Bugout4x4

Yep, ain't nothing ever free. And when the Government gets their hands in the mix it becomes extortion. And there is always a bunch of opportunists ready to jump on the bandwagon to scam and profit from the extortion.

wingless

You do what you want, but my license had 2.5M accident-free miles before coming to Florida, where I was rear-ended twice when the highway travel lanes came to a stop, but the person behind me didn't.

My experience is now that the obtuse idiots sitting behind the high-speed vehicle steering wheel pointed at stopped traffic eventually "wake up" to the stopped travel lane traffic because of the flashing hazard lights in their path.


It would be impossible to pay me enough to provide roadside assistance.

Lights on / lights off, vehicles on the side of the road are going to get hit.

Please be safe!

dave1123

I'd like to add my 2 cents. Our local police have blue and red zenon flashers on their light bars in the rear that you CAN NOT see past if they are ahead of you with a vehicle stopped! Standard procedure is to stop a car with the police car's center parallel with the stopped vehicles left hand side with their spotlight in the vehicle's side mirror. One night, in the village, where the speed limit is 30 mph, I slowly crept past a police car with his light bar on and at the last minute had to slam on my brakes to avoid the police car's door being wide open! I couldn't have been going more that 5 mph, but could not see that door! There could have been an officer standing there and I would not have seen him either. It's a 2 lane roadway on a curve so I couldn't swing over to the other lane without seeing what's coming the other way. I was far enough over to probably not hit that door, but it startled me enough to make me over react. There was an officer sitting in the driver's seat and he started to get out, but I left before he could say anything.

Bugout4x4

Thank you! I am now just about completely out of that occupation at this point, too many close calls over the years even in the daytime. It is a war zone out there, and I know I have been very lucky all these years to still be alive. I'm out while I'm still breathing. Over 40 years of working on the side of the road is enough.

Poodle Head Mikey

This conclusion is not accurate. I do have only liability insurance on my Jeep. But the collision was someone running straight into the back of me. Therefore I have neither fault nor lability and so all costs will ultimately be paid by the insurance on the car which hit me. It is The Other Person's Insurance Company that is totaling my Jeep.

And there is no rear hatch required - the exterior of the Jeep is clean, waxed, spotless, and straight. There are two small dents into the bottom of the frame rails about 10" in from the rear bumper. Without the hitch bolted on there is Zero evidence of any damage. <g>

As much as it annoys me to do it: I decided I'm going to take the $1516. - as it's more money than I have in the Jeep - and hassling with all this crap Ain't My Job. It seems completely retarted that a nice GC: new engine and transmission, new cooling system, new battery, new brakes, and etc. is going off for scrap - but I'm done tilting at windmills. <g>

PHM
-----------

Bugout4x4

Man...Well if that's all it did then I would indeed get the salvage title and buy it back. You could go right down the next day and have the state inspection done to put it right back on the road again. I thought there was some extensive damage considering that they had "totalled" it.

Poodle Head Mikey

There are two small dents upward - each about the size of your index finger but not that deep - about 10-12" in from the rear ends of the frame rail/boxes. At that point nothing is supported by the frame boxes except the rear bumper.

I offered to write the insurance company and the DMV a detailed engineering analysis. Eff you pal was their response.

I was told much the same thing by the FL DMV salvage repair inspection people. I was pointedly and repeatedly told that they are a "re-inspection" agency - not an "inspection" agency. So they refuse to act pre-emptively - they will not inspect until After the frame is replaced. Which makes them effectively a dead end. Again, essentially; eff you pal.

Three options:

1. Let them total the vehicle and take it away for scrap
2. Let them issue a salvage / un-repairable title and keep it as a yard ornament.
3. Pay a certified frame repairer to repair the vehicle and jump through the bureaucratic hoops to be allowed to register it again.

I'll choose Option One and to go about this a different way. I'm just a player here - they made the rules that I am now going to play by.

PHM
----------

Bugout4x4

I see what you are up against. It all comes from the predisposed definition of the word "Totaled". To the state it all of a sudden just became a ball of unsafe, undrivable scrap metal. When it is actually only about the insurance company cutting costs. Don't think for a minute that insurance companies didn't lobby state legislature to create this catch 22 situation. They should be made to prove it is "also" unsafe and undrivable totally separate from value and costs before forcing this bureaucratic hardship on owners.

Poodle Head Mikey

I didn't ask for this fight. And you don't get to start with me and then afterwards complain that you should get Queensberry Rules. Hell; maybe I'll buy a new Jeep when this all wraps up.

Insurance Companies should be made to live up to their mandate. The legal phrase they are supposed to live by is: Make Whole. Which means to make it like it never happened / put everything back to pre-accident circumstance. That is what we pay them to do. I did not do anything wrong or negligent - yet I am the one being made to suffer the most. There is something just fundamentally wrong about that.

PHM
---------

Bugout4x4

Absolutely... There are no options for appeal is the problem. Their word is the last word and there are no consumer rights protections in place to prevent or argue against it. It can be compared to the current justice system. Appointed representation is on their side and not interested in actually defending your real interests and the only option they afford you is a plea bargain.

And buying a new Jeep is exactly what both parties against you hope will happen. This way THEY ALL win in higher fees, taxes and insurance rates collected. At that point I would think even the car companies are all in for supporting this situation also. It is wrong...and this scam needs to be addressed in every state legislature.

Bugout4x4

And know what else? Here they are being petty over a few dollars and unwilling to change the "totaled" classification when in reality you might have been injured and hitting them with a settlement for 50k or more. They should feel very fortunate to give you a few token bucks and not total it considering the circumstances.

dave1123

The way I see it if they total it, they should pay you what it's worth on the open market BUT YOU RETAIN OWNERSHIP! They can give you a salvage title and you can repair it, get it inspected, and register it if the repairs meet state standards, BUT YOU SHOULD STILL OWN IT. They'll never give you what it's worth as in NADA Blue Book, but what NADA Red Book for collision shops says it's worth.

Here's a story that might help. When my 67 Camaro was totaled in 1972, my insurance company gave me $850 for it. In order to retain ownership, I had to pay them $1 more than the body shops would buy the wreck for. That was $200. I parted it out and wound up with 3 times the $201 I spent to keep it. After I had stripped it, the body shop still bought it for $50!

Bugout4x4

Lol... That's what I was thinking, I would sell it to them, but all they would get was an empty shell with a VIN number still attached.

dave1123

That's about all they got! They got the rear seat, dash, and the 2 doors out of it! Oh, and the rear sheet metal.

extrashaky

Actually it's not. They are required to make you whole financially. They aren't required to make it as if it never happened. They are required to return you to the point where your financial loss is $0. It's reduced to financial elements because it would be ridiculously expensive and completely unworkable to have insurance that was based on the return of actual physical objects, and none of us would have insurance at all if that's how it worked.

You have a vehicle that was worth $1000. They are required to compensate you for that amount, plus tax, tag and title, to bring your financial loss back to $0. They're not required to pay out more than the vehicle was worth.

From a financial standpoint, the solution is simple. They can pay out $3000 to a body shop to repair the vehicle so that you once again have a $1000 asset. Or they can pay you the $1000 plus extras so that you have a $1000 asset in cash. Either way, you're made whole. Why should they pay an extra $2000 for the exact same financial result?

You're not alone here. Most people don't really understand that insurance is a financial instrument. It doesn't pay out in houses, cars, health, life, etc. It pays out in money, because it's a hedge against the financial loss associated with the value of the physical loss. It still sucks to lose a car, but it's a lot easier to handle once you get rid of these unrealistic expectations.

There's a really simple and easy 4th option. Just withdraw the claim and have it fixed at your own expense or drive it like it is. Or just refuse to settle and let the claim expire. The only reason your title is in jeopardy is because you're negotiating with the insurance company. If they're not involved, nobody else is waiting to come take the title to your vehicle, and your title is not impaired.

You're not trapped. They're not taking your car away from you by force. You're asking them to pay you money, and to get it you would have to play by the established rules. If you don't want to play by those rules, you can always withdraw from the game.

That's not true at all. Their "word" isn't binding until you agree to the settlement. If you can't reach a settlement with them, you can always sue the insurance company if you think they aren't treating you fairly. In this case he would lose, because they're treating him fairly from a financial standpoint.