Well, today was my day in court for my car accident that happened back in January of this year. For those of you who don't know I decided to sue the driver who hit me in Small Claims court since her insurance company, Farmers was being shady.

My case was the only case the whole day that did not get called so the judge set us a new court date. When leaving the courthouse the defendant and I saw an arbitrator outside who we saw in court previously who allowed her services for free. So since we got nothing done today we decided to see what the arbitrator could do.

In a matter of minutes the arbitrator was on the phone with Farmers and had the whole thing solved.

The arbitrator first told us that when we would go back to court I would win because the defendant made a left in front of me and that qualifies for automatic fault to her but that the Farmers would make it very difficult for me to get the money and I would have to go back to court again after that, but in civil court with lawyers.

The arbitrator said to Farmers that I would win for sure and that I was planning on taking this all the way, so there would be no money saved at all by delaying and that if they paid 70% of my lowest estimate then I would be satisfied. So Farmers agreed.

So after all this I am getting a total of $2100. Farmers wanted to pay $1600 and my lowest estimate was $3000. So the payment I ended up with is pleasing to me since it seems that it would have been way to much work to get the other $900. Her Toyota that hit me only had $360 damage which seems very low, but what do I know!

The sad thing about all this was how Farmer's didn't even seem to care about their owned insured, the defendant. The defendant said that all Farmer's did was say call us when you know the decision. Farmer's also would not even give me a staight answer which is why this whole thing happened in the first place.

__________________
1992 Mercedes-Benz 400E
2002 Mercedes-Benz ML500

In many states, but not in mine, there are laws that require insurance companies to investigate and settle claims "in good faith". I believe these statutes are part of a "uniform" set of laws similar to those governing commercial contracts and child support payments. Usually the state's insurance comissioner has a complaint office that will do the investigation work on behalf of a consumer. I'd check with your local gov's websites and see if you can register a complaint against the carrier. Even if it doesn't affect you directly, a history of complaints by consumers against a carrier might have consequences in the future.

Zeronero, it's good that your accident problems are being settled. That looks like it was definitely worth the extra work.

Nuts, now I'm kinda concerned; our life insurance is through Farmers...

It's still BS, you shouldn't have to pay a dime, insurance companys suck.

Not that I've even been screwed by one but they sure have tried.

The most-dreaded words an insurance company can hear from a claimant are "I demand to be made whole." These words are particularly powerful in a case such as yours, when their insured is clearly at fault. You should have held their feet to the fire for the entire $3000, but I'm happy if you're happy.

__________________
1980 300SD 146K miles.

I'll make my long story short. My accident dealings involved two people. My description of one would get me banned from this site, and the other gut was too good. He had the same view of the other guy that I did and exceeded his authority and got the job done right. Your opinion of the company might just be your opinion of one person.

Why do insurance companies routinely pay out less than market value? It seems like theft, especially considering in every case anyone mentions, the insurance starts by reducing value at some absurd amount and then makes the injured party squirm and struggle to get 80% or even less than the actual loss. How are insurance companies permitted to do this time and again? Perhaps a better question is how does one protect themself against this behavior???

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

Yeah, there could be a "vexatious refusal" (sp?) claim for a failure to pay damages within the policy limits in bad faith. Farmers is one of a few insurers who historically don't pay claims. Sometimes their premiums are cheaper, but you can lose in the end.

Alaska, Arizona and other states have adopted the Uniform Unfair Claims Settlement law, which allows 1st party (insured) and 3rd party (not the insurer's client) claims for failure to properly handle claims by:

1. Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.

2. Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably and promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under an insurance policy.

3. Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under an insurance policy.

4. Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information.

5. Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed.

6. Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear.

7. Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by the insureds.

8. Attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable person would have believed he was entitled by reference to written or printed advertising material accompanying or made part of an application.

9. Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured.

10. Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which the payments are being made.

11. Making known to insureds or claimants a policy of appealing from arbitration awards in favor of insureds or claimants for the purpose of compelling them to accept settlements or compromises less than the amount awarded in arbitration.

12. Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring an insured, a claimant or the physician of either to submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring the subsequent submission of formal proof of loss forms, both of which submissions contain substantially the same information.

13. Failing to promptly settle claims if liability has become reasonably clear under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.

14. Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy relative to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.

15. Attempting to settle claims for the replacement of any nonmechanical sheet metal or plastic part which generally constitutes the exterior of a motor vehicle, including inner and outer panels, with an aftermarket crash part which is not made by or for the manufacturer of an insured's motor vehicle.

Also, the laws contain provisions to ban employment practices by carriers to engage in unfair claims practices:

FORCE OR ENCOURAGE CLAIMS PERSONNEL TO CHALLENGE AND RESIST REASONABLE CLAIMS OF INSUREDS AND CLAIMANTS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AN INCREASE IN SALARY OR AN ADVANCE IN POSITION FROM THE PERSONNEL'S EMPLOYER.


REFUSE TO PAY CLAIMS OR REDUCE THE AMOUNT PAID ON CLAIMS BY RELYING ON INJURY CAUSATION DEFENSES THAT ARE NOT SHOWN TO BE WIDELY ACCEPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.


MAKE BIASED OR UNFAIR DECISIONS OR USE A CLAIMS REVIEW ORGANIZATION, ADJUSTER OR PHYSICIAN THAT MAKES BIASED OR UNFAIR DECISIONS.

California has its own laws concerning unfair claims practices at Cal Civ Code Section 2695.

That may be true, but it seems that some insurance companies have many more of these preople working for them than others. Many people, or at least the people I talk to have more trouble with the older, more "reputable " companies like Farmers and State Farm than the less known companies, but that might be linked to the size of the company.

I think that they choose what claims they're going to screw people on based upon those involved. Since I am young and their own insured was someone couldn't speak english very well they thought whatever amount they put on the table would be taken. If, say, I was a well off middle aged driver and they hit my new E55 then I'm sure that things would have went differently from the beginning.

__________________
1992 Mercedes-Benz 400E
2002 Mercedes-Benz ML500

In the zeronero's example, I would have let the matter go to court, get a judgment against Farmer's insured, then, in lieu of collecting on the judgment (you have to wonder why Farmer's didn't retain counsel for their own insured, at least to protect res judicata if there was a bodily injury claim later) get an assignment of rights from the Defendant and sue Farmer's for bad faith. Risky, but likely to pay off bigger than the small claims judgment.

Narwhal, except for the express reference in No. 7 to "insureds" the other provisions are applicable to 1st and 3rd party claims, so I'm not sure where you got "half" from.

Claims adjusters, in today's business are there to prevent uderwriting's premium dollars from going out the back door in claims. While their efforts in preventing fraud or excessive payouts is laudable, they shouldn't get in the way of the majority of bona fide claims for damage and injury. On the other hand, consumers need to read their policies with their agents and truly understand what kind of coverage they have, and more importanly, should run through some "what if" scenarios with their agents, including "What kind of replacement parts will the company pay for if my Mercedes is damaged and will the repair costs be covered under a dealership repair?" Infact, everyone should call their agent now and ask them that today.

Narwhal, Why do you always act like some successful hotshot attorney that knows the law?

ah . . . that would explain the math skills . . .

The Commonwealth has some healthy consumer oriented laws! In addition to the repair shop disclosures and limitations on coercion on using a particular repair shop they also have:

§ 38.2-510. Unfair claim settlement practices.

A. No person shall commit or perform with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following:

1. Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue;

2. Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies;

3. Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies;

4. Refusing arbitrarily and unreasonably to pay claims;

5. Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed;

6. Not attempting in good faith to make prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear;

7. Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insureds;

8. Attempting to settle claims for less than the amount to which a reasonable man would have believed he was entitled by reference to written or printed advertising material accompanying or made part of an application;

9. Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application that was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured;

10. Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made;

11. Making known to insureds or claimants a policy of appealing from arbitration awards in favor of insureds or claimants for the purpose of compelling them to accept settlements or compromises less than the amount awarded in arbitration;

12. Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring an insured, a claimant, or the physician of either to submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring the subsequent submission of formal proof of loss forms, when both contain substantially the same information;

13. Failing to promptly settle claims where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage;

14. Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement;

15. Failing to comply with § 38.2-3407.15, or to perform any provider contract provision required by that section;

16. Payment to an insurer or its representative by a repair facility, or acceptance by an insurer or its representative from a repair facility, directly or indirectly, of any kickback, rebate, commission, thing of value, or other consideration in connection with such person's appraisal service; or

17. Making appraisals of the cost of repairing an automobile that has been damaged as a result of a collision unless such appraisal is based upon a personal inspection by a representative of the repair facility or the insurer who is making the appraisal.

B. No violation of this section shall of itself be deemed to create any cause of action in favor of any person other than the Commission; but nothing in this subsection shall impair the right of any person to seek redress at law or equity for any conduct for which action may be brought.

C. 1. No insurer shall prepare or use an estimate of the cost of automobile repairs based on the use of an after market part, as defined herein, unless:

The insurer discloses to the claimant in writing either on the estimate or in a separate document attached to the estimate the following information:

"THIS ESTIMATE HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON THE USE OF AUTOMOBILE PARTS NOT MADE BY THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER. PARTS USED IN THE REPAIR OF YOUR VEHICLE BY OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER ARE REQUIRED TO BE AT LEAST EQUAL IN LIKE KIND AND QUALITY IN TERMS OF FIT, QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE TO THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER PARTS THEY ARE REPLACING."

2. "After market part" as used in this section shall mean an automobile part which is not made by the original equipment manufacturer and which is a sheet metal or plastic part generally constituting the exterior of a motor vehicle, including inner and outer panels.

(Code 1950, § 38.1-52; 1952, c. 317, § 38.1-52.

Look familiar?

Though not specifically on point or complete, this link is a good starting point to check your own state's regs

http://www.asashop.org/legis/consumer.htm