Insurance company WANTS to pay out $7200 claim?
- Thread starter Blagoje
- Start date
- Status
The thing that concerns me most about the potential repair and return of the vehicle is that $6000 of the damage is located on the underbody in the area of the engine and transmission. Even if it is repaired as currently intended, based on my past experiences, I am extremely paranoid about long term issues developing that would currently be unresolved. At this juncture those issues may not be able to be diagnosed properly but after the fact what recourse do we really have?
I had a 2001 Honda Civic that I purchased new and got into a t-bone accident in which someone ran through an intersection in front of me. That did $9200 worth of damage to a car that retailed for about $15,000 brand new. My insurance company did not total the car, they instead had it repaired and I only came to find out after the repairs were completed that several things that were damaged were not repaired properly and several issues arose as a result that caused me to have to have it in the shop to receive further frequent repairs over the course of the two additional years that I was in possession of the car before trading it in.
At the end of that debacle I do look back and wonder if the original repair estimate included all the additional repairs that I had to have completed after the original repair, would the vehicle have been deemed a total loss originally? Doing the math informs one that it is a simple and resounding YES. In the current situation this is what I am seeking to avoid.
I had a 2001 Honda Civic that I purchased new and got into a t-bone accident in which someone ran through an intersection in front of me. That did $9200 worth of damage to a car that retailed for about $15,000 brand new. My insurance company did not total the car, they instead had it repaired and I only came to find out after the repairs were completed that several things that were damaged were not repaired properly and several issues arose as a result that caused me to have to have it in the shop to receive further frequent repairs over the course of the two additional years that I was in possession of the car before trading it in.
At the end of that debacle I do look back and wonder if the original repair estimate included all the additional repairs that I had to have completed after the original repair, would the vehicle have been deemed a total loss originally? Doing the math informs one that it is a simple and resounding YES. In the current situation this is what I am seeking to avoid.
Chances are per the insurance contract the insurer has the option to repair the vehicle back to pre-accident condition. They can also total it, but it would cost them a lot more it would seem.
Do they get to use third-party parts?
Do they get to choose "just anyone" or do they have to use a good shop?
Do shops hate dealing with Insurance Adjusters?
I've seen MANY cars that look really new after some kind of either major or high-dollar wreck. Sometimes, they have something stupidly wrong with them, like gas door sticks or something like that. Or of you look at paint from exactly one way. Otherwise you wouldn't even know anything happened ..
It has to be fixed to perform correctly. If the gas door sticks, it needs to be addressed and fixed after the fact.
Different states have different rules regarding 3rd party parts. If the insurance contract in connection with any state requirements allow 3rd party parts, then that is what you will get.
The insurers will recommend one or more shops, usually ones that they know will fix it so that it doesn't require any follow-ups. I believe in most states you can choose your own shop with some restrictions related to the prevailing market prices for such repairs.
Not a perfect system, but it is what it is.
- Status
Similar threads
