Collision insurance pays for damage to your car in an accident that was your
fault -- obviously not the case here. I'm not sure whether this falls under
comp or uninsured-motorist, but it's definitely *not* collision.
On Jul 17, 4:45 pm, email@example.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
This is incorrect. Collision insurance is precisely there to pay
for repair of the covered vehicle, regardless of who is at fault. If
another party is at fault and can be located, then your insurance
company can go after them to recover, but their first reponsibility is
to pay for repair of the covered vehicle following a collision,
withour regard to who is at fault. That's why it's required for an
auto that is financed. The party providing the financing wants to
know that the car will be paid for if hit and damaged, regardless of
who is at fault, whether the other party has insurance, can be
on 7/17/2008 11:57 AM Peetie Wheatstraw said the following:
The 94 TBird does not have a bumper, it has a rubber valance, backed by
some steel framing. What does this damage consist of? Paint scrapes?
Take it to a vehicle detailer, one of those guys that touch up minor
damage and wear for used car dealers. The price will probably be 1/3rd
the cost of replacing and painting the valance.
Finally got their field-claims guy over here. Estimated damage at
$626, cut a check for 376.
You'd think their field guys would estimate at-or-below the dealer's
body shop ($520 in this instance): not necessarily the case,
'specially with nickel/dimers.
There's a lot of "don't file a claim"-type paranoia out there. Some
of it is justified, and some is not.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:57:52 -0500, Peetie Wheatstraw
I got no problem with that. But I haven't had any problems with sf. Only
2 small "not-at-fault" claims in 10 years, but, when I approached 'em very
carefully implicitly asking for something reasonable, they responded
with something reasonable.
I don't like ins. co's. There are all manner of ins. co's out there
(including sf) that are playing all manner of games with their
customers. Maybe even worse with health ins (seen Sicko?). The less
games an ins. co. is playing, the more I find 'em tolerable.
(safeco) is half what I paid to sf. Those bastards. I'd been with them since
I was 23 and only filed one claim when I was burglarized. They paid up but
they made me feel like I was the criminal.
Don't ever file a homeowner's claim because when you go to look for a new
policy that is the first question they ask: "Have you filed a claim in the
past X years?"
The guy who helped me:
get my new policies said the driving forces in determining your premiums is
your credit rating and the # of claims you file. Fortunately for me I was OK
on both: No claims in a gazillion years and good credit.
It sounds like you have a healthy distrust of ins co's. Good because they
don't trust us much either.
The following is a rant so feel free to avoid:
No I haven't seen "Sicko"? I retired comfortably at 51 from the health care
industry so I can't complain. I do find it odd that Americans are the most
obese and out of shape people on the planet and then have the gall complain
about not having good healthcare. My wife works in an emergency room and
many of the uninsured are homeless drug addicts "seeking". Michael Moore is
a fat idiot. BTW: I voted *against* Bush in the last 2 elections so it has
nothing to do with that. If anything, Michael Moore helped Bush get elected
with that other idiotic movie of his.
A much better movie is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/ . This is where
America's real heathcare problem lies.
Yeah, it -was- a good deal silly. And like shooting fish in a barrel, to boot.
While there's something to your point, it tells a lot less than 100% of
Let's play the "Choose which folks to count" game. Choose one of the
following from which to draw inferences:
1.) The number of US folks whose behavior has caused serious health
problems, and bitch about health ins. costs.
2.) The number of US folks whose health problems have other sources,
who work hard but don't earn much $ (lack of education, etc), and
can't afford health ins. b/c it costs vastly more than in most
If you've got the ax to grind, I say "grind on". I won't have any more
to say about it.
On Jul 18, 2:11 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org (Doug Miller) wrote:
Again, that's incorrect. Collision covers damage to the insured's
car REGARDLESS of who is at fault in a collision. Now, if there is
another party that can be located and made to pay, then the insurance
company can and likely will go after that other party to recover some
or all of the money they are out. But their first obliation is to
pay for the repair to their insured parties vehicle, subject to
If it worked as you say, consider this. Let's say I have collision
insurance and get into an accident with party B. No tickets were
issued and from the facts given by both parties, my insurance company
says I was not at fault, party B was. And party B's insurance
company, based on their interpretation of the facts, says their
insured is not at fault. Following your premise, I'd be in no mans
land because my insurance company says I'm not at fault and it would
be unclear who would ever pay to repair my car damage. Fortunately,
it doesn't work that way. If you have collision coverage and you
have a collision, your insurance company is responsible to pay.
Certainly. In the absence of weather, darkness, or other mitigating factors,
when someone collides with your car in a parking lot and then flees, we're
allowed to presume deliberate malice! That's a crime.
Cops SHOULD get involved when there's a possible crime.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.