Quote:
Originally Posted by davestlouis
If the car was drivable, it should not have been put in the shop until the parts were there, and if there was a question about what parts to order, it should have been addressed prior to teardown/disassembly. From the insurance company's standpoint, the shop should be paying for the rental for the moment, because they made a drivable car, undriveable.
JimB, I realize that the car is nearly new to you, but it is, in fact, a used car, that you purchased used, and have driven since. If you had a tire with 10,000 miles on it, the insurance company wouldn't owe you a new tire, they could appropriately take betterment on that because you had used part of its service life prior to it becoming damaged. A bumper cover is the same thing, it accumulates stone chips and curb damage over time, and the finish oxidizes due to weather exposure and mechanical car washes.
If you were a 3rd party claimant, you would have a stronger case, since you would not have a contractual agreement with the insurance company, but as their insured, you're SOL.
If you want a high-end policy with a huge rental allowance and no issues with new parts, it'll cost you, but Chubb and Firemans Fund both have really nice personal lines policies that you can customize any way you like. I met a guy who told me he paid nearly 3X as much as he had with Allstate, but he liked the level of service Firemans Fund gave him...ya gets what ya pays for.
|
davestlouis,
By that reasoning, all insurance replacement windshields should be USED.
I am VERY familiar with the concept of "betterment", my first job out of college, in 1970-1971, I had to apply it all the time, and explain as the adjuster, for the Auto Insurance company.
With a stolen battery, the company would NOT pay the policy holder for a new battery, they subtracted the use they thought the customer got.
You should have seen the shock, furor and outrage THAT caused.
"What do you MEAN, I can't have a new battery??!! My battery was STOLEN!!!
and of course, the best one of all: (We heard this a LOT... especially from poor old ladies): "WHY do I even have insurane at ALL?" they would wail!!!
I had to have a box of crying tissues on the desk it happened so much...
Finally they quit. People were leaving them in droves.
Back in 1971 you could NOT get a rental car, or even allowance at all. It was in the policy. But LEGALLY you ARE ENTITLED TO IT, THE CONCEPT IS CALLED "loss of use" - defined as, coverage in the event that property is damaged or destroyed so that an insured cannot use the property for its intended purpose. For example, loss of use of a drill press because of vandalism would be covered.
But my supervisor was a mean ass SOB, and I will never forget what he said: "Loss of use," oh yeah. We'll only pay that for THREE kinds of people.
Doctors, Realtors, ....and Lawyers, bcaause they KNOW THEY CAN GET IT.
What a cynical SOB. I didn't last long at THAT place, I was gone in less than a year.
I read the new tire warranty for my car too. It reads pretty straightforward.
If the tire is defective, and you are in an accident, and the car rolls over after the blowout, and your car is totalled out and you are left crippled for life,
you get a BRAND NEW TIRE.
And that's ALL.
~~~
The courts have thrown out those kinds of guarantees. I remember one case about 30 years under those facts, it was a 1957 Ford station wagon where it happened, those exact facts.
The legal reason for the decision, is that it "shocks the conscience" of the Court.