviews from
friends and online and visited them for help. I told them my dilemma
and they agreed to incorporate used parts where they could to keep the
costs down. They repaired by back end and replaced the rear
suspension with one obtained from a junk yard where the donor car had
damaged its front. Bottom line, I've just had the car back a week
today and I couldn't be happier. My TOTAL cost was $3.4K so I had a
little funds left to purchase a Starbucks coffee.

Hope this helps. Good luck.

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:07:16 PM UTC-4, BobMCT wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:44:50 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03

wrote:



Situation: 10 YO vehicle, 160k miles, excellent condition, inside and out.

Hood, windshield, fender, etc. is crushed by fallen tree during a storm.

Vehicle has comprehensive coverage. Ins Co has not seen the vehicle yet,

but based on the age and damage, the owner assumes his Ins Co will say the

vehicle is totaled.



Are there any special strategies for dealing with the Ins Co? Obviously the

settlement won't be enough for a new vehicle, but can a higher settlement

be negotiated based on the previous good condition of vehicle? Anything

specific to say (or not to say) to the adjuster?



I did not read all the other replies yet so some may have covered

this. This past April I was sitting at a traffic light and a lady

texting on her phone rear ended my 14yo PT Cruiser w/102K miles, never

in an accident and meticulously maintained. Her insurance company

would only total it because CT has a law that states the insurance

company only has to pay 75% of average fair market value.

Must be great living in a state with laws like that.
Do they have one that says you only have to pay 75%
of the premium?

"trader_4" wrote in message news:7451a890-

This past April I was sitting at a traffic light and a lady
texting on her phone rear ended my 14yo PT Cruiser w/102K miles,
never in an accident and meticulously maintained. Her insurance
company would only total it because CT has a law that states the
insurance company only has to pay 75% of average fair market value.

Must be great living in a state with laws like that.
Do they have one that says you only have to pay 75%
of the premium?

People with "cherry" cars never get what they feel (and probably is) fair
market value and probably never will. As for the legal comment, it would be
useful to actually check the facts because what's stated is not really what
the law says about percentages, "totalling" a car and fair market value:

http://www.heltonlaw.com/Personal-In...amaged-1.shtml

WHEN IS A VEHICLE A TOTAL LOSS?
A motor vehicle is considered a total loss when the amount of repairs
(including supplemental claims such as projected rental during the period of
repair) equals or exceeds 75 percent of the pre-accident cash value which is
sometimes referred to as the vehicle's Fair Market Value (FMV). 11 NCAC §
4.0418 (5).

Generally speaking the liability insurance company is required to pay the
fair market value (F.M.V.) or pre-accident cash value of the vehicle right
before the collision occurred. In simple terms, the F.M.V. is the value a
seller, not forced to sell, and a buyer, would agree upon for the vehicle
immediately before the collision giving rise to the property damage claim.

Insurance adjusters generally have a book value they use to arrive at F.M.V.
They may have some "wiggle" room based on the condition of the vehicle, but
there is generally little room for negotiation. Book value is supposedly
F.M.V. and as such this gives both sides a little leeway to negotiate.

Many insurance companies use the National Automobile Dealers association
(NADA) publication entitled "Official Used Car Guide," which is published
monthly. Some liability insurance companies have their own methods to arrive
at valuations. Some insurance companies consider their system superior to
the NADA Book commonly used. Notwithstanding, no publication is completely
accurate and they should and are indeed only "guides." As such there is
usually some basis to negotiate in most cases.

Example: If the vehicle's pre-accident F.M.V. is $8,000 and the estimates
for the cost of repairs are less than $6,000 then the liability insurance
company is obligated to only pay for the cost of repairs. However, if the
estimated cost of repairs is $6,000 or more, then the liability insurance
company has to pay the pre-accident F.M.V. of $8,000 because the vehicle is
considered a Total Loss. Frequently, problems arise when claimants fail to
understand that the law does not require liability insurers to pay more than
the fair market value. If F.M.V. is $8,000 and the cost of repairs is $9,000
then you will only recover $8,000. In other words, you can't recover more
than the F.M.V. even when the cost of repairs exceeds the F.M.V.
Unfortunately, this is true even if the F.M.V. is less than what is still
owed on a vehicle.

You should always continue making car payments even if the car is totaled.
You are generally contractually obligated to continue making payments,
notwithstanding the condition of your vehicle. If you are behind on your
loan payments, this will only make the negotiation your total loss much more
difficult. In short, the bank or financing company will not care that your
car has been wrecked. They still insist on being paid.



--

Bobby G.

On Monday, June 23, 2014 6:29:37 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:7451a890-



This past April I was sitting at a traffic light and a lady

texting on her phone rear ended my 14yo PT Cruiser w/102K miles,

never in an accident and meticulously maintained. Her insurance

company would only total it because CT has a law that states the

insurance company only has to pay 75% of average fair market value.



Must be great living in a state with laws like that.

Do they have one that says you only have to pay 75%

of the premium?



People with "cherry" cars never get what they feel (and probably is) fair

market value and probably never will. As for the legal comment, it would be

useful to actually check the facts because what's stated is not really what

the law says about percentages, "totalling" a car and fair market value:



http://www.heltonlaw.com/Personal-In...amaged-1.shtml




The poster is talking about a law in *CT*, where he lives and the law
you're citing is NC. But I think it maybe you figured out what he's
talking about. He said "The insurance company only has to pay 75% of
fair market value." Perhaps what he meant was the insurance company has
to total it if the cost of repairs are more than 75% of fair market value.
The latter is what you found for NC and it makes more sense. The way he
stated it, it looked to me like he was saying they totaled it because
they then only have to pay 75% of the value of the car.



WHEN IS A VEHICLE A TOTAL LOSS?

A motor vehicle is considered a total loss when the amount of repairs

(including supplemental claims such as projected rental during the period of

repair) equals or exceeds 75 percent of the pre-accident cash value which is

sometimes referred to as the vehicle's Fair Market Value (FMV). 11 NCAC �

4.0418 (5).



Generally speaking the liability insurance company is required to pay the

fair market value (F.M.V.) or pre-accident cash value of the vehicle right

before the collision occurred. In simple terms, the F.M.V. is the value a

seller, not forced to sell, and a buyer, would agree upon for the vehicle

immediately before the collision giving rise to the property damage claim..



Insurance adjusters generally have a book value they use to arrive at F.M..V.

They may have some "wiggle" room based on the condition of the vehicle, but

there is generally little room for negotiation. Book value is supposedly

F.M.V. and as such this gives both sides a little leeway to negotiate.



Many insurance companies use the National Automobile Dealers association

(NADA) publication entitled "Official Used Car Guide," which is published

monthly. Some liability insurance companies have their own methods to arrive

at valuations. Some insurance companies consider their system superior to

the NADA Book commonly used. Notwithstanding, no publication is completely

accurate and they should and are indeed only "guides." As such there is

usually some basis to negotiate in most cases.



Example: If the vehicle's pre-accident F.M.V. is $8,000 and the estimates

for the cost of repairs are less than $6,000 then the liability insurance

company is obligated to only pay for the cost of repairs. However, if the

estimated cost of repairs is $6,000 or more, then the liability insurance

company has to pay the pre-accident F.M.V. of $8,000 because the vehicle is

considered a Total Loss. Frequently, problems arise when claimants fail to

understand that the law does not require liability insurers to pay more than

the fair market value. If F.M.V. is $8,000 and the cost of repairs is $9,000

then you will only recover $8,000. In other words, you can't recover more

than the F.M.V. even when the cost of repairs exceeds the F.M.V.

Unfortunately, this is true even if the F.M.V. is less than what is still

owed on a vehicle.



You should always continue making car payments even if the car is totaled..

You are generally contractually obligated to continue making payments,

notwithstanding the condition of your vehicle. If you are behind on your

loan payments, this will only make the negotiation your total loss much more

difficult. In short, the bank or financing company will not care that your

car has been wrecked. They still insist on being paid.







--



Bobby G.

"trader_4" wrote in message
news:d32937b5-62e1-4a12-9ad3-

But I think it maybe you figured out what he's
talking about. He said "The insurance company only has to pay 75% of
fair market value." Perhaps what he meant was the insurance company has
to total it if the cost of repairs are more than 75% of fair market value.

Yep. He had the percentage right, but not how it's applied (pretty
uniformly across the US). I thought the explanation I posted was the most
informative even though it was not of the OP's state because I knew what the
general salvage principle was. I was surprised to see the Holton firm said
words to the effect, "we don't do auto accidents, but if we did, here's how
it would go." They seem to imply they'll do it for clients, and that's how
it works down here. I've gotten my lawyer to do things I know he would
rather not, but he does them because I pay him and often only need a letter
on a lawyer's letterhead to get something accomplished.

I've been bent over the salvage rules a few times because I run cars for a
long, long time and know the TRUE value of a primo well-cared for car you've
worked on all its life. It sure isn't what the Bluebook says. There really
needs to be a factor for "one owner" cars that can level out the sting of
being forced to total out and not repair such cars.

One thing I learned from the Holton site was that the 75% figure not only
includes repair but supplemental claims such as projected rental during the
period of repair. So on a $10K FMV car, you can get totaled even if repairs
are less than $7.5K. Good to know I guess. )-:

Sadly, there aren't many ways to come out ahead, if any. Many people
believe if the car is worth 10K then insurers should pay up to $10 to repair
or restore it. Not so. If repairs equal $7,500 then they can "total you"
and force you to take the $10K payout. Or nothing. It's in the 30 page
contract somewhere. I can see their business reasons for setting things up
that way. The likelihood of restoring a beloved one-owner, perfectly
maintained 10 year old vehicle to its pre-crash state is not very good and
they (smartly) like to cut their losses.

The ways out of the "I've been totaled but I still want my old car" dilemma
all come with associated costs and may not save any money in the long run.
You may be able to find an insurer that will cover the cost of repairs
should you insist on getting your old car back but I imagine the premiums
would be high enough to make it more sensible to self-insure. Sometimes you
can get "classic car" insurance if the vehicle is old enough and meets
certain other parameters, which often include limited mileage.

Some states regulate the auto insurance industry very tightly so I am not
sure how flexible insurers can be but I've found if you look around someone
will write a "rider" that covers you - usually for a respectable premium if
you're asking for something risky to be covered.

Ironically, I've just started to see ads where insurers are offering
"replace with new" coverage so I'd say the terms are flexible given enough
shopping and competition. This is one of those areas of the law where it's
not really a case of being "made whole" after an accident. In the OP's
case, if it was a drunk driver and not a tree that caused the damage, he
would be likely to have been "made wholer" by the other guy's insurance
because of the criminal liability.

The other ways have been discussed already, and buying the car back for
salvage is probably the best and most cost effective way of getting your car
back. In some states, retitling a salvaged car means paying some pretty
hefty fees and taxes if you're not a wholesaler.

I bought a car back for salvage once and discovered just how many things
break that you can't see in a 40mph front end to side of other car crash.
Nowadays I'd take the check and give a fallen soldier a hearty salute on the
way to the junkers. Or North Carolina, which has a remarkable cottage
industry of salvage recovery going on.

--
Bobby G.