A driver rear ended me and so I’m dealing with a company that rhymes with Date Parm.
They are refusing to reimburse me for one thing that needs replaced (my hitch cover) saying the body shop will bill them for the replacement when they replace the bumper. What if I don’t want the bumper replaced and instead want the cash? Can they force me to replace the part or if I demand that they pay off the fair market value of the hitch cover do they need to pay me even if I don’t replace it?
They have a right to know whether or not you replaced it, because if you don’t replace it, and you get rear-ended again, they don’t have to pay for prior damage (that you never fixed). And the car’s safety might be compromised by hidden damage that would be revealed when the bumper is replaced., So maybe you want to do that. That said, you ought to be able to get a payment and not spend it on that car.
I totalled a car, and kept the car. I even used part of the insurance payment to make the car drivable. In that case, we had to have the car’s title marked that it had been totalled, and reveal that history when we should the car. (We sold it with 200k miles, and the buyer commented, “there’s not much wrong with the car given its age.”)
[Moderating]
Since this appears to be asking for professional advice, let’s move it to IMHO.
My stepdaughter’s boyfriend got rear-ended, the car was totaled, and the other driver’s insurance company is making him sign the car over to them before they will cut him a check. At least that’s what he’s telling us (this guy is a bit sketchy IMO).
I Am Not An Insurance Adjuster, but my understanding is that collision insurance policies don’t pay you money in the event of collision; they pay for repairs caused by a collision. If there are no repairs, there’s no payout, and they don’t pay you, they pay the repair shop. I’d check the wording of your policy, but (again, IANAIA and just my understanding), paying for repairs at an insurer-approved provider is the industry standard. Which makes sense to me; there’d be a pretty broad scope for insurance fraud and abuse if policy holders could just claim cash payments for collision damage.
The OP isn’t filing a claim under collision, it’s a claim under the other driver’s liability coverage.
Isn’t a hitch cover maybe a ten dollar item?
Dennis
That’s standard in the event of a total loss - although sometimes you can keep the car for a reduced payout (book value - salvage value). For example, lets say the damage is $3K and the car is worth $2K - you sign the car over to the insurance company, they pay you $2K and they sell the car for the $500 salvage value, meaning the $2K payout actually cost them $1500 . I’ve had cars that were totaled because of cosmetic damage ( the cars were worth so little that fixing some body damage exceeded the book value) and in those cases, I was able to keep the car. But the calculation was $3K value, $2K damages and $500 salvage value - they paid me $1500. It still cost them $1500 , and I still had $2K, in the form of a check for $1500 and a car worth the $500 salvage value.
Regarding the OP- do you have a loan/lien on the car? Because that’s the only time I’ve actually had to have the car repaired rather than getting a check and it was a requirement of the bank, not the insurance company.
duplicate
This…IF the insurance company insures the vehicle being repaired. Lienholder actually owns the car until you pay it off. If they need to repossess it, they need to address insurable damage to the car. Therefore, the insurance company can either pay for the repair (include the shop on the check) or they can settle for cash, but they have to include the bank on the check along with the named insured. This is not the situation in the OP.
OP was rear-ended by a State Farm insured. In this situation, SF owes nothing to a lienholder on OP’s car because SF doesn’t have a contract with OP or OP’s lender. SF’s job is to pay someone for the damage their insured caused.
OP: SF can pay a shop to repair your vehicle, or they can pay you the value of the damage. If the repairs have been started, then the plan was to have the shop repair the damage and SF will pay the shop. In 17 years I never saw a situation where Insurance paid a shop to do part of a repair, and then cashed out the vehicle owner for the rest. Too messy. If your car has NOT begun repairs (and by “begun” I mean you haven’t yet signed an authorization to repair, and the shop hasn’t already ordered the parts), then you absolutely DO have the option of taking a cash settlement–for ALL of the damage–whether or not you have a loan on the car. Again, lienholder doesn’t matter IF you are not using your own policy to do the repair.
This is incorrect. You can ask for a check. BUT in that case the company will likely cancel the collision part of your coverage.
In any case, if you are dealing with the OTHER guys insurance company (as the Op is doing), you are certainly entitled to a check, and they have no recourse at all.
Just a note on taking the check on a “totaled” car. We had a car declared totaled (initially), went back and forth with the insurance company, filed a letter, etc. Got the car back and difference in the payout-salvage value which nicely fixed up the car.
That was something on the scale of 15 years ago and we’re still driving it.
I don’t know why anyone would want the cash and have a damaged vehicle. The purpose of insurance is to “make you whole” and you’re not made whole with a damaged vehicle.
Because sometimes you can lives with a couple of dents and scrapes and you could use that $1000.
Sure you are - you’re given the amount the insurance company decided it would cost to fix the damage. There are plenty of people who drive cars with dents and scratches - maybe someone would rather drive a car with damage and spend the cash on something else. Or maybe they can get it fixed for less than the insurance company will pay - by doing it themselves/having a friend do it for the cost of the parts. And remember, the OP is not talking about his collision/comprehensive insurance- he’s talking about the other driver’s liability insurance.
Or you can find a country boy with a body shop who can do the work for about half what the city boys wanted. In particular, he was willing to try and unbend a rear quarter panel instead of replacing it.
Looks great. Car is officially totaled (no longer have collision on it), but assume no more mishaps it should be drive-able for several more years.
Ended up with about $1,000 in my pocket and whatever residual value I can sell the car for down the road.
I once owned a Ford Escort that was a total crap car. On three different occasions that car was hit, each time causing ~$500 damage. Each time I cashed the check and did whatever bare minimum work was needed to keep the car street legal.
You’re made whole with a damaged vehicle that has a pile of cash sitting on it, such that the combined net value of the whole thing is the same as it was before the crash. You can sink all of the cash into professional repairs to make your vehicle as it was before the crash, do the repairs yourself and pocket the cash, or spend all the cash on hookers and blow and live with a damaged vehicle.
About 15 years ago I dropped my motorcycle and damaged it. Took it to the shop, and they estimated the repairs (parts and labor) at about $3400. My insurance company cut me a check (minus the deductible) and considered the whole affair done. I replaced the one badly damaged part (a large painted plastic nose fairing), repaired some of the damaged subframe myself, and decided to live with a couple of other parts that had only minor nicks. Pocketed most of what they paid me.
The cost of repairing panels is very high. I don’t plan to sell my cars until they are elderly. The difference to my happiness in driving a car with a slightly bent panel and with a perfect panel is much less than the cost of replacing the panel.
If I happen to get hit when I’ve only had a car for a year or two, I probably will get it fixed. (And maintain my phys dam insurance.) Much beyond that, naw, not worth it. Take the money and run.
I’d much rather have more money than a cosmetically perfect vehicle. Lots of people would.