Joined: Tue Oct 11 2005, 01:33AM
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 5893
I suspect the key words are "Marius Rudokas, Insurance Co of the State of PA".
If you have a lawyer buddy, ask how the law treats cross state contractual jurisdictions, since it's not your policy, the accident could fall under the jurisdiction of the other guy's policy so NJ laws won't apply.
I think this whole deal underlines why its important to get your own insurance company involved as soon as you take possession of a car. If something happens, your insurance gets to chase the other guy's insurance company.
In this case, I'd get a couple of independent appraisals and if the $3,900 figure is close, I'd sign the release and run with the money.
In Missouri anytime you buy a vehicle it is automatically covered under your existing policy for 30 days. Unfortunately in this case you have owned the vehicle for a longer period of time, but without coverage, correct?
Joined: Sat Dec 10 2005, 04:28PM
Location: United States
Posts: 4954
NFURY8 wrote ... In Missouri anytime you buy a vehicle it is automatically covered under your existing policy for 30 days. Unfortunately in this case you have owned the vehicle for a longer period of time, but without coverage, correct?
Yessir. . .It was 3 years before the car was completed.
Bill. . PA laws and NJ laws are almost identical in this situation. In the last email Bimbette sent me, she said I have to sign it because it is a compromise. I am fighting the compromise because its their creation. I am trying to get her to explain to me what and why there even is a compromise. The case was very cut and dry. But they denied it in 2 days initially without any facts whatsoever. From that minute on, I have had the gloves on.
Read it again. They are trying to get me to sign this because THEY say it is a compromise and indicates I filed a fraudulant claim. Regardless to whether I had witnesses, pictures, and even some forensics. Had I known, I would have made a plaster of the tire tracks.
I took vehiclular accident forensics when I took my Federal Arson training. This was so obvious we could have made the case without the witness. Again, and because they dragged her feet, all the fresh evidence went away
Joined: Tue Oct 11 2005, 01:33AM
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 5893
Yup, you are right, I did need to read it again! I'm changing my choice of keywords to "settlement is the compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim".
Seems to me, when they get the words "doubtful and disputed" in the same sentence your case is pretty well toast. Very much like the question "Still beating your wife?", nobody will buy your answer unless its "yes". Undoubtedly something was said or done to give rise to the "doubtful" assessment. Go luck getting that cat back in the bag.
Joined: Tue Jan 16 2007, 08:06AM
Location: Southeastern KY
Posts: 151
As a former claims adjuster, there is one other solution that will allow you to sign the release but they probably won't accept it and release the check. Strike out and initial the parts you don't agree with and just above where you sign, state that any hidden damage to the car will be covered by AIG (careful how you word it) in addition to the current settlement. Also get a copy of the signed document or ANY signed document you give them. You have the right to get a copy of anything YOU sign. The other thing I might try is tell them you'll sign the form as is for an additional $3K (see my comment on signing in the last paragraph).
It is also prudent to have insurance on ANY car you own even if it is parked unless your plan is that it will become a junk yard ornament. This is a prime example. I put insurance on my cars the minute I have an agreed to deal even if I haven't paid for it yet. I won't even risk the insurance company refusing to follow the 30 day rule.
I am insured by USAA and have discussed old cars with them at length (referring to post on the first page lambasting USAA). The insurance company view is that a 1970 truck is just that. A 37 year old truck. In their view (edited by me for this situation), you had a 37 year old vehicle that is beyond its useful life. The insurance company looks at it as a $500 piece of metal (if that much) so the offer they made was generous. There is nothing that says an insurance company has to abide by an evaluation of any car's value. It is too common for an evaluator to write whatever you want to see.
In some states, the insurance is required to pay market value if a car is "totaled". However, their established value and yours may differ. They may use three lowball quotes to justify their payment (pick 3 cars from sales ads of cars that are marginally working cars). However, at least in California, if you could show 3 vehicles and their sale price (not for sale price but actual sale price) of a similar vehicle in similar condition, they are required to adjust their payment. Of course with a vehicle that is rare, finding 3 sales might me difficult.
So the best way to go is a stated value policy (my opinion). However most places that provide those also have limitations on the use of the vehicle. Normally, with a stated value policy, under a certain dollar amount all you have to do is say what you believe the car is worth and send pictures. If they find cars/trucks in that price range on the market, they'll accept it. If not, they may send an inspector or request an official appraisal from one of several companies. No dealers or mechanics, only licensed appraisal companies of THEIR choosing. Again, most owners put a higher value on their vehicle than it is worth to a normal buyer.
On this particular item, I would not sign that release either. Not as it is anyway. It is something they could use against YOU in the future if you did. If there was another claim against AIG at any time in the future (or any company they own or partner with - and sometimes other companies), they could share that document so everyone will believe you file false claims and then the next claim will be that much harder to settle with them. So here I disagree with Bill, don't sign and run without major modifications to the release. <span class='smallblacktext'>[ Edited Fri Nov 02 2007, 11:15AM ]</span>
Joined: Tue Jan 16 2007, 08:06AM
Location: Southeastern KY
Posts: 151
One other note. With these old cars it is very important to have full coverage. Every time you rely on THEIR insurance to cover your restored car, you are risking them rating your car as just a 40 year old hunk of metal.
Joined: Sat Dec 10 2005, 04:28PM
Location: United States
Posts: 4954
Well Thank you Mike! !thumb
That is exactly where I am coming from. My Lawyer said the same thing. The interesting thing is they sent it to me in a MS Word Document. I spend a few minutes reading this over and over the other night. I then manipulated it by inserting the word "not" a few times. in another sentance I put in 2 words. However, in a printed version, it was extremely hard to tell the difference between the two. You literally have to have them side by side and scrutinize every line to find the changes. I had several people read both also. They did not pick up on the changes. It is a cleaver way of NOT agreeing to any of it and still achieve my goals. It also eliminates what you stated below about being "Black Balled".
I agree to have the cars fully covered. I have 3 of 6 which are not. The 59, which I didn't get a chance to insure because they wanted pictures, and 2- 62 Chryslers. One is locked inside a shipping container (300H) where it can't get a lick of damage. The other is in Oregon in a friends garage, both are in pieces. The 67 Fury vert has minimal on it from JC Taylor so I can keep the plates on the car while it's at my house. Polaraco has full everyday coverage, and the "Virgin" has full coverage from JC as well.
Since the 59 WAS NOT on the road, sitting on private property- legally- I never expected to be looking at a 4000 damage bill. I have witnesses, pictures, statements putting the chain of circumstances in a row. None of this seems to matter. And having driven tractor trailers, you can't tell me he didn't know he hit the car with an empty trailer. An empty trailer doing that much damage, is going to let you know.
Joined: Tue Oct 11 2005, 01:33AM
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 5893
phantomcobra wrote ... On this particular item, I would not sign that release either. Not as it is anyway. It is something they could use against YOU in the future if you did. If there was another claim against AIG at any time in the future (or any company they own or partner with - and sometimes other companies), they could share that document so everyone will believe you file false claims and then the next claim will be that much harder to settle with them. So here I disagree with Bill, don't sign and run without major modifications to the release.
Mike's is correct, a documents like that certainly could turn around and show up later to bite you on the a$$.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier and Mike points out, the options now are pretty limited. From an insurance rating point of view, you could negotiate the removal of the offending phrases, however that won't guarantee the removal of a flag from their internal records. Neither will accepting it as written, or accepting it with an increased payment, or adding verbiage to open the door for additional hidden damage clams.
IMO changing a few words here without an initial beside each is, walking on thin ice and could void the agreement and cause them to demand the funds are returned. That would generate an even bigger flag. Even walking away without signing and without payment won't remove any existing file flags.
If you have a long time association with your insurance company, you should make them aware of the problem and see if they are willing to help in any way.
In the end I still believe the least onerous choice is to sign, take the dollars and run. I don't know if insurance flags are like credit flags which expire after 5 years or so. I do know in Canada, accident records, speeding tickets etc. leave the system after 5 years. Since this company seems to have an industry wide poor rating, a flag on one of their files may not mean much anyway.
I also agree with Mike's practice of placing insurance on new purchases. I go one step further to make sure my carrier is aware I'm considering a purchase and especially if I will be test driving a vehicle with unknown insurance coverage. The last thing I need is some fluky accident where someone is injured and I get sued.
I believe, in today's world, of being covered by insurance at all times. I worked too hard to build up my assets to put them at unnecessary risk. Yes insurance is expensive, but unfortunately the risk is very real and it can be unbelievable expensive to defend even if you are 100% in the right.
Mike, Are stated value and agreed value the same? State Farm calls my policy agreed value. I told them how much, they requested pictures, and then agreed. I still got an appraisal as a safe guard. I had also heard the stories of that value only applying to a total loss, so I grilled them on that also.
As soon as my Fury was complete enough to get a new policy, it was insured for $10,000 while it was still in the shop. The concern was that is could still receive damage in the shop and protect me in case the shop was unable to make good for whatever unforeseen reason. I think it was when the paint went on? The Fury tripled in value that day.
Joined: Tue Jan 16 2007, 08:06AM
Location: Southeastern KY
Posts: 151
Yes, in most states I'm aware of a stated value and agreed value are the same. In both cases you and the insurance company are agreeing on the value of the car so there are no disagreements down the road.
However, again.... this does not cover you if you are going to let the OTHER person's insurance fix your car. If you do not carry full coverage (collision & comprehensive) you are depending on the other insurance company to value your car as you do. They don't like spending $20,000 for a 2007 Jag, you can imagine how they feel about spending $20K for a 1965 Plymouth!
