Rear-Ended Hail Damaged Vehicle No Payout

[2BLUE]

My girlfriend's car has hail damage from the hail storm last year. Every part of the car was dented and the car was technically a write-off, she went to claim the hail damage, but because the payout was not the same as the loan amount she decided to not go through the insurance company and drive the car as is.

Last week she was driving the car and got rear ended at a red light. Which now the car is a total wreck!!!

She had third party insurance only, but obviously the accident wasn't her fault.

However, the other party's insurance company is not going to pay us any damages as the car was technically a write-off and technically worth nothing.

Can this legally be done?

I think the GF should come down with some injuries :thumbsup:

[Jeeper1986]

wtf if she didnt go threw insurance then the car should still say active on it... show that to the other party

[vengie]

Tell the other insurance company she now has a very sore back and neck.

[Masked Bandit]

I'm hoping one of the adjusters comes on here to clarify but I'm hoping there is just a miscommunication between the other person's insurance company and your girlfriend. Is it possible that the other adjuster thinks your girlfriend was already paid out for the hail damage? What has her broker said about this?

[FraserB]

Won't she lose all the cost of the hail damage from whatever the other company gives her?

For example, car is worth $5000 and has $4000 worth of hail damage that was never fixed, her payout would ony be $1000? Becuase she is only entitled to the value of the vehicle just prior to the accident or have it repaired to its condition just before the crash.

[403Gemini]

It's been awhile since I've done auto adjusting, so take this with a grain of salt.

I believe with hail damage, even if you claimed it and just took a cash settlement but kept the car (since it's still driveable, it's just cosmetic damage) - the only thing you couldn't claim is more hail damage since that is on record - however getting rear ended / frame damaged / mechanically damaged then that is different damage and would need to be paid out. It may be paid out less the amount paid/estimated for the hail damage which I can see POSSIBLY where the other company is coming from.

HOWEVER, I believe if you can have your insurance company speak to the other company and verify nothing was paid out at all for the hail damage, then the car was never technically "written off" and they should be looking after the damages.

Edit: Again, it's been about 6 years since I've touched an auto file, so things may have changed since then

[DEATH2000]

If she never filled a claim or took a payout then their is no reason the car should be classified as a "write off". It should still be an Active titled car. The other persons insurance company is just trying to get out of paying her out. They try to pay out as little as possible to maximize their profits.

[FraserB]

But they should be paying her the value that a hail damaged panel is worth, not a panel that was in good repair, correct?

[m10-power]

Lawyer

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by FraserB
But they should be paying her the value that a hail damaged panel is worth, not a panel that was in good repair, correct?

I don't see why this would be the case, for two reasons:
1) She never got a payout for the hail damage so why would she be responsible for eating that cost now?
2) Had the panel been repaired, it would have been destroyed in the rear-ending so what difference does it make?

If I have a car with some rust in the fender of the wheel well and someone smashes into me, they will replace it with a brand new panel. Really no different in this case.

[Kijho]

SORE.BACK.

[G-ZUS]

Originally posted by Kijho
SORE.BACK.

+1

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Kloubek


I don't see why this would be the case, for two reasons:
1) She never got a payout for the hail damage so why would she be responsible for eating that cost now?
2) Had the panel been repaired, it would have been destroyed in the rear-ending so what difference does it make?

If I have a car with some rust in the fender of the wheel well and someone smashes into me, they will replace it with a brand new panel. Really no different in this case.

The other insurance company knows there was extensive pre-existing damage to the car, to the point where it was going to be written off.

They fix what their client caused and return the car to the condition it was in right before the accident occured, not put them into a better position. The panel might be worth $1000 in good shape, but only $500 with all the hail damage. Insurance shouldn't pay out $1000, their client only destroyed a $500 panel.

[speedog]

FraserB is on the mark here and if OP's girl friend now starts claiming a sore back or something similar after the fact, then that's going to look mighty suspicious - expect the insurance company to fight back on that sort of claim.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by speedog
FraserB is on the mark here and if OP's girl friend now starts claiming a sore back or something similar after the fact, then that's going to look mighty suspicious - expect the insurance company to fight back on that sort of claim.

you have up to 2 years to sue for damages, just cause something wasnt an instant issue doesnt mean there wont be future complications due tot his indecent

[speedog]

Originally posted by ercchry
You have up to 2 years to sue for damages, just cause something wasn't an instant issue doesn't mean there won't be future complications due to his incident I realize that, but depending on the type of discussions the OP's girl friend has had with the other party's insurance company - things could look like one is trying to be a bit scammy.

That aside, the payout on the car will probably be something she's not going to have much luck fighting - pre-existing damage is not something that will be paid out even if it was destroyed further by another incident.

[ercchry]

what i dont understand is why the hell she didnt take a cash payout for the damage :nut:

this does seem pretty straight forward though. do you have a detail quote for the hail damage? yes? what was the break down for the panels injured in this collision? deduct that from new repair bill... done

[DeleriousZ]

Originally posted by ercchry


you have up to 2 years to sue for damages, just cause something wasnt an instant issue doesnt mean there wont be future complications due tot his indecent

Yep and I've seen people taking FULL advantage of the two years. A friend of mine had someone make a claim with literally weeks remaining in the two years after an accident. I don't remember the result, but it does happen.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by Kloubek


I don't see why this would be the case, for two reasons:
1) She never got a payout for the hail damage so why would she be responsible for eating that cost now?
2) Had the panel been repaired, it would have been destroyed in the rear-ending so what difference does it make?

If I have a car with some rust in the fender of the wheel well and someone smashes into me, they will replace it with a brand new panel. Really no different in this case.

Because insurance is there to indemnify you, to put you back in the state you were in at the time of the incident.

At the time of this accident, her car was covered in hail damage , so it isn't the onus of the insurance company to pay for brand new panels all over the vehicle. Having hail damage and not having it fixed lowers the resale value of your car - so therefore it lowers the value of your car in all totality as far as insurance is concerned.

It's like if you were car shopping and saw a car for $10,000 and then saw another car, same make/model with similar kilometers , it certainly wouldn't be worth $10,000.

[Xtrema]

Go see a chiropractor or physio therapist right the way.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Go see a chiropractor or physio therapist right the way.

no, go see a REAL doctor... trust me... i've been through this once or twice physio said WADIII insurance company's "doctor" said WADII (after 6 months of treatment)... guess what they went with

[2BLUE]

Well the insurance company thinks of it this way..

The vehicle had over $8000 in hail damage

The vehicle is worth $6500-8500 book value

The panels damaged by the hail changed the intergreity of the vehicle causing it to crumble differently. In turn the vehicles damage would be less if the car would have been fixed of the hail in 2012.

The insurance company knows the claim was never put though and the car has an active title. They say that doesn't mean anything, They pay on the vehicles make model condition kms etc, The vehicle driven is not worth anything because pre-accident the vehicle was already worth nothing.

We are heading into Benneitt Jones Lawyers today.

[Kloubek]

That sounds like a load of BS to me. Good luck.

[ercchry]

did you close out the hail claim? go collect your $8k!

[Masked Bandit]

Re-open the hail claim from 2012 (you have two years) and collect the cash payout on that first claim.

[spikerS]

that makes no sense.

Lets just say that your numbers are right. 8k hail damage, car is worth tops 8500.

So insurance company writes off your car, but you buy it back, so you now have 6k in your pocket and the car. You then get it re-certified as rebuilt, and you are out lets say a couple hundred.

so now your car is back on the road, with a salvage title. your car is now worth lets say 4500 with all pre-existing damage, since it is only hail damage after all.

The other insurance company also does not work off of rebuilt status, otherwise they would not have agreed to an 8k assement on my old dodge. and hail damage is not going to affect the integrity of the car. Sheet metal is meant to bend and crumple. it is the frame and sub frame and the like that absorbs impact, and panels under the body.

so much mis information there.

[ercchry]

okay here are your future steps:

1. GO SEE A DOCTOR even if everything is fine. get it documented.
2. GO GET YOUR HAIL PAYOUT you dont need to use it on the car, they will have a cash option and now you have no hail coverage
3. tell this company that your car is work $6k due to pre-existing hail damage. hail does not affect the structural integrity of the car
4. collect $6k from them DO NOT close out the injury side of the claim. ONLY the car portion.
5. pay off loan, use rest to go learn basic life skills at some sort of institution.
6. re-ban yourself

[littledan]

^^^ :rofl:

[codetrap]

.

[2BLUE]

We are taking the hail damage payout.

"She's not going to claim fake injuries"

As far as the new accident the lawyer's will let us know :thumbsup:

[codetrap]

.

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Originally posted by ercchry
okay here are your future steps:

1. GO SEE A DOCTOR even if everything is fine. get it documented.
2. GO GET YOUR HAIL PAYOUT you dont need to use it on the car, they will have a cash option and now you have no hail coverage
3. tell this company that your car is work $6k due to pre-existing hail damage. hail does not affect the structural integrity of the car
4. collect $6k from them DO NOT close out the injury side of the claim. ONLY the car portion.
5. pay off loan, use rest to go learn basic life skills at some sort of institution.
6. re-ban yourself

Sounds like 6 solid steps right there.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by ercchry
okay here are your future steps:

1. GO SEE A DOCTOR even if everything is fine. get it documented.
2. GO GET YOUR HAIL PAYOUT you dont need to use it on the car, they will have a cash option and now you have no hail coverage
3. tell this company that your car is work $6k due to pre-existing hail damage. hail does not affect the structural integrity of the car
5. pay off loan, use rest to go learn basic life skills at some sort of institution.
6. re-ban yourself

All this, but it will be worth a good chunk less than 6k if book value is 8k, with every panel covered the will probably give you 4k, if that. Strongly recommend step 5

[ercchry]

well, you never let them know you'll settle for less ;)

[2BLUE]

Originally posted by codetrap
That's great to hear. I figured you were only kidding by how you wrote it. I hope it works out for the best for you.

It wouldn't be best for her to lie, she works for CPS. :thumbsup:

[2BLUE]

Originally posted by ercchry
well, you never let them know you'll settle for less ;)

Yeppers I know :thumbsup:

[TomcoPDR]

Originally posted by 2BLUE
she decided to not go through the insurance company and drive the car as is.



She had third party insurance only



How do you get hail comphensive coverage when it's only third party???

Anyways, I myself is a little confused.

But say either:
- gf has hail coverage, HER insurance looked at her car after the storm, but she didn't file a claim (since cash payout is lower than her loan; which is why insurance and repair shops isn't out to get you when we all want people to properly fix their vehicles, so you'll be protected in the future); so she continues to drive a vehicle physically hail dented.

- gf only has 3rd party, during appraisal process her insurance told her that hail isn't being covered. So gf is forced to keep drving a hail dented car

- gf actually took a payout, which docuements THAT particular VIN has prior hail damage and the VIN is now labeled, recorded and tracked in the system that it is driven with hail. (until owner proves it's been fixed)

In these scenarios (sry I'm just confused), all the panels on the vehicle is now PRIOR DAMAGE (damaged goods)...

It's sort of like going into a brothel and they offered you a virgin but @ virgin premiums, which is fine and all. However, you're damn rights any customer would challenge the virgin premiums when there's paper trail or physical evidence indicating she's not.

So unfortuntely OP, your gf and her prior hail damaged car = no virgin... That's why the other insurance is agruing, the depreicated prior damage value is more than the fault of their insured. So not sure how they found that out. (so anybody saw gf's collision, she took it to a bodyshop which will probably report their findings to the other insurance, or has the other insurance came out with their apprasier and will obviously see the beat hail damage; if it's $8,000)

[2BLUE]

My GF had full coverage on the vehicle when the hail storm hit.

After the hail storm and denying the payout and keeping the car she changed her policy to Liability only.

The lawyers are taking the case on and are writting up demand letter to meloche monnex for immediate payment of vehicles book value.

[guessboi]

+1 Why didn't she take a percentage of the cash payout and keep the vehicle in the first place and use the payout to pay off a portion of her loan?

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by codetrap
That just fucks us all over with higher insurance rates.


Bingo.

Fake injury claims are one of the reason rates are getting jacked. It's ludicrous, I've seen people claiming injuries with 5 km/h parking lot collisions with only damage to their mirror being taken off.


Originally posted by 2BLUE
My GF had full coverage on the vehicle when the hail storm hit.

After the hail storm and denying the payout and keeping the car she changed her policy to Liability only.

The lawyers are taking the case on and are writting up demand letter to meloche monnex for immediate payment of vehicles book value.

Why hire a lawyer when you could have accepted full settlement on your write off from the hail claim like Masked Bandit suggested? A lawyer will now take 30-40% of any settlement you receive

[2BLUE]

Hired a lawyer for the accident not the hail damage.

[403Gemini]

True, but if the accident isn't going to pay you out, re-open the hail claim and you will get the full settlement of a written off car.

[89s1]

GF doesn't take the insurance payout on the hail because it's not as much as the loan amount.... But instead drives around a hail damaged car worth much less money? Makes no sense.

Now you're out the resale value (from hail) AND the potential insurance payout that was offered. I can't wrap my head around her logic, please enlighten me.

For now I'll assume she's as dumb as a post, and relies on that brain power while enforcing the laws of this fine country and carrying a gun.

Sweet. Fucking. Christ. :banghead:

[FraserB]

Originally posted by 89s1
For now I'll assume she's as dumb as a post, and relies on that brain power while enforcing the laws of this fine country and carrying a gun.

Sweet. Fucking. Christ. :banghead:

There are civilians employed by the CPS. "I work for the CPS" just sounds better than using specific job titles.

[msommers]

Don't people who "oh my back!" have to get the injuries verified and if present, go through a long, labourous routine of physio? I guess if you're going to pull that kind of stunt, you probably have some doctor named Nick Riviera in your back pocket.

[2BLUE]

Alright so this worked out for both parties.

Meloche just called making an offer, previous damage etc was all thrown out the window :thumbsup:

The vehicle qualifies for replacement, (under 3 years old) so either way it worked out going to the lawyers :)

As far as the stupid comments some people made- Some people aren't as rich as you ballers :thumbsup:

Hail claim closed! :thumbsup:

Sometimes going to a lawyer is worth it, even though their fees could get up there! In this case it was $265 for a demand letter written up! Well worth it!

[Khyron]

In what scenario do you NOT take the payout for hail damage? I understand not fixing it, but fix it or not, you take the money, loan or not.

[2BLUE]

Originally posted by Khyron
In what scenario do you NOT take the payout for hail damage? I understand not fixing it, but fix it or not, you take the money, loan or not.

Keep in mind its not my car, but how its been explained to me, taking a cash settlement from the insurance company sounded like half the damage estimate and keeping the car.

Now the hail claim is out of the picture and this last accident was the insurance companies responsability, they just tried to get out of it. A rear end is a rear ender, the lawyer made it very clear. :thumbsup:

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by msommers
Don't people who "oh my back!" have to get the injuries verified and if present, go through a long, labourous routine of physio? I guess if you're going to pull that kind of stunt, you probably have some doctor named Nick Riviera in your back pocket.

A friend who shall not be named faked their injuries (I think). First thing they said after the accident... "Ohhh, I'm gonna get money out of this". They did several years of laborous physio, complained all the time about it, but walked away with $100g+...

From a fraudsters point of view, they are technically working for the money, like a part time job :rofl:

[Khyron]

Originally posted by 2BLUE


Keep in mind its not my car, but how its been explained to me, taking a cash settlement from the insurance company sounded like half the damage estimate.

I've had a 8K car claim and a 15K house claim. Car was 8K to pay my own guy, or use their bodyshop - I used theirs. House was 15 in cash or pay their guys, I used my own guys. I don't get how they can say "It will cost 8k for us to fix it, but we'll only give you 4 if you want to do it". I think she misunderstood the payout. They want it off their books - giving the bodyshop or you the money doesn't really matter.

[2BLUE]

Just to be clear "She never wanted to, nor was going to fake injuries"

[2BLUE]

Originally posted by Khyron


I've had a 8K car claim and a 15K house claim. Car was 8K to pay my own guy, or use their bodyshop - I used theirs. House was 15 in cash or pay their guys, I used my own guys. I don't get how they can say "It will cost 8k for us to fix it, but we'll only give you 4 if you want to do it". I think she misunderstood the payout. They want it off their books - giving the bodyshop or you the money doesn't really matter.

Like i said I don't really know the details at that time. AllI know is that they wanted to offer her less on a cash settlement.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by 2BLUE


Like i said I don't really know the details at that time. AllI know is that they wanted to offer her less on a cash settlement.

But even assuming you're right, and it's a 3K payout or a 6K repair job - by taking nothing you're just... taking nothing. You are driving around in a hail damaged car with no cash in the pocket. I see no scenario in which this would be an advantage. I get that it's not you, but I (and everyone else probably) is curious on the reasoning to take no payout. Take the payout if the case is still open.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


A friend who shall not be named faked their injuries (I think). First thing they said after the accident... "Ohhh, I'm gonna get money out of this". They did several years of laborous physio, complained all the time about it, but walked away with $100g+...

From a fraudsters point of view, they are technically working for the money, like a part time job :rofl:

how long ago was that?

[89s1]

Originally posted by Khyron


But even assuming you're right, and it's a 3K payout or a 6K repair job - by taking nothing you're just... taking nothing. You are driving around in a hail damaged car with no cash in the pocket. I see no scenario in which this would be an advantage. I get that it's not you, but I (and everyone else probably) is curious on the reasoning to take no payout. Take the payout if the case is still open.


I asked this same question, albeit mine was worded a bit differently. Hopefully he doesn't ignore us both.

[2BLUE]

Originally posted by 89s1



I asked this same question, albeit mine was worded a bit differently. Hopefully he doesn't ignore us both.

I didn't see your post sorry, I don't really know accept she thought it was a insult, knew she had a few years to fight it and it went on the back burner till another time. She had been with the same insurance company for years and felt totally screwed by them. I think legal action is what she was thinking to fight for more money, but then this happened :dunno: If she would have settled then the claim would have been closed.

[msommers]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


A friend who shall not be named faked their injuries (I think). First thing they said after the accident... "Ohhh, I'm gonna get money out of this". They did several years of laborous physio, complained all the time about it, but walked away with $100g+...

From a fraudsters point of view, they are technically working for the money, like a part time job :rofl:

This is a good case of what I mean. Doesn't a physician have to confirm that there actually are injuries?

[cr0n1c]

I'm glad you had it all worked out. Hope she's ok though.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by msommers


This is a good case of what I mean. Doesn't a physician have to confirm that there actually are injuries?

Maybe they did have actual injuries, I honestly don't know, but as said, that was the first thing out of their mouth.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by msommers


This is a good case of what I mean. Doesn't a physician have to confirm that there actually are injuries?

thats why i wonder how long ago it was. in recent years they have really cracked down and have made it pretty difficult even if you DO have injuries.

its been 6 years for me and my back is still a mess. problem with soft tissue is that there is no real test that shows the damage. its not like a broken bone where they just x-ray you and there is the proof.

not only do you have your own doctor records but the insurance company will send you off to their own doctors too. they will cut off treatment even if your side says you need it if their side says you dont. then if they day ever comes where you actually start talking settlement they have a huge report from their doctor and you better hope all your i's are dotted :nut:

then just like in everything else, the only ones that win are the lawyers taking 30-50% depending how involved the case gets (50% if it goes to trial)

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by msommers


This is a good case of what I mean. Doesn't a physician have to confirm that there actually are injuries?

You do now. Since 2004 and the soft tissue cap instated you have to prove your injuries before any settlements are even considered. Even with the cap, you can't just get into an accident and expect the $4641 cap, the cap is typically for people who go through 2~ years of treatments and only suffered WAD II injuries.

Also, I still can't understand any of the logic behind 2BLUE's posts :rofl: , but if everything worked out, I guess it's okay? Still, I wouldn't have paid a lawyer a dollar, $300 out of pocket expenses imo for something that wasn't worth it.