My car was written off. 14 day rule.

[infected]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That is incorrect, and written in the thread. My Jeep does not have collision. So technically, they could have put this incident under that coverage but I lucked out.

Sorry missed the part about the Jeep. That's really fortunate they are considering it as full coverage then. Hope it works out better than 18k!

[Tik-Tok]

I suppose the question is, if they don't agree with your value, will they just pull the offer altogether since they aren't legally obliged?

[Kloubek]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I suppose the question is, if they don't agree with your value, will they just pull the offer altogether since they aren't legally obliged?

Ok wait. They ARE legally obligated, which has been quote thoroughly gone over here. In addition to that, they have already agreed to proceed, as well as sent me retroactive insurance slips. It's already a done deal that I'm covered.

What they are NOT legally obligated to do is handle it as if I had collision coverage. (Although they agreed verbally) But at the end of the day, besides having to deal with his insurance company instead of mine, it is of little consequence since I was not at fault.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What they are NOT legally obligated to do is handle it as if I had collision coverage.

That's my point. Right now they ARE handling it as if you have collision. THEY are the ones offering you $18g, correct? If they weren't handling it as if you had collision, you would be dealing directly with the other insurance company.

So at any point, your insurance company may say "nah, this is on you, we don't have to do this for you", at which point you now have to take over negotiations with the other insurance company.

[Kloubek]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's my point. Right now they ARE handling it as if you have collision. THEY are the ones offering you $18g, correct? If they weren't handling it as if you had collision, you would be dealing directly with the other insurance company.

So at any point, your insurance company may say "nah, this is on you, we don't have to do this for you", at which point you now have to take over negotiations with the other insurance company.

I suppose it is possible. That's a sure-fire way to lose a customer though. "Ok, so we decided to cover you under the collision policy from your Infiniti. Oh... wait... what? You want market value for your car? Well in that case, you can deal with the other insurance company". I guess it could happen and I suppose they have a right to do it, but I am not too concerned; having 4 vehicles in my household and a near perfect driving record, I'd say I'm a pretty lucrative client.

[Masked Bandit]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Jag is an NAA because he has all his auto insurance with one provider, so an additional vehicle counts - it doesn't have to be a direct substitution.

Correct, partially. Yes it's still a NAA but because it's not a direct substitution for one of his full coverage vehicles rather just an addition to the fleet, his insurance company didn't have to extend the full coverage because not all of his vehicles carried that. It's a technicality and I'm pretty sure someone at the insurance company realized that in the end the other guy's insurance is going to pay the bill anyway so why piss the customer off?

[Kloubek]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Correct, partially. Yes it's still a NAA but because it's not a direct substitution for one of his full coverage vehicles rather just an addition to the fleet, his insurance company didn't have to extend the full coverage because not all of his vehicles carried that. It's a technicality and I'm pretty sure someone at the insurance company realized that in the end the other guy's insurance is going to pay the bill anyway so why piss the customer off?

I believe it was actually the broker's doing initially. Once I submitted the initial claim with Aviva, I only dealt with the broker (Innova) for the next few days and he worked with both Aviva and I to make sure all the documentation that was required in this unique situation. The broker handled it as piggybacking onto the Infiniti insurance. The last time I spoke to him he did indeed say that Aviva considered changing it to be under the Jeep's coverage - which of course would have meant no extra benefits of having collision. I imagine you're right though - Aviva probably just decided since it was no-fault they might as well just let it happen. The broker made it out to be his doing that it continued as a collision-covered claim, but I would be surprised if he actually had any clout in that decision.

[oilerfan4lyfe]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What they are NOT legally obligated to do is handle it as if I had collision coverage. (Although they agreed verbally) But at the end of the day, besides having to deal with his insurance company instead of mine, it is of little consequence since I was not at fault.

This is what's really confusing me about this thread. You're not at fault, so isn't the other person's insurance on the hook for either repairing your car or paying you out? I thought it didn't matter if you have collision or not if it's someone else's fault. Am I wrong? People in this thread are making it seem like you should be SOL because you don't have collision on one of your vehicles. Even if your insurance said they won't extend collision to your new car, you would still get the pay out from the other person's insurance company, right?

[shakalaka]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is what's really confusing me about this thread. You're not at fault, so isn't the other person's insurance on the hook for either repairing your car or paying you out? I thought it didn't matter if you have collision or not if it's someone else's fault. Am I wrong? People in this thread are making it seem like you should be SOL because you don't have collision on one of your vehicles. Even if your insurance said they won't extend collision to your new car, you would still get the pay out from the other person's insurance company, right?

How it typically works is if you have collision then your own insurance company facilitates the repairs and ensures that your vehicle is good to go/replaced ASAP. Then they go over to the insurance company for the person who's at fault themselves to recover whatever they paid to you. If you don't have collision with your own insurance company, then you're SOL as far as getting any help from your own insurance company is concerned. Then you are on your own to negotiate with the other person's insurance company and reach a settlement.

[C4S]

Lucky you...

I got a $2,500 ticket because I swapped my plate from my car A to car B ...period! (Car A had insurance hat I was selling, but not sold yet that that moment...)

[ShermanEF9]

I can understand the 14 day rule for registration as it has no impact really on anything.

insurance i don't see due to the fact it is privately controlled. ultimately it would be up to your insurance company, as different vehicles would fall under different categories for coverage... etc. also like was brought up before, if i went from a $5k civic to a $50k jag, my coverage would now be insufficient and not really the problem of my insurance company as they were unaware.

[zhao]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

insurance i don't see due to the fact it is privately controlled. ultimately it would be up to your insurance company, as different vehicles would fall under different categories for coverage... etc. also like was brought up before, if i went from a $5k civic to a $50k jag, my coverage would now be insufficient and not really the problem of my insurance company as they were unaware.

This is wrong. A 5g civic might actually cost more to insure, because hte cost of the car is only a small factor.

What matters more is statistics. Do they pay out more $$$$ by your average $5000 civic or by your average $100000 porsche 911? The answer is the civic costs insurance more. $5000 civics are generally driven by idiots thinking 127hp is fast who just got their license, and 911s are generally babied and parked in a garage 350 days a year.

[bjstare]

I had a lengthy discussion with MaskedBandit about this when I got my last car and I was surprised it was the same (or less) than my previous to insure, but worth significantly more and a lot faster.

[ExtraSlow]

Honda fit is expensive to insure either because it's a Savage supercar or because it's often driven by teenage aisan girls. Potato potato

[ShermanEF9]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is wrong. A 5g civic might actually cost more to insure, because hte cost of the car is only a small factor.

What matters more is statistics. Do they pay out more $$$$ by your average $5000 civic or by your average $100000 porsche 911? The answer is the civic costs insurance more. $5000 civics are generally driven by idiots thinking 127hp is fast who just got their license, and 911s are generally babied and parked in a garage 350 days a year.

Sorry let me put this another way. If I am insurance company X, and I am expecting to cover the loss of a $5000 civic, and suddenly now I am told I am covering the loss of a $70k Jaguar that I was unaware of, I am going to be a little upset about it, am I not?

[Masked Bandit]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry let me put this another way. If I am insurance company X, and I am expecting to cover the loss of a $5000 civic, and suddenly now I am told I am covering the loss of a $70k Jaguar that I was unaware of, I am going to be a little upset about it, am I not?

You might be upset but assuming the right conditions are met you're still obligated to provide the coverage. Insurance companies can't take anything away from the SPF#1, only add to it.

[Kloubek]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry let me put this another way. If I am insurance company X, and I am expecting to cover the loss of a $5000 civic, and suddenly now I am told I am covering the loss of a $70k Jaguar that I was unaware of, I am going to be a little upset about it, am I not?

In the case of an at-fault situation, I imagine it would have been far more dire for me. Perhaps for the reason you just mentioned, but certainly due to the fact that if they DID follow through without collision and I was responsible for an accident, I might not have received any coverage at all. That would have sucked royally. Never again.

In the case of a not at fault, I don't think there is much that can be done. My insurance company isn't responsible for payment, and THEIR insurance company probably only wants to see that I had coverage.

[ShermanEF9]

that makes sense.

[dj_rice]

Shitty deal Kloubek. Bad luck. But glad your okay.

I pick up my new car tomorrow, since the bank placed a lien on it till I pay it off in full, I have to have full coverage insurance on it the day I pick it up, and I believe I'm not allowed to take full coverage off of it even if I want to park it during the winter.

But good read, I'll make sure to have my insurance/reg in order before I pick up.

Good luck with your insurance, hopefully its a solution thats satisfactory

[relyt92]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Shitty deal Kloubek. Bad luck. But glad your okay.

I pick up my new car tomorrow, since the bank placed a lien on it till I pay it off in full, I have to have full coverage insurance on it the day I pick it up, and I believe I'm not allowed to take full coverage off of it even if I want to park it during the winter.

But good read, I'll make sure to have my insurance/reg in order before I pick up.

Good luck with your insurance, hopefully its a solution thats satisfactory

Correct, you'll require full coverage on it the whole time the bank owns some of it.