Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "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...
>>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> Well of course they are. Your not their customer and they don't owe you
> anything beyond what the minimum the law requires.

Yes - ethicaly and legally they owe me the fair market value of the car
based on several things. And that's exactly what they are not doing.

> And if there were no
> witnesses, then Progressive is having to take you at your word as for the
> damage their policy holder caused - and you can certainly imagine their
> policyholder is claiming that the damage is minimal.

No - they (*both* insurance companies) have him on tape admitting fault.
Plus the deputy's witnessing him taking responsibility at the location
where he finally pulled over when the deputy was getting our statements.

> You said you chased him down - did you call the cops? Did he get cited
> for failing to stop at an accident? If not, then looking at it from
> Progressive's POV, you
> could be lying through your teeth.

That part is not an issue - at all. One complication is that the deputy
could not tell which county the accident happened in, so he did not file
an official report. Though his insurance company has already paid to
put the mail box back up. Believe me - the fault of the other driver
and the precise damage caused to my car by his forcing me off the road
is not an issue.

> Just as if you hit someone else, and they made a claim against you, your
> insurance company would nickel-and-dime their claim.

They shouldn't.

> Insurance companies are in the business of acting to protect their
> policyholders.

Funny thing - this is Progressive - the company whose CEO is a huge
contributor to the DNC. You know - the people who complain all the time
about "big business" always screwing the little guy.

> And you as a policyholder would be incensed if you hit someone's piece of
> car old beater and they got your insurance company to give them a brand
> new car. If insurance companies regularly did stuff like this, then people
> would
> be scamming them all the time and premiums would go through the roof.

But that's not what is happening here. I only ask for a fair
settlement. It's not as difficult as they want to make it seem.

>>>>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.
>
>
> Well, that is your fault.

Funny - according to Mr. Marlowe, I'm paranoid ("You seem to feel you
are targeted by the world"). According to you, I'm too trusting for
someone to do the right thing. It never occured to me that he would
subtract out, not only the cost of the parts that I had two of sitting
on the bench, but the 100% new OEM Mazda dealer part cost. That was
just way beyond unreasonable.

> When my wife's minivan was rear-ended a few years ago, one of the things
> that
> was busted was the taillight. Naturally this made it unsafe to drive so I
> bought a
> replacement taillight the following day from a wrecker to use while she was
> driving
> it around while we were waiting for the body shop schedule to open up.
> (this one
> was a real hit and run, the cops came and all of that) The day I took the
> van in to
> the shop (where it was estimated) I made sure to replace the taillight with
> the busted
> one before estimate. Then after the estimate and when the repair work was
> being
> done I gave the shop the good tailight and that was set against the
> deductible with full
> OEM value. Of course I hadn't paid full OEM value to the wrecker.
>
>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> In which case you get your own appraisal and call their bluff in court.
>
> Your a car guy Bill, you know how to access car forums. If you had done
> so at the time you would have been told how to act and how to handle
> the adjusters and what to expect. Then you would have put the trim on
> and gotten credit for it,

I guess I'm too honest and trusting that the adjuster was a reasonable
and honest person (as opposed to paranoid as Mike seems to think). I
bet if I had told someone "Hey - I've got to get home right away and put
the trim back on the car before the adjuster gets there!", on one hand,
one person would be telling me I was just being paranoid by thinking the
adjuster would do such a dishonest thing, and another person would be
telling me that that would be commiting fraud. You know - you just
can't win. You can't please anyone. So rather than try to, I try to do
the right thing.

> and this time around if you follow the advice we
> are giving you you'll do the small claims thing.
>
> It's pointless for you to get all upset about the tens of thousands of other
> car owners out there who get in accidents and get suckered into taking
> a low value for a total. Those people are adults and can choose to come
> to car forums and ask for advice. They don't and so they don't do the
> court route and they get screwed. Their choice. You ought to be happy
> since their rolling over and taking it up the **** is keeping the premiums
> lower for those of us who know how to handle these issues.

I'm not sure you're characterizing me correctly, but OK.

>> 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.
>>
>
>
> That's not their job.

Do I believe you or do I believe Mike, and which of his contradictroy
statements on that subject do I go by. According to Mike, 99% of people
in my situation get treated fairly. According to you, it's their job
and primary goal to try to screw me. Which one of you do I listen to?

It's a facetious question on my part. I know what I need to do.

> Their job is to protect the interests of their
> policyholders
> and stockholders and try to pay out as little as possible. It's your job to
> prove what they are offering is too low - something that is simple enough
> that
> we would expect someone with your level of intelligence to be able to do it
> in
> your sleep.

Mike disagrees with you. Again - which one of you do I listen to (he
said with his tongue in his cheek)?

>>>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.
>
>
> He didn't say if he was claiming on his own policy or that of another
> insurers.
>
> If he had comprehensive insurance (which most people do who own financed
> cars, or cars that are worth a lot of money) then if he was hit he would
> make
> the claim against his own policy and his insurance company would go after
> the other driver's policy. Since the other driver would be declared to be
> at
> fault, such a claim wouldn't be set against his own policy and would not
> cause
> his premiums to rise. And of course his own insurance company is going to
> make sure he is happy in how the claim was handled.
>
> You (obviously) carry liability only on your own vehicle. So do I, by the
> way.

No - I carry full coverage *because* I know the value of my car, and I
drive it 80 miles a day, so my exposure (chances for an unavoidable
accident) is high - or statistically much higher than if I only drove,
say, 5 or 10 miles a day. I pay for full coverage because I expect the
car to be repaired to pre-accident condition at someone else's (whoever
caused the accident's) expense and not totalled out based on
non-applicable valuations based on me-too cars.

> Both of us are saving a ton of money because we are doing that. The
> difference
> however is that I have accepted the fact that if I get hit, I will have to
> fight
> the other insurance company for a fair payment - this is the price of the
> money
> savings I am having by not carrying comprehensive. This doesen't bother me
> much since I tend not to own vehicles worth more than a few thousand bucks,
> and when I fight over my nickles with the insurance companies of people
> who hit me, it's not worth it to the other insurance company to pay out for
> a lawyer to fight me back.

But I maintain my vehicles at an extremely high level, and I augment
them with safety as well as comfort upgrades that all go into their
*true* market value (not NADA generic low-ball values).


> You obviously have not accepted this. -

Because I don't do that. You have obviously misjudged me because you
are saying I do what I have not done (as far as coverage).

> perhaps you need to re-evaulate whether liability-only is the correct
> insurance
> product for you to carry.

It's not. Possibly you just made my point.

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:5mdkh1FcosrvU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>

> No - I just see insurance companies pulling crap that most people don't
> know enough about to even realize they're being taken advantage of. If
> that makes me paranoid (I think that's what you described without using
> the word), then so be it.

I suspect we can agree that we've either had differing experiences with
insurance companies, or perceived those experiences to be different.

>>
>>
>> No contradiction below.
>
> Read your two paragraphs again about the exact same statement of mine.
>
> Here it is again: In response to my claiming they say '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." Then, regarding my same statement, you
> 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." Those
> are contradictory statements regaring the same statement of mine.

You wouldn't be confused by what you see as a contradiction if you read my
comments completely before inserting replies that totally ignore things I've
said. Below, I had already explained to you that you misunderstood my
earlier reply, and that I was talking about experiencing attitudes from an
adjuster, not about his responsibility to find you a car.


>
> Yes - in this situation. Surely I am not the only one here who has
> experienced this (and I'll quit calling you Shirley now).

Well... it is better than being called late for dinner.


>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>
>> This is getting tiring. Let me explain since you clearly didn't try to
>> understand yourself. I was stating that I had never encountered the
>> attitude you spoke of - in fact I receive quite the opposite attitude.
>> Ever think it might have to do with how you present yourself

See?

>
> No. And you don't know how I conducted myself. I gave them opportunity
> to make an honest evaluation without assuming anything. Then I started
> asking questions.
>
>>>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.

Never pretended to miss anything Bill. Even told you that I receive print
outs of like cars in the area when they total one.

>>
>>
>> Which commonly proves to be no problem for 99% of the car buying public
>> on a daily basis.
>
> 99%? I *seriously* doubt that "statistic". I'd maybe believe 60%, with
> another 15% not realizing they're being taken.

Confession - I pulled that number out of mu butt. But - even though it's an
unsubstantiated number, I bet the real value is closer to my number than to
yours (60%).

>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No Bill - I said no such thing.
>
> Only if you accept that I am in a very small 1% of the majority - that my
> experience is extremely atypical. I seriously doubt that.

Huh??? Our experiences do indeed differ, but at no time did I suggest yours
was invalid. That's the part of your comments that I was speaking of, which
you called paranoid. I've never said your experience or your opinion was
invalid. I've simply put factual experiences on the table.


--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5mdkh1FcosrvU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>

> No - I just see insurance companies pulling crap that most people don't
> know enough about to even realize they're being taken advantage of. If
> that makes me paranoid (I think that's what you described without using
> the word), then so be it.

I suspect we can agree that we've either had differing experiences with
insurance companies, or perceived those experiences to be different.

>>
>>
>> No contradiction below.
>
> Read your two paragraphs again about the exact same statement of mine.
>
> Here it is again: In response to my claiming they say '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." Then, regarding my same statement, you
> 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." Those
> are contradictory statements regaring the same statement of mine.

You wouldn't be confused by what you see as a contradiction if you read my
comments completely before inserting replies that totally ignore things I've
said. Below, I had already explained to you that you misunderstood my
earlier reply, and that I was talking about experiencing attitudes from an
adjuster, not about his responsibility to find you a car.


>
> Yes - in this situation. Surely I am not the only one here who has
> experienced this (and I'll quit calling you Shirley now).

Well... it is better than being called late for dinner.


>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>
>> This is getting tiring. Let me explain since you clearly didn't try to
>> understand yourself. I was stating that I had never encountered the
>> attitude you spoke of - in fact I receive quite the opposite attitude.
>> Ever think it might have to do with how you present yourself

See?

>
> No. And you don't know how I conducted myself. I gave them opportunity
> to make an honest evaluation without assuming anything. Then I started
> asking questions.
>
>>>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.

Never pretended to miss anything Bill. Even told you that I receive print
outs of like cars in the area when they total one.

>>
>>
>> Which commonly proves to be no problem for 99% of the car buying public
>> on a daily basis.
>
> 99%? I *seriously* doubt that "statistic". I'd maybe believe 60%, with
> another 15% not realizing they're being taken.

Confession - I pulled that number out of mu butt. But - even though it's an
unsubstantiated number, I bet the real value is closer to my number than to
yours (60%).

>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No Bill - I said no such thing.
>
> Only if you accept that I am in a very small 1% of the majority - that my
> experience is extremely atypical. I seriously doubt that.

Huh??? Our experiences do indeed differ, but at no time did I suggest yours
was invalid. That's the part of your comments that I was speaking of, which
you called paranoid. I've never said your experience or your opinion was
invalid. I've simply put factual experiences on the table.


--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5mdmrtFd0ukpU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>

>> Well of course they are. Your not their customer and they don't owe you
>> anything beyond what the minimum the law requires.
>
> Yes - ethicaly and legally they owe me the fair market value of the car
> based on several things. And that's exactly what they are not doing.

That is indeed what they owe you. They probably can deduct for the trim,
just like they could deduct if a fender had been missing before the
accident. Deducting full OEM value is something I too would question as
well - but I'd be talking to my own carrier, who is paid to have my interest
at heart, so to speak.



>
> Funny - according to Mr. Marlowe,

No "e" in Marlow

>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's not their job.
>
> Do I believe you or do I believe Mike, and which of his contradictroy
> statements on that subject do I go by. According to Mike, 99% of people
> in my situation get treated fairly. According to you, it's their job and
> primary goal to try to screw me. Which one of you do I listen to?

Actually Bill - what I was referring to with my 99% comment was the number
of people who find NADA values to retty well represent the real world. The
comment that you had made, and which I replied to suggested (and had
previously been argued by you), that it was not possible to actually fid
cars at NADA prices. My comment was that 99% of the population does not
have this problem with NADA.


>
>> Their job is to protect the interests of their
>> policyholders
>> and stockholders and try to pay out as little as possible. It's your job
>> to
>> prove what they are offering is too low - something that is simple enough
>> that
>> we would expect someone with your level of intelligence to be able to do
>> it
>> in
>> your sleep.
>
> Mike disagrees with you. Again - which one of you do I listen to (he said
> with his tongue in his cheek)?


Huh??? Bill - you don't paint pictures vey well. You really should not try
to use my words which you misunderstood (even upon explanation). My comment
does not disagree with Ted's.



--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5mdmrtFd0ukpU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>

>> Well of course they are. Your not their customer and they don't owe you
>> anything beyond what the minimum the law requires.
>
> Yes - ethicaly and legally they owe me the fair market value of the car
> based on several things. And that's exactly what they are not doing.

That is indeed what they owe you. They probably can deduct for the trim,
just like they could deduct if a fender had been missing before the
accident. Deducting full OEM value is something I too would question as
well - but I'd be talking to my own carrier, who is paid to have my interest
at heart, so to speak.



>
> Funny - according to Mr. Marlowe,

No "e" in Marlow

>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's not their job.
>
> Do I believe you or do I believe Mike, and which of his contradictroy
> statements on that subject do I go by. According to Mike, 99% of people
> in my situation get treated fairly. According to you, it's their job and
> primary goal to try to screw me. Which one of you do I listen to?

Actually Bill - what I was referring to with my 99% comment was the number
of people who find NADA values to retty well represent the real world. The
comment that you had made, and which I replied to suggested (and had
previously been argued by you), that it was not possible to actually fid
cars at NADA prices. My comment was that 99% of the population does not
have this problem with NADA.


>
>> Their job is to protect the interests of their
>> policyholders
>> and stockholders and try to pay out as little as possible. It's your job
>> to
>> prove what they are offering is too low - something that is simple enough
>> that
>> we would expect someone with your level of intelligence to be able to do
>> it
>> in
>> your sleep.
>
> Mike disagrees with you. Again - which one of you do I listen to (he said
> with his tongue in his cheek)?


Huh??? Bill - you don't paint pictures vey well. You really should not try
to use my words which you misunderstood (even upon explanation). My comment
does not disagree with Ted's.



--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> ...Actually Bill - what I was referring to with my 99% comment was the number
> of people who find NADA values to retty well represent the real world. The
> comment that you had made, and which I replied to suggested (and had
> previously been argued by you), that it was not possible to actually fid
> cars at NADA prices...

Park my car (in its pre-accident condition) beside the crap you find for
sale at the NADA value and then tell me they are equivalent. I have
shopped for the NADA value before - they are absolute junkers -
mechanically and aesthetically. *That's* my point. Also - why isn't
the KBB value (which I find to more truly represent the real market)
just as valid as NADA? That, in a nutshell, is what I mean by
fraudulently low.

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

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> ...Actually Bill - what I was referring to with my 99% comment was the number
> of people who find NADA values to retty well represent the real world. The
> comment that you had made, and which I replied to suggested (and had
> previously been argued by you), that it was not possible to actually fid
> cars at NADA prices...

Park my car (in its pre-accident condition) beside the crap you find for
sale at the NADA value and then tell me they are equivalent. I have
shopped for the NADA value before - they are absolute junkers -
mechanically and aesthetically. *That's* my point. Also - why isn't
the KBB value (which I find to more truly represent the real market)
just as valid as NADA? That, in a nutshell, is what I mean by
fraudulently low.

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:5mehqoFcm02fU1@mid.individual.net...

>
> Park my car (in its pre-accident condition) beside the crap you find for
> sale at the NADA value and then tell me they are equivalent. I have
> shopped for the NADA value before - they are absolute junkers -
> mechanically and aesthetically. *That's* my point. Also - why isn't the
> KBB value (which I find to more truly represent the real market) just as
> valid as NADA? That, in a nutshell, is what I mean by fraudulently low.

I don't know anything about your cars Bill, so I can't comment. I get the
impression you my add quite a few aftermarket things to your cars, in which
case NADA would not be accurate for you, but only because it does not adress
added equipment. The adjuster should be adding for these things though.
Most people, dealers, insurance companies, etc. do not adhere to KBB. It
does not have the representation for standard values that NADA does. Like
you, I keep my cars in top mechanical condition and I keep the bodies up as
well. I don't throw much aftermarket stuff at my cars though. If NADA was
so low, you'd see all vehicles selling for significantly more than NADA, and
I just don't see that.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5mehqoFcm02fU1@mid.individual.net...

>
> Park my car (in its pre-accident condition) beside the crap you find for
> sale at the NADA value and then tell me they are equivalent. I have
> shopped for the NADA value before - they are absolute junkers -
> mechanically and aesthetically. *That's* my point. Also - why isn't the
> KBB value (which I find to more truly represent the real market) just as
> valid as NADA? That, in a nutshell, is what I mean by fraudulently low.

I don't know anything about your cars Bill, so I can't comment. I get the
impression you my add quite a few aftermarket things to your cars, in which
case NADA would not be accurate for you, but only because it does not adress
added equipment. The adjuster should be adding for these things though.
Most people, dealers, insurance companies, etc. do not adhere to KBB. It
does not have the representation for standard values that NADA does. Like
you, I keep my cars in top mechanical condition and I keep the bodies up as
well. I don't throw much aftermarket stuff at my cars though. If NADA was
so low, you'd see all vehicles selling for significantly more than NADA, and
I just don't see that.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5mdmrtFd0ukpU1@mid.individual.net...

> >
> > You (obviously) carry liability only on your own vehicle. So do I, by
the
> > way.
>
> No - I carry full coverage *because* I know the value of my car, and I
> drive it 80 miles a day, so my exposure (chances for an unavoidable
> accident) is high - or statistically much higher than if I only drove,
> say, 5 or 10 miles a day. I pay for full coverage because I expect the
> car to be repaired to pre-accident condition at someone else's (whoever
> caused the accident's) expense and not totalled out based on
> non-applicable valuations based on me-too cars.

Then why on Earth are you even bothering with this? Call your insurance
agent and have him handle it. Seriously! Unless you live in one of those
God-awful "no-fault" insurance states, your paying comprehensive on the
car entitles you to have your insurance agent go to bat for you.

I expect to fight my own battles because I don't carry comprehensive. But
I wouldn't dream that someone carrying comprehensive would try arguing
with another insurance company - what would be the point of even buying
comprehensive at all?

Ted

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5mdmrtFd0ukpU1@mid.individual.net...

> >
> > You (obviously) carry liability only on your own vehicle. So do I, by
the
> > way.
>
> No - I carry full coverage *because* I know the value of my car, and I
> drive it 80 miles a day, so my exposure (chances for an unavoidable
> accident) is high - or statistically much higher than if I only drove,
> say, 5 or 10 miles a day. I pay for full coverage because I expect the
> car to be repaired to pre-accident condition at someone else's (whoever
> caused the accident's) expense and not totalled out based on
> non-applicable valuations based on me-too cars.

Then why on Earth are you even bothering with this? Call your insurance
agent and have him handle it. Seriously! Unless you live in one of those
God-awful "no-fault" insurance states, your paying comprehensive on the
car entitles you to have your insurance agent go to bat for you.

I expect to fight my own battles because I don't carry comprehensive. But
I wouldn't dream that someone carrying comprehensive would try arguing
with another insurance company - what would be the point of even buying
comprehensive at all?

Ted

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5mehqoFcm02fU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> > ...Actually Bill - what I was referring to with my 99% comment was the
number
> > of people who find NADA values to retty well represent the real world.
The
> > comment that you had made, and which I replied to suggested (and had
> > previously been argued by you), that it was not possible to actually fid
> > cars at NADA prices...
>
> Park my car (in its pre-accident condition) beside the crap you find for
> sale at the NADA value and then tell me they are equivalent. I have
> shopped for the NADA value before - they are absolute junkers -
> mechanically and aesthetically. *That's* my point. Also - why isn't
> the KBB value (which I find to more truly represent the real market)
> just as valid as NADA? That, in a nutshell, is what I mean by
> fraudulently low.
>

One thing more I'll point out here is the principle of the pearl in
the mud. This usually applies to home sales. The idea is that if
you own a home in a crummy neighborhood, and you dump a huge
amount of money into fixing it up really nicely, when sale time
comes your not going to get as much for it as you put into it.

Conversely if you own a piece of crap home in a really nice
neighborhood, you will get more money for it than you put into it.

Most people, unfortunately, don't maintain their cars real well. So
when sale time comes, the few cars on the market that were maintained
really well, don't fetch as much as they should. As a seller your
competing with all the other same model and same year cars out there
as yours for sale, and all of the rest of the sellers can easily afford to
undercut you and still make more money than you since their cost
on maintainence is a lot lower than yours.

This is just the unfortunate facts of life. If your one who drives cars
until they are used up, this shouldn't bother you since your benefiting
from the advantages of a better maintained car. But if you don't, or
you have an accident, then you are going to get caught by this.

An understanding insurance agent, plus a folder full of receipts for
parts and labor, can go a long way towards helping.

Ted

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5mehqoFcm02fU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> > ...Actually Bill - what I was referring to with my 99% comment was the
number
> > of people who find NADA values to retty well represent the real world.
The
> > comment that you had made, and which I replied to suggested (and had
> > previously been argued by you), that it was not possible to actually fid
> > cars at NADA prices...
>
> Park my car (in its pre-accident condition) beside the crap you find for
> sale at the NADA value and then tell me they are equivalent. I have
> shopped for the NADA value before - they are absolute junkers -
> mechanically and aesthetically. *That's* my point. Also - why isn't
> the KBB value (which I find to more truly represent the real market)
> just as valid as NADA? That, in a nutshell, is what I mean by
> fraudulently low.
>

One thing more I'll point out here is the principle of the pearl in
the mud. This usually applies to home sales. The idea is that if
you own a home in a crummy neighborhood, and you dump a huge
amount of money into fixing it up really nicely, when sale time
comes your not going to get as much for it as you put into it.

Conversely if you own a piece of crap home in a really nice
neighborhood, you will get more money for it than you put into it.

Most people, unfortunately, don't maintain their cars real well. So
when sale time comes, the few cars on the market that were maintained
really well, don't fetch as much as they should. As a seller your
competing with all the other same model and same year cars out there
as yours for sale, and all of the rest of the sellers can easily afford to
undercut you and still make more money than you since their cost
on maintainence is a lot lower than yours.

This is just the unfortunate facts of life. If your one who drives cars
until they are used up, this shouldn't bother you since your benefiting
from the advantages of a better maintained car. But if you don't, or
you have an accident, then you are going to get caught by this.

An understanding insurance agent, plus a folder full of receipts for
parts and labor, can go a long way towards helping.

Ted

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5mdkh1FcosrvU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> In the process of doing so now. Also threatening them with small claims
> court (I am told that I would sue their customer, not the insurance
> company

This is I think hogwash.

If the policy holder was under an insurance policy the insurer is legally
obligated to pay out on any claims. Why they would want you to sue
the policyholder is rediculous. All their policyholder has to do is go into
court and put up zero defense and immediately acquiece to all of your
claims, and the insurance company is on the hook for everything you
demand. Why would he spend the money arguing with you - it's not
his money that will be paying your claim, it's his insurance company.

I think you are really and truly wasting your time talking to Progressive.
Clearly the Progressive agent is just making up bullshit and shitting you
along in hopes you will get tired and just go away. Your first mistake
was talking to Progressive at all. Just call your agent, file a claim on
your own policy, and let your agent deal with the baloney.

Ted

 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:5mdkh1FcosrvU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> In the process of doing so now. Also threatening them with small claims
> court (I am told that I would sue their customer, not the insurance
> company

This is I think hogwash.

If the policy holder was under an insurance policy the insurer is legally
obligated to pay out on any claims. Why they would want you to sue
the policyholder is rediculous. All their policyholder has to do is go into
court and put up zero defense and immediately acquiece to all of your
claims, and the insurance company is on the hook for everything you
demand. Why would he spend the money arguing with you - it's not
his money that will be paying your claim, it's his insurance company.

I think you are really and truly wasting your time talking to Progressive.
Clearly the Progressive agent is just making up bullshit and shitting you
along in hopes you will get tired and just go away. Your first mistake
was talking to Progressive at all. Just call your agent, file a claim on
your own policy, and let your agent deal with the baloney.

Ted