Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: Car Insurance Question ( No Answer,   2 Comments )
Question  
Subject: Car Insurance Question
Category: Miscellaneous
Asked by: club777-ga
List Price: $50.00
Posted: 07 Jan 2003 11:41 PST
Expires: 17 Jan 2003 10:48 PST
Question ID: 138883
I am involved in a dispute with my car insurance co. in California.  I
have been advised by two separate parties (who should know) that when a
company establishes that your car is a total loss, all maintenance
work (not service) for that last 6 mos.is recoverable by law. I would
I would like to find a legal reference to help me in my claim.

Request for Question Clarification by missy-ga on 13 Jan 2003 21:51 PST
Hi there,

I've consulted with a Progressive representative in California, who
stated that she had never heard of such a thing.


Can you tell me what you mean by parties "who should know"?  Are they
law enforcement personnel?  Insurance agents?  Perhaps this would help
to narrow the search.

--Missy

Clarification of Question by club777-ga on 14 Jan 2003 14:40 PST
Missy,
The individuals I was refering to are two separate garage mechanics
who were
asked within the last year (2002)to retrieve invoices for their
customers dating
back 6 months.  They were not to find basic service and maintenance
items, but
any critical work that was needed that kept the car actually running. 
One example, one woman owned a Volvo that had been in a wreck and
needed a radiator
and an axel replaced.  Those items were then submitted as part of the
settlement
when, four months later, her car was in another accident in which it
was totaled.  Now, of course, these are just stories, but TWO separate
garages tells
basically the same tale?  Makes me think there is something to it ,
and in our
case the claim would bring us another $1400.00 because everything we
sent in
had to do with repairing vital parts in our car.

Request for Question Clarification by hlabadie-ga on 14 Jan 2003 15:49 PST
I'm sorry to report that extensive further investigation confirms my
original comments. I conclude that you have been misled. This must be
a disappointment on top of the fact of the accident, but there is no
evidence that such a requirement for retroactive compensation exists
in law or regulation. I think that you must either accept a negative
answer to your question, or close out the question as unanswerable due
to the lack of an affirmative.


Note (2), comparable automobile, (2)(b)(1) subsections (A),(B),(C),
and (2)(k) regarding valuation in the Fair Claims Settlement
Regulations.


In addition to the Regulations in the comment, see:

CDI Web site

Automobile Insurance
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/CSD/Brochure/Automobile/AutoInsurance.htm

"When you make a claim for damages to your automobile, the insurance
company will decide whether to repair your vehicle or declare it a
total loss.  Generally, if the cost to repair your vehicle is higher
than the fair market value of the vehicle, the company will declare it
a total loss. Read your policy carefully to determine when your
company can declare your automobile a total loss.
[...]
If your vehicle is declared a total loss, then the insurance company
must replace it with a comparable vehicle or pay the actual cash value
of your vehicle.  The actual cash value of a vehicle is the fair
market price of the vehicle if it was offered for sale in your local
area. The amount of the settlement must include sales tax and license
fees. If you are not
advised at the time of settlement where a comparable vehicle can be
purchased, and you are unable to locate one on your own within 35 days
after receiving the claim payment, then you need to notify the
insurer. The insurer must then re-open the claims file and make
further efforts to adjust your loss."


Basically, the company is required to give Fair Market Value, plus any
fees, taxes, etc., necessary to acquire locally a replacement vehicle
of the same make, model, year, etc., in the same or better condition.
The company can adjust for depreciation or betterment of certain
items. The instances that you note suggest only that the insurer was
attempting to ascertain the condition of the vehicle prior to the
declaration of total loss in order to provide an accurate valuation.
(Poorly maintained might also suggest fault.) One might reasonably
argue that a vehicle that is in better condition, by virtue of recent
maintenance, than the comparable vehicle ought to have an higher
market value than the average. It seems impossible to argue, however,
that the value should be increased by the full cost of the
maintenance. There is no provision in law or regulation promulgated by
California's Legislature or Department of Insurance that requires
reimbursement of maintenance expenditures made six months prior the
declaration of total loss.

The concept of betterment is your best option, but I doubt that the
entire $1400 can be added to the valuation.

Will you accept the combined comments and this Request for
Clarification as an answer?

hlabadie-ga

Request for Question Clarification by missy-ga on 14 Jan 2003 16:10 PST
Hi,

I'm afraid I must concur with hlabadie-ga.  I've spoken to several
California insurance agents, who have pointed me to the sections of
law that have already been cited.  Three had never heard of what these
mechanics told you, and two stated that it was "wishful thinking". 
One said it was a popular rumor, with no basis in the law.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to answer in the affirmative for you.  I wish
you luck, and hope you're able to get your claim settled fairly and
with as little fuss as possible.

--Missy

Clarification of Question by club777-ga on 17 Jan 2003 10:47 PST
Thanks to missy and sparky what I was able to download really helped me. And
here is why.  The key word used throughout is "comparable" and it doesn't take
a English teacher to look that up.  I have contacted a independent assessor and
it turns out I'm covered on my policy to do that.  Something else, once I told
my insurance claims examiner that I understood I could collect on the bill
(which he didn't tell me) he then offered me $1100 more than his first offer.
That's why I believed he was holding out. Your help with references gave me a 
chance to tell him I had a choice between the cash settlement and a "comparable"
car.  I told him that I might go for the actual car and that like mine to be
"comparable" it would have to be a near perfect 87 Cad with only 47,000 on it,
a car that has been in my parents' garage for years untouched.  Let's see if 
he feels it would be too much to find a match.  Thanks.  Question over.
Answer  
There is no answer at this time.

Comments  
Subject: Re: Car Insurance Question
From: hlabadie-ga on 13 Jan 2003 21:55 PST
 
Here are the Fair Claims Settlement Regulations from the California
Department of Insurance as they apply specifically to automobiles.
Basically, the company is required to give Fair Market Value, plus and
fees, taxes, etc., necessary to acquire a replacment vehicle of the
same type. They can adjust for depreciation of certain items or
betterment. If you had put new tires on the car, for instance, they
might increase the final adjusted fair market value. I can't see where
reimbursement for all maintenance within six months is required,
unless that is a special coverage of the policy. If it isn't in the
policy, then it isn't a requirement.

Fair Claims Settlement Regulations 
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/LGL/Fairregs.htm


"Section 2695.8. Additional Standards Applicable to Automobile
Insurance

(a) This section enumerates standards which apply to adjustment and
settlement of automobile insurance claims.

(1) the words "automobile" and "vehicle" are used synonymously; and

(2) a comparable automobile is one of like kind and quality, made by
the same manufacturer, of the same or newer model year, of a similar
body type, with similar options and mileage as the insured vehicle.
Any differences between the comparable automobile and the insured
vehicle shall be permitted only if the insurer fairly adjusts for such
differences. A comparable automobile must be and available for retail
purchase by the general public in the local market area within ninety
(90) calendar days of the final settlement offer.

(b) When the insurance policy provides for the adjustment and
settlement of first party automobile total losses on the basis of
actual cash value or replacement with a comparable automobile, one of
the following methods must apply:

(1) The insurer may elect a cash settlement based upon the actual
cost, less any deductible provided in the policy, to purchase a
comparable automobile including all applicable taxes, license fees and
other fees incident to transfer of evidence of ownership of a
comparable automobile. Such cost shall be determined as follows and,
once determined, shall be fully itemized and explained in writing for
the claimant:

(A) when comparable automobiles are available or were available in the
local market area in the last 90 days, the average cost of two or more
such comparable automobiles; or,

(B) when comparable automobiles are not available in the local market
area, the average of two or more quotations from two or more licensed
dealers in the local market area; or,

(C) when an automobile total loss is adjusted or settled on a basis
which varies from the methods described in subsections (b)(1)(A) and
(b)(1)(B) of this section, the determination of value must be
supported by documentation. Any deductions from value, including
deduction for salvage, must be discernible, measurable, itemized, and
specified as well as be appropriate in dollar amount and so documented
in the claims file. The insurer must take reasonable steps to verify
that the value so determined is accurate and representative of the
market value of a comparable automobile in the local market area.

(2) The insurer may elect to offer a replacement automobile which is a
specified comparable automobile available to the insured, with all
applicable taxes, license fees and other fees incident to transfer of
evidence of ownership of the automobile paid by the insurer at no cost
other than any deductible provided in the policy. The offer and any
rejection thereof must be documented in the insurer's claim file. A
replacement automobile must be in as good or better over all condition
than the insured vehicle and available for inspection within a
reasonable distance of the insured's residence.

(c) Every insurer shall, if notified within thirty-five (35) calendar
days after receiving the claim draft or final settlement offer that
the insured cannot purchase a comparable automobile for the gross
settlement amount, reopen its claim file and utilize the following
procedures shall apply:

(1) The insurer shall locate a comparable automobile for the gross
settlement amount determined by the company at the time of settlement
and shall provide the insured with the information required in (c)(4),
below, or offer a replacement vehicle in accordance with section
2695.8(b)(2). Any such vehicle must be available in the local market
area; or,

(2) The insurer shall either pay the insured the difference between
the amount of the gross settlement and the cost of the comparable
automobile which the insured has located, or negotiate and purchase
this vehicle for the insured; or,

(3) The insurer shall invoke the appraisal provision of the insurance
policy.

(4) No insurer is required to take action under this subsection if its
documentation to the insured at the time of final settlement offer
included written notification of the identity of a specified
comparable automobile which was available for purchase at the time of
final settlement offer for the gross settlement amount determined by
the insurer. The documentation shall include the telephone number
(including area code) or street address of the seller of the
comparable automobile and:

(A) the vehicle identification number (VIN) or,

(B) the stock or order number of the vehicle from a licensed dealer,
or

(C) the license plate number of such comparable vehicle.

(d) No insurer shall, where liability and damages are reasonably
clear, recommend that the third party claimant make a claim under his
or her own policy to avoid paying the claim under the policy issued by
that insurer.

(e) No insurer shall:

(1) require that an automobile be repaired at a specific repair shop;
or,

(2) direct, suggest or recommend that an automobile be repaired at a
specific repair shop, unless,

(A) such referral is expressly requested by the claimant; or,

(B) the claimant has been informed in writing of the right to select
the repair facility; and,

(C) the insurer that elects to repair a vehicle or directs, suggests
or recommends that a specific repair shop be used, shall cause the
damaged vehicle to be restored to its condition prior to the loss at
no additional cost to the claimant other than as stated in the policy
or as otherwise allowed by these regulations.

(3) require a claimant to travel an unreasonable distance either to
inspect a replacement automobile, to conduct an inspection of the
vehicle, to obtain a repair estimate or to have the automobile
repaired at a specific repair shop.

(f) if partial losses are settled on the basis of a written estimate
prepared by or for the insurer, the insurer shall supply the claimant
with a copy of the estimate upon which the settlement is based. The
estimate prepared by or for the insurer shall be in accordance with
applicable policy provisions, and of an amount which will allow for
repairs to be made in a workmanlike manner. If the claimant
subsequently claims, based upon a written estimate which he or she
obtains, that necessary repairs will exceed the written estimate
prepared by or for the insurer, the insurer shall:

(1) pay the difference between the written estimate and a higher
estimate obtained by the claimant; or,

(2) promptly provide the claimant with the name of at least one repair
shop, if requested by the claimant pursuant to subsection
2695.8(e)(2), that will make the repairs for the amount of the written
estimate. If the insurer designates fewer than three repair shops, the
insurer shall assure that the repairs are performed in a workmanlike
manner. The insurer shall maintain documentation of all such
communications; or,

(3) reasonably adjust any written estimates prepared by the repair
shop of the insured's choice.

(g) No insurer shall require the use of non-original equipment
manufacture replacement crash parts in the repair of an automobile
unless:

(1) the parts are at least equal to the original equipment
manufacturer parts in terms of kind, quality, safety, fit, and
performance;

(2) insurers specifying the use of non-original equipment manufacturer
replacement crash parts shall pay the cost of any modifications to the
parts which may become necessary to effect the repair; and,

(3) insurers specifying the use of non-original equipment manufacture
replacement crash parts warrant that such parts are of like kind,
quality, safety, fit, and performance as original equipment
manufacturer replacement crash parts; and,

(4) all original and non-original manufacture replacement crash parts,
manufactured after the effective date of this subchapter, when
supplied by repair shops shall carry sufficient permanent,
non-removable identification so as to identify the manufacturer. Such
identification shall be accessible to the greatest extent possible
after installation.

(h) No insurer shall require an insured or claimant to supply parts
for replacement.

(i) Every insurer shall provide written notification to a first party
claimant as to whether the insurer intends to pursue subrogation of
the claim. Where an insurer elects not to pursue subrogation or
discontinues pursuit of subrogation it shall include in its
notification a statement that any recovery to be pursued is the
responsibility of the first party claimant. This subsection does not
require notification if the deductible is waived, the coverage under
which the claim is paid requires no deductible to be paid, the total
loss sustained does not exceed the applicable deductible, or there is
no legal basis for subrogation.

(j) Every insurer that makes a subrogation demand shall include in
every demand the first party claimant's deductible. Every insurer
shall share subrogation recoveries on a proportionate basis with the
first party claimant, unless the first party claimant has otherwise
recovered the whole deductible amount. No insurer shall deduct legal
or other expenses from the recovery of the deductible unless the
insurer has retained an outside attorney or collection agency to
collect that recovery. The deduction may only be for a pro rata share
of the allocated loss adjustment expense.

(k) When the amount claimed is adjusted because of betterment,
depreciation, or salvage, all justification shall be contained in the
claim file. Any adjustments shall be discernable, measurable,
itemized, and specified as to dollar amount, and shall accurately
reflect the value of the betterment, depreciation, or salvage. The
basis for any adjustment shall be fully explained to the claimant in
writing and shall:

(1) reflect a measurable difference in market value attributable to
the condition and age of the vehicle, or

(2) apply only to parts normally subject to repair and replacement
during the useful life of the vehicle such as, but not limited to,
tires, batteries, et cetera.

(l) Every insurer shall provide reasonable notice to a claimant before
terminating payment for storage charges, so that the claimant has time
to remove the vehicle from storage.

(m) Unless the insurer has provided an insured with the name of a
specific towing company prior to the insured's use of another towing
company, the insurer shall pay the reasonable towing charges of the
towing company used by the insured.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 790.10, 12921 and 12926 of the
California Insurance Code and Sections 11342.2 and 11152 of the
California Government Code. Reference: Section 790.03(c) and
790.03(h)(3) of the California Insurance Code."

hlabadie-ga
Subject: Re: Car Insurance Question
From: sparky4ca-ga on 15 Jan 2003 22:04 PST
 
I don't think it's a requirement of any sort. The insurance company
here (ICBC) doesn't even take prior work it payed for into account.
Our car was hit, and because the fault was entirely the other drivers,
there was no problem getting $2200 in body work done. Approximately a
year later, a family member rear-ended someone. The insurance includes
collision, so we were covered. But we ran into insurance company scare
tactics:

The car's only worth $500. We can settly right now for $700 a a
write-off. The fact that they had just spent $2200 didn't matter. Then
we got the "I can submit it for proper assessment, but if I do that,
we can't pay out more then that. And it could come out at 3 or 4
hundred."

I don't know what the total assessment was, but afterwards, they
performed $1400 in repairs.

Make sure you get independant assessments done as to what the private
and dealer resale values may be on the vehicle.

The only way I can see prior repairs being factored in would be if you
did something that increased the potential resale value. But they
still wouldn't have to consider the total repair cost. Another
example: My personal car. Assessed value is about $3500. I could spend
6 or 7 grand on a full engine rebuild, but the assessed value would
only go up about 2 grand. If it was written off the next day I
wouldn't get my 7 grand back.

Sorry.

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy