Re: HELP!! Insurance company trying to screw me and my 4000Q!! (part 2)

["Doyt W. Echelberger" <Doyt@nwonline.net>]

Chris.....Thanks for the clarifying post. You didn't so you are out there
all alone (except for your fellow q-listers.)and we all are sorry your
treasured car got hit.

J.G. offered some good BTDT experience on using the list as a lever in your
negotiations.

Now what? You need to get a gang together (the list and maybe your State
Attorney General) and assemble your weapons (the receipts and maybe a
second appraisal opinion)) and go to war, or lay back and take what they
offer. And you need a hierarchy of issues that you are doing battle to win.
this is so you can decide where to utilize your firepower, and know when
you have won. 

You are only a few hundred bucks apart, so money isn't the main issue. I
think your battle is in the area of not allowing them to "total" your car
and put you in a position of having to get a "salvage" title. If you can
avoid that, I think you come out ahead in the area of running around to
state inspection stations, making appointments with officials, and
physically moving the repaired car to the inspection point and then going
around to other offices to get a new title. I went through this with a
"totalled" 84 Rabbit, and it was well over two days messing around with red
tape in several locations. And the "salvage" title lowers the value of my
car on the market.

If it were my car, I'd take the monetary loss and try to win the battle of
avoiding a salvage title. Then I'd be in a position to recoup any monetary
loss if and when I sold the car.

In summary: Salvage titles suck.


Doyt Echelberger
86 4kq
87 5kcstq

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At 08:43 AM 1/31/1999 EST, you wrote:
>Hello Group,
>
>Thanks to the many people who responded to me on my car problem.
>Unfortunately, the overall aggregate opinion is not too positive.  I should
>probably mentally prepare myself to accept the screwing!!
>
>One thing that I wanted to clarify:  A number of people suggested that
>(rightfully so) I should not expect to be compensated for "enhancements"
to my
>car by my insurance company, since I had only been paying premiums to my
>insurance company to cover damage to a standard configuration car.  I need to
>make clear that my insurance company is not at all involved in this.  This is
>because I do not have collision damage coverage for my car on my policy.  I
>chose to assume the financial risk of damage to or total loss of my car
due to
>my fault.  I don’t want to get into discussing whether or not that was a good
>choice.  The facts of this incident are still that the other's guys insurance
>company is not arguing fault  They do accept 100% responsibility.  The issue
>here with which I am not yet satisfied is in assessing the value of damages. 
>
>I'll keep everyone informed, through the posting to the list, as significant
>developments occur.  In the meantime, if anyone wishes to add to this
>discussion, please remember to copy me privately, as well as posting to the
>list, since I am not subscribed at this time.
>
>Thanks again to all,
>
>Chris
>
>