Bugout4x4

Here's the real situation, If a state is going to force you to carry insurance, then there should indeed be some additional appeal and consumer rights protections against the extortion coming from these insurance companies. How would they feel if the rates were capped at total premiums due based on blue book value? Once you reach blue book value you are covered with no further payments until the policy is renewed and then the premium goes down along with the blue book value of the vehicle. This is pretty much the one sided position they are placing us into.

extrashaky

While I wouldn't ever suggest filing a false claim, just speaking theoretically here you always have more leverage with a claims adjuster when you also have a medical claim involved. Medical claims are tricky because it's very difficult to put a monetary value on pain. Insurance companies hate them.

The medical claim is filed separately from the damage claim, but it gives you more to negotiate and therefore provides leverage. That's why a lawyer will usually send you to a chiropractor or doc in the box right away, to get your injury documented. When the insurance company starts giving you crap about the damage claim, a personal injury attorney will start pushing the medical claim, and vice versa.

I had back strain when I was rear-ended. As soon as I told the adjuster I would need to file for my chiropractor bills, the tone changed dramatically, and suddenly she was a lot more cooperative with the repair side as well.

That's the way it's supposed to work in Florida. A salvage title is supposed to allow you to repair the vehicle, have it inspected and put it back on the road. It sounds like they're trying to issue him a certificate of destruction instead, which really doesn't make sense. That's for flooded vehicles and vehicles sent to salvage yards. I kind of wonder if they're trying to call it a flood loss to lump it in with the hurricane vehicles.

extrashaky

There is. It's called "court."

Bugout4x4

Maybe in your state... But in most states there are absolutely no consumer protection or appeal options at all against their decisions. And if you have to sue them to represent and defend your argument then it becomes extortion because they are knowingly using this against you in making their decisions. In some states you will never get that vehicle tagged current again once they enter it into the national database (which they do whether you accept or not) as totaled let alone get another insurance company to underwrite a policy on it.

Poodle Head Mikey

Under advice of recently retained Counsel I am now not allowed to discuss that. <g>

PHM
---------

extrashaky

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. If you don't like the settlement offered by the insurance company, you can negotiate with them for a better settlement. I've done it multiple times myself. There are plenty of attorneys who form their entire practice around negotiating with insurance companies. They would have no business at all if their clients just had to take what the insurance companies offered with no recourse.

Insurance companies do use tactics to push you toward a settlement that benefits them more than you. But that's not "extortion." That's the consumer not understanding the game and not bothering to put forth the effort to learn it. It's funny to me to see people get so angry about allegedly being forced to take whatever the insurance company offers, yet they just accept that they have no power and don't even bother trying to negotiate it or fight back.

If you go into it with this attitude that you're going to lose, then you pretty much guarantee that you're going to lose. At that point I can't help but think maybe you deserve to.

Bugout4x4

It is extortion if there is no option for a "not guilty" plea and the only choice they give you is a "plea bargain". This boils down to contract law. Signed contracts are ALWAYS awarded as written. The extortion comes in when the state forces you to purchase a product but yet allows the provider and industry to include any language they like in their favor without any protections in the consumer's favor.

Currently the big one is no protections against real codified "bait and switch" fraudulent practices coming from auto insurance providers. They can legally promise you a rate and coverage to get you to sign the contract and then they can raise these rates as they like after the down payment for the policy has been paid.

A bound policy contact only means one side is bound... You... not them. You do have the option to seek coverage elsewhere but they all practice the same unfair business and you do not get back your down payment on the policy. They keep it and say good luck...

RocketMouse

^^^
You can back me on this being in AZ yourself. I remember the monsoons in late Summer that when they came down so hard, especially near dusk... if I pulled off the road to let it pass, I would turn my lights off and keep my foot off the brake. NOT because they were being moths, but because the monsoon comes down so hard you can't see the road ahead, so a pair of tail lights in front makes them think that's where the road is, but because of the down pour can't tell you're actually stopped, and then run right up your backside.
Same goes for a white-out in the winter in some states.

RocketMouse

^^ that is the d*mn truth.

Coming back to the US fresh from living overseas in Oz.... I really liked how they did their ins. for cars. The main base coverage everyone was required was rolled into the rego (registration) of the vehicle at the DMV. So no cars on the road w/o ins. You could still get extra what they called "3rd party" ins. if you had a special vehicle that had a higher value than book... ie, classic or modified, etc.
The other thing was vehicles weren't titled like they are in the US. No salvage, rebuilt, etc. If it passed a standard inspection, then you could plate it for the road in your name. Done and dusted.

Bugout4x4

And not just the rain during the monsoons but the incredible haboob style dust storm that precedes these rains! And you are absolutely right, as soon as you are wise that you are going to get hit with one, you have to find a side road or very wide spot on the shoulder and shut everything off including brake lights. It's the only way to keep from getting hit.

Bugout4x4

Now here is something that makes no sense in Arizona about being forced to get a salvage title. Az is very strict about clean ownership. In fact you cannot register a car without the title being "notarized" by the seller that they have released interest. And just like many other states, when you bring one in from out of state they do a VIN check to make sure the title is clean and then they issue you an Az title and it never has to have the VIN checked again because now they know for sure it is not hot and has been entered into the database.

The insurance company totals a vehicle requiring you to go get a salvage title. Once you get the salvage title you cant put it on the road until you get whats called a level 3 inspection. Then if it passes this inspection they give you a "rebuid" title. But here is the dumb thing, A level 3 inspection is NOT a safety inspection or have anything at all to do with safety, it is just another VIN inspection which has already been proven and established prior when it was first licensed. So at that point, and no safety is involved, then why go through it at all?

Just to collect fees? There is a state scam for you... lol

extrashaky

Again, incorrect. The insurance company doesn't require you to go get a salvage title. In the course of the settlement, you basically sell the car to the insurance company, then they get a salvage title for the car they bought from you when they transfer ownership to them.

Don't want a salvage title? Then don't sell it to the insurance company.

Bugout4x4

You don't have a choice, somehow they now legally own it and you now have only two options, let them keep a vehicle that never belonged to them in the first place, or "buy it back" from them which requires you to go get a salvage title to do so.

Again...At what point did ownership go to them and give them the power to mandate only these two options?

You are apparently in the insurance industry as hard as you are trying to justify these unfair business practices.

Here's one... Justify this one... Why should a victim also be punished with increased rates for many years in a row because someone else hit them and it was completely not their fault at all? And these rates follow you where ever you go no matter who you get as a carrier? At what point is it fair to also punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty?

Bugout4x4

Let me step back a minute and share that you do indeed have the third option that you mentioned. The "no thanks" option. This means to keep it you have to give up all the extra investment you have paid in for sometimes years on comprehensive and collision coverage and let them keep it with absolutely no compensation for your investment.

Well... This third option just plain sucks too. You still lose and they still win...

Bugout4x4

Missed this... Good for you man... And I'll leave it at that.