Unfair car evaluation by insurance company ...

[rj1942]

Hi!

My car was "totalled" by a runaway truck while it was parked in front of my house and was written off by my insurance company. They insist on paying me just the market value of the car ($2,000.00) and want to have the case closed as soon as possible.

My problem is, even though it is an old car (1989 honda accord with 260,000 KM), it has VERY RECENTLY undergone major repairs (replaced with newer engine, new clutch assembly, alternator, battery, timing belt, alarm system, etc) totalling more than $2,500.00. I have provided them with copies of all the relevant invoices. It is a well-maintained car, no rust/dents, no prior accident history, and has never failed Air Care (="smog check" in USA). Furthermore, my CB radio, CD player, and CD changer are no longer useable due to the accident.

This is my first experience in dealing with an insurance company and I feel that I will be the BIG loser if I accept the amount because I may not be able to find a car in the same running condition for what they're giving me ---- I'll end up with an inferior used car which could cost me more on future repairs. Using the money as downpayment for a cheap new car is also out of the question because I cannot afford any new monthly payments.

I would really appreciate your advise/comments regarding the following:

i) Do I have any recourse to get a better value for my car?

ii) Isn't my insurance company supposed to fix my car (or help me get a "similar" one) instead of imposing their cheapest option on me? (If it was my fault I could understand that they may have the right to do this, but I was not at fault.)

iii) Would seeking a lawyer's opinion be advisable in this case, since the amount involved is too small? Although I was not physically injured in the accident, this entire experience is so disappointing that it's causing me to lose sleep and lose productivity at work. My family and I depend on this car for all our transportation needs and the prospect of not being able to replace it is causing me too much stress.


Thanks you for your help.

RJ

[Ben]

Cars are insured for black book value (which doesn't give a damn if the car has a bunch of recent major work done) unless you specify to your insurance company appraised value (to which you would pay SUBSTANTIALLY higher premiums). Only thing you could really do is find the same vehicles (same make, model, milage, condition selling for far greater than your settlement, however you almost never win these types of things with insurance companies.


This is a huge reason of why it's not worth modifying older cars, because people sink thousands or even 10's of thousands into cars with a book value of only a couple grand. Car gets jacked, crashed, damaged, you're out.


Bottom line, insurance companies will go the cheapest route possible. not uncommon that cars are "written off" due to hail damage or keyings, because it's more expensive to repair, than the car is worth.


Edit: I noticed you are from BC, so basically I can sum everything up for you in one like.

You're screwed, and you're lucky you got that much from them, as ICBC is the Scrooge of auto insurance.

[5.9 R/T]

Coming from someone who has recently gone through a similar experice, (car was a total loss, upgraded stereo, recent repair work done) I can tell you that my insurance company payed me book value for the car +recent repairs +stereo stuff. I provided them with receipts and photos and there was no questions asked. Fight for it, they'll pay it out eventually.

[Ben]

Originally posted by 5.9 R/T
Coming from someone who has recently gone through a similar experice, (car was a total loss, upgraded stereo, recent repair work done) I can tell you that my insurance company payed me book value for the car +recent repairs +stereo stuff. I provided them with receipts and photos and there was no questions asked. Fight for it, they'll pay it out eventually.

In BC from what I understand, they dont pay out for anything that isn't part of the car, and bolted down.

Aftermarket stereo? TFB...reciepts or not.

Having many friends gone through the ordeals of this in BC and hearing the results, it doesn't sound like a very welcoming company to deal with.

[BumpinTalon]

if it's not bolted down, home insurance should cover it.

[lint]

ICBC represents both parties, so they're going to go for the lowest payout possible. It all comes out of the same cookie jar with public insurance.

[Zero102]

Hmm, I'm in the middle of this same fight right now. My 86 porsche 944 was totalled in a fire, and they're offering me $2000 for it, there's no way it was worth less than $8000.
Anyhoo, that aside...
ICBC is the scrooge of the insurance world, however, if you persist, they will eventually cave. At least that was my experience when I was hit by somebody insured with ICBC.

Now, they will probably screw you on the value of the car, even if you win the argument with them. Best bet is to buy it back from insurance, and salvage everything you can from the car, then sell that off to help recoup the rest of the value of the car.

Best bet would be to find similar cars for sale, or at least as close as you can get to yours, and talk to them, using those cars as a reference, and adding in what you've spent on yours. Usually they don't give you what you put into the car (money-wise), it's usually like 25% of what you've put in, and 0% for maintenance items.

[Weapon_R]

Does anyone else agree with the insurance company other than me?

So what if you did recent work to it? Replacing broken parts does not increase the price of your car. You know what your car would have been worth without a clutch assembly, timing belt, battery and new engine? It wouldn't even be worth a tow trucks time to come down and get it.

Your car is worth $2,000.

[DC2uned]

Originally posted by Weapon_R
Does anyone else agree with the insurance company other than me?

So what if you did recent work to it? Replacing broken parts does not increase the price of your car. You know what your car would have been worth without a clutch assembly, timing belt, battery and new engine? It wouldn't even be worth a tow trucks time to come down and get it.

Your car is worth $2,000.



:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Totally agree with you.

The things you listed aren't upgrades, they are repairs. If you had upgrades with recipets for them it would be a different story.

[SOAB]

i see your point. BUT because of the other guy, he will now LOSE money and time when it was no fault of his own. i don't think it is fair and he should get paid back what he recently put into the car. if the other guy didn't hit his car, it (possibly) could've lasted a few more years, but now he's out a reliable car (for the price) and can't find one to replace it.

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by SOAB
i see your point. BUT because of the other guy, he will now LOSE money and time when it was no fault of his own. i don't think it is fair and he should get paid back what he recently put into the car. if the other guy didn't hit his car, it (possibly) could've lasted a few more years, but now he's out a reliable car (for the price) and can't find one to replace it.

In all honesty, you cannot really assess future reliability claims on that automobile. It is 16 years old and has 260,000kms. How much longer will it go?

Insurance sucks, because you rarely get what you put in. But the thing is, replacing an engine may have cost a lot of money, but it does not increase the value of a vehicle whatsoever.

The accord is worth a baseline price. Let's say $2,000. Now, take out an engine, and he'll probably get $750 for it. Replace a blown engine, and it bumps it back up to $2,000. It does not bump the value of the car to $3250 (2,000 baseline + 1250 for a new engine).

[rj1942]

Hi!

Thank you all for your honest opinions. I respect everyone's post on this thread.

In my opinion, if you replace a 16-year old engine with one that's 60,000 km, it should be worth something. It is not a repair --- it is a replacement, and "newer" parts are expected to last longer than old parts. Same with alternators, batteries, timing belts, etc. How often do you normally replace these --- every 2 years? 5 years? If an alternator normally lasts 5 years, shouldn't you expect the new alternator you put in your old car to last 5 years? Everything else being equal, if you're on the market for a used car why would you take the one with a new set of tires over the one that don't ---- isn't it because the new tires added value to the car? Why do used car sellers always mention new replacements in their cars (new tires, new paint, etc.) ---- isn't it so they can sell the car for more? Why aren't my new parts relevant in the assessment of the current value of my car, is it because it's not for sale? I don't think so. The only reason my new parts aren't relevant in my case is because the insurance company said so. Declaring a car as a "write-off" is their clever invention in which they've essentially given themselves exclusive rights to put a cap on their liabilities. This isn't fair, is it?

I their website, as well as in their brochures, they've defined collision coverage as follows:

Collision insurance covers damage to your car from impact with another vehicle. It does not cover loss or damage to tires, unless the damage is caused as part of the collision.

The above clearly states they will cover damages to my car. I did not see any mention of a "write-off" in my signed contract, I swear it was not mentioned anywhere in our conversations (if anyone knows where it is written, please tell me). Why, all of a sudden, can they declare my car a write-off then impose something like this on me:

Your collision insurance covers the blue book value of your car if it is a write-off.


Anyway, again, thank you for all your posts. As I said, prior to the accident I had a car that I've invested enough on to last me a few more good years. Now, I have nothing but spare change; what I want is my car back.

Also, I am wondering if my car should also be covered by the other parties' third-party liability coverage, since he damaged my property. Shouldn't the adjuster have mentioned this to me during our conversations? If the guy hit my house instead and it was no longer liveable, would they declare it a "total loss" then grab some "blue book" for houses and use it to assess the value of my house? I don't think so. And what if my house had some improvements done on it? At the very least, my house should be rebuilt to the same condition as it was, subject to all my documented improvements.

I agree that the insurance company would most certainly choose the option that costs them the least (which is what they're doing in my case). Is it really legal for the insurance company to have this choice? I'm willing to argue that they don't have the right to do so, and I have the right to refuse to accept it. I am the victim here, and I should have a say on the value of my losses. The insurance company entered into an agreement to cover their insured's liabilities; they should honor this obligation fairly.

Since my car wasn't even moving at the time of the accident, why would my collision coverage be even applicable? The other party's third-party liability coverage should apply more.

Your comments (agree or disagree) are welcome and appreciated. Please keep them coming.

Thank you very much.

RJ