On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:14:39 +0200,
fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net (Ed) wrote:

>"New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the
>housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect
>boredom.
>
>"Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..."
>
>Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7

And when has this not been true?

I'll admit it, my Accord is boring, it just goes where you aim it,
reliably, economically, comfortably. Then what?

J.

 

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:02:06 GMT, JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:14:39 +0200,
>fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net (Ed) wrote:
>
>>"New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the
>>housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect
>>boredom.
>>
>>"Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..."
>>
>>Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7
>
>And when has this not been true?
>
>I'll admit it, my Accord is boring, it just goes where you aim it,
>reliably, economically, comfortably. Then what?
>
>J.

Ditto my '92 Corolla Wagon.

I like for a car not to be exciting.....

--
Scott in Florida

 

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:02:06 GMT, JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:14:39 +0200,
>fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net (Ed) wrote:
>
>>"New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the
>>housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect
>>boredom.
>>
>>"Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..."
>>
>>Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7
>
>And when has this not been true?
>
>I'll admit it, my Accord is boring, it just goes where you aim it,
>reliably, economically, comfortably. Then what?
>
>J.

Ditto my '92 Corolla Wagon.

I like for a car not to be exciting.....

--
Scott in Florida

 

Chevy Man wrote:
> Great on flat ground but how would it do in the mountains?

It would run on 6 cylinders, what else? I gave you a figure of ~ 26.5
for MIXED driving. That was Phoenix, Scottsdale, Chandler, the 101
loop, I-17 up to Camp Verde and back, etc. Around 450 miles all told
for the week.

> What happens when
> it breaks I am sure it will be CHEAP to fix. Gas mileage is not everything
> you have to include future repairs too. Especially when most people run
> their cars well over 100k miles.

No, mileage isn't everything. Neither is anecdotal information from you
concerning a DIFFERENT product that GM had out what, 15-20 years ago,
representative of what a SIMILAR engine is capable of today.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that this mixed mode Chevy
engine delivers ~ 25% better gas mileage (~21mpg vs 26.5mpg) . Over
100K miles - and I agree that most folks keep their cars at least that
long - at ~$3.00/gallon gas, that's a measly $3000 savings in fuel
during those 100,000 miles. This system appears to be largely
electronic based and just shutting down injectors so what would a blown
computer cost? a bad injector "switch"?

I admitted that the longevity factor is an unknown also. You seem
close-minded on the subject so this certainly isn't my attempt to
changer YOUR mind, only to clarify my opinion as one who's actually
driven, under realistic conditions, this new engine from GM.

I think I'd roll the dice. If you want to stand there and say "It
didn't work 15-20 years ago so it won't work now - without even trying
it - because you obviously are smarter than the engineers at GM who
designed the thing... be my guest.

> "Unquestionably Confused" <Puzzled2@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:u3jLi.55667$YL5.55643@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net...
>> Chevy Man wrote:
>>> Went to buy a new chevy avalanche. Found out they had a motor that cuts
>>> off 4 cylinders at highway speeds. After remembering the cadillac 4-6-8
>>> engine. I decided against a new chevy. Not just dull, not what I wanted.
>> Don't know how well it would work in the Avalanche but I just rented a
>> Impala LT earlier this month from Hertz. I drove it for about four days
>> before discovering it had their new engine that goes from 6 cylinders to
>> 3.
>>
>> I was impressed. Overall mileage was about 26.5 in mixed driving. Tooling
>> along outside Phoenix on I-17 at 80m/h on dead level or a VERY slight
>> downgrade showed instantaneous mileage readings in the 45-49 mpg range.
>>
>> Once I discovered it was there and dialed in the indicator in the DIC, I
>> simply could NOT tell when it was running on 3 or 6 cylinders without
>> seeing it on the indicator. Absolutely no lag or surge.
>>
>> Very nice ride indeed.
>>
>> How it will perform over the long term remains to be seen but I suspect
>> Chevy may have a winner.
>>
>
>

 

Chevy Man wrote:
> Great on flat ground but how would it do in the mountains?

It would run on 6 cylinders, what else? I gave you a figure of ~ 26.5
for MIXED driving. That was Phoenix, Scottsdale, Chandler, the 101
loop, I-17 up to Camp Verde and back, etc. Around 450 miles all told
for the week.

> What happens when
> it breaks I am sure it will be CHEAP to fix. Gas mileage is not everything
> you have to include future repairs too. Especially when most people run
> their cars well over 100k miles.

No, mileage isn't everything. Neither is anecdotal information from you
concerning a DIFFERENT product that GM had out what, 15-20 years ago,
representative of what a SIMILAR engine is capable of today.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that this mixed mode Chevy
engine delivers ~ 25% better gas mileage (~21mpg vs 26.5mpg) . Over
100K miles - and I agree that most folks keep their cars at least that
long - at ~$3.00/gallon gas, that's a measly $3000 savings in fuel
during those 100,000 miles. This system appears to be largely
electronic based and just shutting down injectors so what would a blown
computer cost? a bad injector "switch"?

I admitted that the longevity factor is an unknown also. You seem
close-minded on the subject so this certainly isn't my attempt to
changer YOUR mind, only to clarify my opinion as one who's actually
driven, under realistic conditions, this new engine from GM.

I think I'd roll the dice. If you want to stand there and say "It
didn't work 15-20 years ago so it won't work now - without even trying
it - because you obviously are smarter than the engineers at GM who
designed the thing... be my guest.

> "Unquestionably Confused" <Puzzled2@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:u3jLi.55667$YL5.55643@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net...
>> Chevy Man wrote:
>>> Went to buy a new chevy avalanche. Found out they had a motor that cuts
>>> off 4 cylinders at highway speeds. After remembering the cadillac 4-6-8
>>> engine. I decided against a new chevy. Not just dull, not what I wanted.
>> Don't know how well it would work in the Avalanche but I just rented a
>> Impala LT earlier this month from Hertz. I drove it for about four days
>> before discovering it had their new engine that goes from 6 cylinders to
>> 3.
>>
>> I was impressed. Overall mileage was about 26.5 in mixed driving. Tooling
>> along outside Phoenix on I-17 at 80m/h on dead level or a VERY slight
>> downgrade showed instantaneous mileage readings in the 45-49 mpg range.
>>
>> Once I discovered it was there and dialed in the indicator in the DIC, I
>> simply could NOT tell when it was running on 3 or 6 cylinders without
>> seeing it on the indicator. Absolutely no lag or surge.
>>
>> Very nice ride indeed.
>>
>> How it will perform over the long term remains to be seen but I suspect
>> Chevy may have a winner.
>>
>
>

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net...

>
> We can disagree then. Ask your friend if he allows adders for upgrades
> done to the car. I'm going thru this right now.
>

In fact, I know he does. As well, I've experienced that with every claim
I've ever submitted through any insurance company.

> A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my
> driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total
> out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition ones
> out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were
> sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him
> standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new
> pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them
> and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total out
> value work sheet.

Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill? What
was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it was not on
the car?


>
> And yes - the NADA values are fraudulently low. Easily provable with real
> market numbers and with other blue books. The banking industry uses them
> to minimize the loan value on a car to cut their risk on collateral loans,
> and the insurance industry uses them to cut their costs on total outs, and
> it's fraudulent. The adjusters are trained in doing this, and no doubt
> your freind actually believes the BS he was trained in.

Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I don't
see how you can call it fraudently low.

>
> Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you
> an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of
> buying cars"?

I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true. When
my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance company
even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like
make/model/etc. and their current selling price.

> It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out -
> by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying
> it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for you,
> you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go thru
> the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no answer
> beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little experiment
> and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would find one to
> replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line (that he was
> trained to use if he is ever challenged).

He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your
financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the
accident.

Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with
two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically
differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on the
cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those cars were
really selling for, or more than the high end.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net...

>
> We can disagree then. Ask your friend if he allows adders for upgrades
> done to the car. I'm going thru this right now.
>

In fact, I know he does. As well, I've experienced that with every claim
I've ever submitted through any insurance company.

> A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my
> driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total
> out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition ones
> out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were
> sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him
> standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new
> pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them
> and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total out
> value work sheet.

Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill? What
was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it was not on
the car?


>
> And yes - the NADA values are fraudulently low. Easily provable with real
> market numbers and with other blue books. The banking industry uses them
> to minimize the loan value on a car to cut their risk on collateral loans,
> and the insurance industry uses them to cut their costs on total outs, and
> it's fraudulent. The adjusters are trained in doing this, and no doubt
> your freind actually believes the BS he was trained in.

Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I don't
see how you can call it fraudently low.

>
> Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you
> an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of
> buying cars"?

I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true. When
my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance company
even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like
make/model/etc. and their current selling price.

> It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out -
> by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying
> it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for you,
> you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go thru
> the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no answer
> beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little experiment
> and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would find one to
> replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line (that he was
> trained to use if he is ever challenged).

He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your
financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the
accident.

Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with
two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically
differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on the
cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those cars were
really selling for, or more than the high end.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>>We can disagree then. Ask your friend if he allows adders for upgrades
>>done to the car. I'm going thru this right now.

> In fact, I know he does. As well, I've experienced that with every claim
> I've ever submitted through any insurance company.

Well, then we are basing both our claims on two very opposite real
experiences. Just because your friend is ethical doesn't mean the
industry in general is. Progressive (the insurer of the other driver
that ran me off the road last week and that I had to chase down for two
miles before he stopped) is refusing to add value for *ANY*
enhancements, other than for alloy wheels - and that only because NADA
lists wheels but nothing else.

They are absolutely refusing to add for my adding higher-end OEM radio,
300M instrument cluster, larger 300M brakes, and some other things to my
Concorde.

>>A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my
>>driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total
>>out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition ones
>>out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were
>>sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him
>>standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new
>>pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them
>>and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total out
>>value work sheet.

> Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill? What
> was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it was not on
> the car?

Prior claim? Where do you get that, and why would you assume I was
doing that. But the answer to that is no. It is exactly like I said -
the original black paint on the trim was peeling. I went to a junk yard
and got perfect conditon chrome trim (from a higher trim pacakge).
Pulled the old trim off my car a week before the accident, hadn't put
the new trim on yet, and the accident happened during that week. That's
it. So you think I was trying to defraud the insurance company. The
adjuster didn't even suggest that. He was just being an and
helping his adjustment records by fraudulently devaluing the car to the
max. By the way - that was on a Mazda - their OEM parts prices are off
the charts - and that was what he was subtracting from the vehicle value.

>>And yes - the NADA values are fraudulently low. Easily provable with real
>>market numbers and with other blue books. The banking industry uses them
>>to minimize the loan value on a car to cut their risk on collateral loans,
>>and the insurance industry uses them to cut their costs on total outs, and
>>it's fraudulent. The adjusters are trained in doing this, and no doubt
>>your freind actually believes the BS he was trained in.

> Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I don't
> see how you can call it fraudently low.

You haven't done honest real world comparisons then. Nor have you
compared the condition of the crap you find on the market and level of
maintenance. IOW - you didn't actually look at the condition of the
vehicles that were selling at the low end NADA values. You would not
want to drive a car that was actually selling for the NADA value. Well
- maybe you would, but I wouldn't.

>>Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you
>>an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of
>>buying cars"?

> I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true.

(see below where you contradict yourself on that point)

> When
> my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance company
> even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like
> make/model/etc. and their current selling price.

Well, I can't choose the quality of the insurers of the people who
destroy my cars, can I. The experiences I have had are that they refuse
to do that - they will stubbornly point to the NADA book and insist that
that is the only value thay will recognize.

>>It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out -
>>by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying
>>it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for you,
>>you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go thru
>>the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no answer
>>beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little experiment
>>and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would find one to
>>replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line (that he was
>>trained to use if he is ever challenged).
>
>
> He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your
> financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the
> accident.

Yet above, in direct response to my saying "Why do you think their
standard line when you challange them to find you an equivalent car for
the same money is 'We're not in the business of buying cars'?" you said
"I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true."
You're contradicting yourself. Now here you just said "They are only
in the business of covering your financial loss relative to the
condition of the car at the time of the accident." So which of the
contradictory things you said is true?

But that's just an obfuscation factor on their and your parts. You are
pretending to have missed where I said that I was not asking them to
find a replacement car and buy it for me. I was asking them to prove
that they could find one in the pre-accident condition of my car for the
actual selling price of the NADA valuation.

> Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with
> two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically
> differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on the
> cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those cars were
> really selling for, or more than the high end.

But because your experience is different, mine is invalid - that's what
you're saying. Next time, I will put the world in stop motion just
before he/she hits me or runs me off the road to get the credentials of
their insurer and then let him/her know whether I will allow them to
continue the accident. Geez.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>>We can disagree then. Ask your friend if he allows adders for upgrades
>>done to the car. I'm going thru this right now.

> In fact, I know he does. As well, I've experienced that with every claim
> I've ever submitted through any insurance company.

Well, then we are basing both our claims on two very opposite real
experiences. Just because your friend is ethical doesn't mean the
industry in general is. Progressive (the insurer of the other driver
that ran me off the road last week and that I had to chase down for two
miles before he stopped) is refusing to add value for *ANY*
enhancements, other than for alloy wheels - and that only because NADA
lists wheels but nothing else.

They are absolutely refusing to add for my adding higher-end OEM radio,
300M instrument cluster, larger 300M brakes, and some other things to my
Concorde.

>>A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my
>>driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total
>>out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition ones
>>out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were
>>sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him
>>standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new
>>pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them
>>and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total out
>>value work sheet.

> Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill? What
> was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it was not on
> the car?

Prior claim? Where do you get that, and why would you assume I was
doing that. But the answer to that is no. It is exactly like I said -
the original black paint on the trim was peeling. I went to a junk yard
and got perfect conditon chrome trim (from a higher trim pacakge).
Pulled the old trim off my car a week before the accident, hadn't put
the new trim on yet, and the accident happened during that week. That's
it. So you think I was trying to defraud the insurance company. The
adjuster didn't even suggest that. He was just being an and
helping his adjustment records by fraudulently devaluing the car to the
max. By the way - that was on a Mazda - their OEM parts prices are off
the charts - and that was what he was subtracting from the vehicle value.

>>And yes - the NADA values are fraudulently low. Easily provable with real
>>market numbers and with other blue books. The banking industry uses them
>>to minimize the loan value on a car to cut their risk on collateral loans,
>>and the insurance industry uses them to cut their costs on total outs, and
>>it's fraudulent. The adjusters are trained in doing this, and no doubt
>>your freind actually believes the BS he was trained in.

> Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I don't
> see how you can call it fraudently low.

You haven't done honest real world comparisons then. Nor have you
compared the condition of the crap you find on the market and level of
maintenance. IOW - you didn't actually look at the condition of the
vehicles that were selling at the low end NADA values. You would not
want to drive a car that was actually selling for the NADA value. Well
- maybe you would, but I wouldn't.

>>Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you
>>an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of
>>buying cars"?

> I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true.

(see below where you contradict yourself on that point)

> When
> my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance company
> even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like
> make/model/etc. and their current selling price.

Well, I can't choose the quality of the insurers of the people who
destroy my cars, can I. The experiences I have had are that they refuse
to do that - they will stubbornly point to the NADA book and insist that
that is the only value thay will recognize.

>>It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out -
>>by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying
>>it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for you,
>>you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go thru
>>the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no answer
>>beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little experiment
>>and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would find one to
>>replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line (that he was
>>trained to use if he is ever challenged).
>
>
> He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your
> financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the
> accident.

Yet above, in direct response to my saying "Why do you think their
standard line when you challange them to find you an equivalent car for
the same money is 'We're not in the business of buying cars'?" you said
"I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true."
You're contradicting yourself. Now here you just said "They are only
in the business of covering your financial loss relative to the
condition of the car at the time of the accident." So which of the
contradictory things you said is true?

But that's just an obfuscation factor on their and your parts. You are
pretending to have missed where I said that I was not asking them to
find a replacement car and buy it for me. I was asking them to prove
that they could find one in the pre-accident condition of my car for the
actual selling price of the NADA valuation.

> Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with
> two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically
> differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on the
> cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those cars were
> really selling for, or more than the high end.

But because your experience is different, mine is invalid - that's what
you're saying. Next time, I will put the world in stop motion just
before he/she hits me or runs me off the road to get the credentials of
their insurer and then let him/her know whether I will allow them to
continue the accident. Geez.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5m9mn6Fc6065U1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
>> news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> (snippage of an interesting thread, at least to me)
>
Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')

I'm going to delurk and put in my .02 here as insurance claims are something
I have had some prior grief with. This was a home insurance case and the
insurance adjuster who came to my home to assess water damage to my ceilings
gave me a ridiculously low estimate. A bad windstorm had damaged the roof
and allowed leakage. He allowed $900, which was a joke. I contacted my
union as I knew one of my benefits was a free 30 minute consultation with
the lawyers they had contracted for us. He told me to find out who the
representative was for my state, as ins. companys usually contract out their
assessors and they don't work directly for the ins. company. Then find out
what the monetary limit was for small claims court in my state. It was
$4000, which was more than enough to cover the damage to my home. Have the
rep. of the ins. co. subpoenaed to appear in small claims court in my
county, and to really twist the knife, pay the $15 to have the subpoena
delivered directly by the Sheriff's dept. Did some calls and found out the
closest rep. of the ins. co. was about 400 miles away in an adjoining state.
Had the Sheriff's office in the county that the rep. was located in deliver
the subpoena that I filled out in the courthouse of my home county. Shortly
thereafter, a lawyer hired by the ins. co. from the closest large city
contacted me and tried to talk me into accepting the original damage
assessment, which I refused. So, he met me in small claims court, and we
argued our sides. I had plenty of pictures and it was obvious to the most
casual observer, and certainly this magistrate, that the ins. company was
giving a ridiculously low assessment of damages. The lawyer agreed to have
the ins. co. pay for a neutral assessor to reassess the damages, which the
magistrate recommended. I was leery, but agreed, as I didn't see where I
had much choice. This other assessor came out and reassessed the damage at
a little more than $4000 and seemed a little disgusted when he saw my first
estimate. The ins. co._had_to accept that assessment. Small claims court
is a free service in my state, and I was out $20 for the fee for the
subpoena, and $15 to have it hand delivered by the Sheriff's dept.
Depending on what the monetary limits in small claims court is in your
state, it might be worth pursuing. Judging from_all_my past experiences,
ins. adjusters are a low, crawling form of insect life. But sometimes the
system works.

(relurking)

Garrett Fulton

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5m9mn6Fc6065U1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
>> news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> (snippage of an interesting thread, at least to me)
>
Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')

I'm going to delurk and put in my .02 here as insurance claims are something
I have had some prior grief with. This was a home insurance case and the
insurance adjuster who came to my home to assess water damage to my ceilings
gave me a ridiculously low estimate. A bad windstorm had damaged the roof
and allowed leakage. He allowed $900, which was a joke. I contacted my
union as I knew one of my benefits was a free 30 minute consultation with
the lawyers they had contracted for us. He told me to find out who the
representative was for my state, as ins. companys usually contract out their
assessors and they don't work directly for the ins. company. Then find out
what the monetary limit was for small claims court in my state. It was
$4000, which was more than enough to cover the damage to my home. Have the
rep. of the ins. co. subpoenaed to appear in small claims court in my
county, and to really twist the knife, pay the $15 to have the subpoena
delivered directly by the Sheriff's dept. Did some calls and found out the
closest rep. of the ins. co. was about 400 miles away in an adjoining state.
Had the Sheriff's office in the county that the rep. was located in deliver
the subpoena that I filled out in the courthouse of my home county. Shortly
thereafter, a lawyer hired by the ins. co. from the closest large city
contacted me and tried to talk me into accepting the original damage
assessment, which I refused. So, he met me in small claims court, and we
argued our sides. I had plenty of pictures and it was obvious to the most
casual observer, and certainly this magistrate, that the ins. company was
giving a ridiculously low assessment of damages. The lawyer agreed to have
the ins. co. pay for a neutral assessor to reassess the damages, which the
magistrate recommended. I was leery, but agreed, as I didn't see where I
had much choice. This other assessor came out and reassessed the damage at
a little more than $4000 and seemed a little disgusted when he saw my first
estimate. The ins. co._had_to accept that assessment. Small claims court
is a free service in my state, and I was out $20 for the fee for the
subpoena, and $15 to have it hand delivered by the Sheriff's dept.
Depending on what the monetary limits in small claims court is in your
state, it might be worth pursuing. Judging from_all_my past experiences,
ins. adjusters are a low, crawling form of insect life. But sometimes the
system works.

(relurking)

Garrett Fulton

 

"gfulton" <lbfulton@alltel.net> wrote in message
>
> I'm going to delurk and put in my .02 here as insurance claims are
> something I have had some prior grief with. This was a home insurance
> case and the insurance adjuster who came to my home to assess water damage
> to my ceilings gave me a ridiculously low estimate. A bad windstorm had
> damaged the roof and allowed leakage. He allowed $900, which was a joke.
> I contacted my union as I knew one of my benefits was a free 30 minute
> consultation with the lawyers they had contracted for us. He told me to
> find out who the representative was for my state, as ins. companys usually
> contract out their assessors and they don't work directly for the ins.
> company. Then find out what the monetary limit was for small claims court
> in my state. It was $4000, which was more than enough to cover the damage
> to my home.


Another route you can take is to hire an independent insurance adjuster to
deal with the insurance company. I know a restaurant that recently had some
damage. The insurance company offered $25000 to settle. The hired gun got
him $200,000, or which he got 5%.

 

"gfulton" <lbfulton@alltel.net> wrote in message
>
> I'm going to delurk and put in my .02 here as insurance claims are
> something I have had some prior grief with. This was a home insurance
> case and the insurance adjuster who came to my home to assess water damage
> to my ceilings gave me a ridiculously low estimate. A bad windstorm had
> damaged the roof and allowed leakage. He allowed $900, which was a joke.
> I contacted my union as I knew one of my benefits was a free 30 minute
> consultation with the lawyers they had contracted for us. He told me to
> find out who the representative was for my state, as ins. companys usually
> contract out their assessors and they don't work directly for the ins.
> company. Then find out what the monetary limit was for small claims court
> in my state. It was $4000, which was more than enough to cover the damage
> to my home.


Another route you can take is to hire an independent insurance adjuster to
deal with the insurance company. I know a restaurant that recently had some
damage. The insurance company offered $25000 to settle. The hired gun got
him $200,000, or which he got 5%.

 

The new Chrysler Multi-Displacement-System (MDS) and GM
Displacement-on-Demand systems both work the same way and have been
totally reliable. Unlike the old Cadillac V-8-6-4-(0!) system that used
electric solenoids to jam the fulcrum in and out of the rocker arms, MDS
and DoD use special lifters on 4 cylinders, and a diverter valve that
either removes or applies oil pressure to the special lifters. In one
mode, they collapse preventing the valves from opening, in the other
mode they open the valves normally. The change takes milliseconds, is
almost undetectable to the driver, and the only electrical involvement
is to operate a small oil valve, not large solenoids. The oil does the
"heavy lifting" so the system is very reliable.




Chevy Man wrote:
> Went to buy a new chevy avalanche. Found out they had a motor that cuts off
> 4 cylinders at highway speeds. After remembering the cadillac 4-6-8 engine.
> I decided against a new chevy. Not just dull, not what I wanted.
>
> "Ed" <fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in message
> news:00ff751da8e1a84cdf3cd3f1e434e6b0@msgid.frell. theremailer.net...
>
>>"New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the
>>housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect
>>boredom.
>>
>>"Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..."
>>
>>Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7
>>
>
>
>

 

The new Chrysler Multi-Displacement-System (MDS) and GM
Displacement-on-Demand systems both work the same way and have been
totally reliable. Unlike the old Cadillac V-8-6-4-(0!) system that used
electric solenoids to jam the fulcrum in and out of the rocker arms, MDS
and DoD use special lifters on 4 cylinders, and a diverter valve that
either removes or applies oil pressure to the special lifters. In one
mode, they collapse preventing the valves from opening, in the other
mode they open the valves normally. The change takes milliseconds, is
almost undetectable to the driver, and the only electrical involvement
is to operate a small oil valve, not large solenoids. The oil does the
"heavy lifting" so the system is very reliable.




Chevy Man wrote:
> Went to buy a new chevy avalanche. Found out they had a motor that cuts off
> 4 cylinders at highway speeds. After remembering the cadillac 4-6-8 engine.
> I decided against a new chevy. Not just dull, not what I wanted.
>
> "Ed" <fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in message
> news:00ff751da8e1a84cdf3cd3f1e434e6b0@msgid.frell. theremailer.net...
>
>>"New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the
>>housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect
>>boredom.
>>
>>"Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..."
>>
>>Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7
>>
>
>
>