State Farm cost me $40,000 in medical bills about 20 years ago, I hate them. Farm Bureau has treated me well. :D

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.

Have you ever heard of an "adhesion contract"?
 

Adhesion contract:

A type of contract, a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.

An example of an adhesion contract is a standardized contract form that offers goods or services to consumers on essentially a "take it or leave it" basis without giving consumers realistic opportunities to negotiate terms that would benefit their interests. When this occurs, the consumer cannot obtain the desired product or service unless he or she acquiesces to the form contract.

There is nothing unenforceable or even wrong about adhesion contracts. In fact, most businesses would never conclude their volume of transactions if it were necessary to negotiate all the terms of every Consumer Credit contract. Insurance contracts and residential leases are other kinds of adhesion contracts.

This does not mean, however, that all adhesion contracts are valid. Many adhesion contracts are Unconscionable; they are so unfair to the weaker party that a court will refuse to enforce them. An example would be severe penalty provisions for failure to pay loan installments promptly that are physically hidden by small print located in the middle of an obscure paragraph of a lengthy loan agreement. In such a case a court can find that there is no meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract and that the weaker party has not accepted the terms of the contract.

~~~~

Legally enforceable agreement containing standardized terms, offered by a business to consumers of goods or services. The consumer must accept the standard provisions and does not have the ability to change those terms. Since it is on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, the consumer is unable to bargain with the seller.

~~~~


Good luck trying to change the terms of an insurance policy before you buy one, by negotiating with them, or asking them before buying it, to change in any way what is written down.


All of them are written one way, both in premiums or claims coverage, to maximium the flow in ONE Way: To THEM.


As I have found out.

sorry to hear this, and a brand new car at that! this web site: http://www.badfaithinsurance.org reveals the good, the bad and the ugly on the insurance boys.

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.

I certainly wouldn't try to change the terms of a standard policy, but I do make sure the policies that I do have meet my needs. In general, I'm much more concerned about the liability and personal injury aspects of the policy than the nickel and dime stuff.

Jim, a tire warranty is a lot different than a tire damaged in a collision. If someone whacked the side of your car and killed the tire the insurance company could rightfully demand that you participate in buying the new tire, if there is measurable wear. This can get really hairy in the case of an AWD vehicle, where all 4 tires must have very similar rolling diameters for the ABS and traction control to work properly...if one tire gets damaged, the insurance company only owes for the un-used portion of that tire, and if you have to buy a set of 4, it's your problem. They don't owe for obsolescence, which tire wear effectively is.

On the subject of glass, there's no reason salvage glass can't be used. In the case of windshields, they ALL have stone chips or other small divots, so the use of salvage windshields would be unusual. On top of that, many are glued-in and contribute to the structural integrity of the car, and cutting out a windshield can be tricky.

Jimb, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, just pointing out what I've seen in my personal experience...make no mistake, the company is holding all of the cards...

OMG - MY Insurance company is one of the TOP 4 of the worst of them.


From your link:


Insurance companies and related conspirator companies use the courts system to hide behind, forestall and put-off paying claims. Thousands of civil cases involving breach of contract unpaid claims and bad faith claims against insurers are contested everyday in our country's state and federal courts system.

Cool, my insurer is #1 on the "good" list. Sometimes you do get what you pay for.

Now Nationwide - used to have Geico for 20+ years.....
 

Geico was slowly roasting UP my rates for BOTH my Mercedes-Benz AND my diesel motorcoach. I have had NO claims ever, BTW. I love Geico, since it's a Berkshire-Hathaway company, but not to the extent that I will pay higher rates for no reason.

I was rear-ended in my '83 MB 300SD - his insurance company furnished a rent car for about a month while the MB dealer's body shop had my driveable car. I was introduced to the used parts aftermarket for replacement body shop parts on my MB, when I noticed the rear replacement tailights were NOT in as good condition as the ones that were smashed in the wreck. I refused to pick up the MB and told my service advisor to find better replacements equal to or better condition (the ones they tried to pawn-off on me were badly sunfaded) he balked and bleated at the idea of me wanting a better gradation - but I walked, refusing to pick up the car until it was done. I then drove to the Allstate insurance agent's office in person,explaining that I needed to keep the rent car a few more days, since my car was not acceptable to pick up. The agent said OK, and they did upgrade to better used taillight assembly/lenses, but they still were not new.

My car was about 12 years old, Jim, and I was surprised that they would go get better lenses for it. So watch them like a hawk on the fix.


As a note to any of the "I told you so" guys posting here:
Anyone who has read their terms and conditions policy's BEFORE having an accident - please come forward......?

Nationwide's binder for my motorcoach is in excess of 35 pages - I haven't read it, nor do I plan to. I know my main coverages, though. I am at the mercy of the insurance company in all likelyhood anyway. When banks fail insurance companies will still exist, that's how powerful they are.

I have a pretty good idea what's in my insurance policies, my wife works as an insurance adjuster and understands how it works.

Famous last words..... Since there is no such thing as a "good guy," insurance company.

They will all exact their justice on you - sooner or later.....

I don't believe in full coverage insurance. I just have liability. No worry about claims, unless somebody (with insurance) hits me.

It wouldn't make much sense for me to have full coverage insurance. I probably have seven grand in my '83, and I doubt if I could extract two from an insurance company over it.

If, for some odd reason, I did decide to have full coverage and they did me like the OP, I'd be pretty angry, but not really surprised. Insurance companies do all kinds of mean and nasty and ugly things for short term profit.

JIm,

Think about it. Because of the giving-up, and attrition of potential litigants suing their insurance companies - insurance companies have no advantage in settling most claims early. They are in the: "heads I win, tails I win business." Stalling is always to their advantage - unless drug into court by a DA somewhere. Or by a judge's order somewhere.

:(