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.

__________________
2002 Ford ZX2
2 x 2013 Honda Civics

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.

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.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

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.

__________________
'06 E320 CDI
'17 Corvette Stingray Vert

EXACTLY, The first thing you need to make DAMN SURE mr insurance adjuster understands is that You Know Where The JP'S Office is--and You Know What To Do when you get there. You be casual about even so much as letting him thing its his perogative to use cheap chinese parts to the rental and you are facilitating your headaches.

The moment you start that conversation, the adjuster will refer you to their legal department.

And all you have to do then is make one more contact with one more higher up before following through---What I meant is exactly what I said, He has to know whats what and not even hesitate to file a suit. It will possibly be drawn out to 90 days but anyone who lets insurance co's do this become part of the problem. And a lot of the time the "Legal Dept" is an Emminent -PUT ON to scare the "mark" into being complacent, of the times I have gone up against a big insurance co in small claims court-I have won every time and the lawyer was form a legal firm ---That they had to pay SERIOUSLY-not the insurance company.

I like the quote from above: "Insurance companies and related CONSPIRATOR companies......" the implication is they are all involved in a CONSPIRACY.

in addition, what you said earlier about the insurance contract being offered as an adhesion contract on a 'take it or leave it' basis is only part of the picture. in reality, auto insurance is NOT a 'take it or leave it' offering.

instead, auto insurance is a 'buy auto insurance or you are going to jail' offering because if you drive without auto insurance you most assuredly will go to jail.

kinda like the Mafia, "Let me make you an offer YOU CAN'T REFUSE. i.e. EXTORTION or MONEY SHAKE DOWN."

the AUTHOR of the contract is known as the 'Czar of the Contract'. in other words, the Insurance boys tend to believe they are calling all the shots.

unfortunately, they do.

I believe that all the states automobile ownership laws contain provisions for "self insurance/responsibilty" however that "SR" clause is typically expensive or cumbersome to establish. In other words, consumer insurance is the convenient and economical method of meeting statutory requirements, not a monopoly.

As to other issues in this thread:

Most modern auto policies are standardized ISO documents, tailored for each state's minimum requirements, so it's important to know what your state's regulations allow or disallow. Some states have "fair adjustment" regulations for insurance companies that set specific criteria for handling claims; most states have consumer protection divisions that will intercede on the consumer's behalf since insurance is a licensed and regulated industry in all states.

Generally, any ambiguity in an insurance contract will be resolved in the consumer's interest, since insurance is generally viewed as contracts, not only of adhesion, but of exclusion. However, it does require that the consumer take responsibility for knowing what is and isn't covered and who has control over claims decisions. Typically, the biggest dispute is over "actual cash value" when a vehicle is deemed "totaled."

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.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

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...

__________________
2002 Ford ZX2
2 x 2013 Honda Civics

ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE TARDS THAT WORK OF THE INSURANCE COMPAINES. iF SO YOU KNOW WHAT i THINK OF YOU YOU WORTHLESS DIRTY POS. HE PAID HIS INSURANCE THE COMANY OWES HIM A NEW BUMPER AND NO BULL ****. IF THEY GIVE HIM BULLSHILT THEY SHOULD PAY HIM FOR HIS INCOVIECE. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE PROFIT OF THE INSURANCE SLUT, IT'S ABOUT GETTING THE DAMB COVERAGE YOU PAY FOR.