BS: fender bender - epilog

Subject: BS: fender bender - epilog
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:46 AM

I could not find the original thread abour the 104 year old man who looked exactly like budda and caused a fender bender last month.
.................................................................

Someone said it was good karma in not hitting the 104 year old bhudda and causing no injuries.

The karma continues:
Although I had no collision insurance it seems the car I did hit had no insurance I was notified by Allstate that under the uninsured motorist provision I get my damages repaired with a $250 deductible and free loaner car.

For a $170 plastic grill I can put on myself (ignoring the hood dents) and the $250 deductible subtracted from the $3,300 estimate I can still clear $2,700 dollars to not have it repaired at the body shop.

The insurance guy said there is nothing wrong with pocketing the check myself!

Now I feel bad for the people whose claim against my insurance company was rejected for not having valid insurance or tags. It seems they had just acquired the car and had not gotten all the paperwork done.

Maybe a mudcat donation is in order.

Subject: RE: BS: fender bender - epilog
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 12:00 PM

... and we wonder why our insurance premiums are so high.

Subject: RE: BS: fender bender - epilog
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 12:37 PM

"the 104 year old man who looked exactly like budda"

If you see the Buddha standing by the side of the road, kill him. The true Buddha is within each individual...

IIRC...

Subject: RE: BS: fender bender - epilog
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 01:48 PM

hbudda

Subject: RE: BS: fender bender - epilog
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 01:52 PM

I think spending part of that on a math refresher course would work. And yes, no wonder our premiums are so high. Why not just take $170 for the "plastic grill".

Subject: RE: BS: fender bender - epilog
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 02:03 PM

RonO -

While I very much agree with the concept that persons shouldn't profit (or profiteer) when there's an accident, the principle that Donuel cites is perfectly sound. The insurance company determined that he suffered a loss of a certain amount. They pay to him the amount of the loss. It's up to him whether to repair, or to pocket or otherwise invest what he recovered.

If he repairs the vehicle, then it's once again worth what it was before the accident - or approximately so. If he pockets the cash, the vehicle has less "remaining value" and he won't get as much in the event of a subsequent accident. (The previously paid "damages" likely will work as an additional deductible on a future claim, if he doesn't produce proof of repairs.)

The difficulty with self-repair in a case like this is that it may be difficult to prove to the insurance people that the value of the vehicle was restored. Many insurance companies do insist that the repairs must be made, and that they make the payment directly to the shop that made them, simply to eliminate the uncertainty about the future value of the vehicle. Unscrupulous characters have been known to make a pretense of repair, and then go out and stage repeated accidents with their now "worth-less" piece of junk in hopes of repeated collections.

Donuel's insurer obviously thinks he wouldn't do that.

John

Subject: RE: BS: fender bender - epilog
From: gnu
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 02:22 PM

Not as bad as a lady (ahem) I use to know. She laid a burning cigarette on her kitchen floor and when it burnt the resilient flooring (vinyl sheet flooring), she had it replaced at the insurance company's expense. She gave a sob story to the insurance agent that her elderly father had fallen asleep and dropped the cigarette. When her sister tried the same thing, her sister's husband told the insurance agent what happened. The sister and her husband are now divorced. So, it didn't work out too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: fender bender - epilog
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 10:58 PM

not as bad...?
Some people think I have done a bad thing?
Go figure.
By diving off the road I surely saved the life of that elderly gentleman who certainly should not be driving at 104 years of age.

As for the insurance company - They called me. I didn't call them.

A 12 year old car has no trade in value. Putting the money back into a new hood, paint, impact bar, bumper, grill, front end alignment... is silly. The 'trade in' loss due to damage is smaller than the repair cost.

To not take the insurance settlement after paying 30 times that amount over my lifetime will probably not make anyones insurance bill go down.

As always a fond shout out to GUEST.

shouting "fuck you"

Subject: RE: BS: fender bender - epilog
From: LadyJean
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 01:00 AM

I was in bed with a good book when the old gent next door backed his minivan into my front bumper and destroyed the thing. His insurance wans't what you'd call helpful. The guy declared my car a total loss, despite the fact that it still ran, and wanted to tow it. The money they were offering wouldn't cover the cost of replacing it. Nor would he go along with my plan to take the car to the cheap mechanic in Dravosburg and get it fixed, though that would have cost them less. I did without their money, which I think is what they wanted in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: fender bender - epilog
From: gnu
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 05:41 AM

Donuel... not you. I was referring to, "Unscrupulous characters have been known to make a pretense of repair, and then go out and stage repeated accidents with their now "worth-less" piece of junk in hopes of repeated collections." Come to think of it, I should have said, "Just as bad..."

Subject: RE: BS: fender bender - epilog
From: jonm
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 06:25 AM

I was at a friend's house in a cul-de-sac (that's English for dead end street and French for castration...) when his car was rammed into by another.

We watched the purple car drive off (common colour, that) and park at a house at the bottom of the street, then phoned the police.

The guy could barely stand but denied ever taking his car out. The policeman was going to leave it at that, I had to point out that the bonnet (hood?) was warm and the purple car had white paint in the dents, just as our white car had purple paint!

In the end, he managed an arrest for drunk driving when the guy admitted it under questioning but the car was uninsured, so my friend lost out.

Over the years, I must have paid out many times what I have claimed (one write-off where the other car, at fault, never stopped) or had claimed against me (nothing). Knowing how unwieldy and staff-inefficient these big corporations are, I've probably paid for the Chief Paperclip Counter's salary and the champagne at the shareholder's annual meeting. I acknowledge that people who claim more than their due increase everyone's premium - but not by as much as all those uninsured drivers do - but I would still be tempted to profit from an accident if I could.

I've thought for a while that people should carry compulsory life insurance only, which other people can claim from in the event of liability incidents, whether motoring-related or otherwise. That way, after many years without a claim, the policy would mature and make you rich, rather than doing the same for the insurers.