|
|
 |  | Who pays for the rental car, and how long? |
|  |
 |
|
bigcurtis
Member
|
Total Posts: 5
Last Post: 2/20/2008
Member Since: 12/27/2007
|
|
*What happened:
A school bus went through a stop sign at an intersection right in front of me. I did not have a stop sign. Crash!
*The issue:
After 3 days of silence from both the bus company and their insurance company. I called them both. They both claimed they didn't know the accident happened.
I rented a car. I need a way to get back and forth to work.
After a few more days, their insurance company calls and says, "We're not taking responsibility for this. We'll investigate."
After many many days, the insurance company says, "Well, I guess our client is probably at fault. We'll send an appraiser to look at the car."
After a few days, the appraiser came and went. He calls me later and says, "I'm advising total loss."
A day later, the insurance company calls with an amount, which I think is too low, but I accept it because I want to get this whole thing over with.
6 days later, I finally get paperwork in the mail to sign, which will supposedly get me a check for my totaled car.
Then the rental car company starts calling. I guess they've been getting the run-around from the insurance company and they won't set up billing for the rental car.
I call the insurance company. I advise them that I need the rental car paid before I sign the paperwork, because the paperwork mentions nothing about the rental car.
The insurance company calls back a few days later and states they'll only pay 30 days. The problem: it's day 35.
I call the rental car company, they state the insurance company called and only agreed to pay 10 days.
Today, (day 37) I called the insurance company and there was a meltdown between myself and the person in charge of my claim. I advised her that I wasn't signing anything until the rental is paid, and they won't send a check until the paperwork is signed, but I can't get a new car until I get the check, so I still need the rental car.
*My questions: What do I do? Do I get a lawyer? Do I send the paperwork and then try to sue for the rental? Help?
|
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 12/27/2007 5:12:29 PM | IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
| There are 17 replies to this message. There are 17 replies on this page. | |
|
|
Huskercat
Member
|
Total Posts: 146
Last Post: 12/28/2011
Member Since: 4/15/2007
|
|
Long story short...the adverse insurance company (for the bus) owes you for your rental car costs regardless of their reason or excuse in delaying the settlement, unless of course you hindered that investigation. They cannot impose a 10 day limit, as they do not have a contract of insurance with you. I'm also assuming you rented a car of similar nature to the one you lost.
If you haven't done so yet, get on the phone and notify your own insurance carrier asking to utilize your own rental car coverage if you have it. They will take care of the expense up to the daily limit (ei. $30/day x 30 days), and then subrogate (demand reimbursement) the bus' insurance carrier.
You don't mention any injury involved, so hiring an atty probably is not in your best interest cost-wise. Afterall, they don't work for free. You should call your state insurance department, hopefully having all your facts/dates and names of the bus' ins co's adjuster contacts in hand. They will light a fire under someone to settle this justly for you.
In cases of disputed liability, I have experienced losses that took extra time to determine who was at fault and to what degree. But the not-at-fault party was never shortchanged in the end. Once a settlement was offered and tendered on a total loss, we generally paid an extra 1 or 2 days rental cost to allow finding/purchasing a replacement vehicle due to exchanges of titles and salvage considerations.
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 12/27/2007 6:18:39 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
|
bigcurtis
Member
|
Total Posts: 5
Last Post: 2/20/2008
Member Since: 12/27/2007
|
|
Huskercat: Thanks for your reply.
I actually rented the cheapest car the rental company had (2006 Chevy Aveo), and I rented from the company that the insurance company has a contract with. My car that was "totaled" was a 1998 Honda Civic. (I consider the Aveo a step down, but I loved my Honda, so I'm biased.)
I didn't have full coverage on my car, so my insurance company kind of washed their hands of this, and I'm dealing with the bus company's insurance on my own.
I've considered seeing a doctor. I've had an issue with my left arm and shoulder/neck since the accident. (It was the only arm on the steering wheel during the crash, so I think it took most of the shock during the accident.) The only reason I didn't go in to the doctor is because I just started a new job, and I don't get my benefits for 90 days. (I was hired Oct 1, so my benefits kick in on Jan 1.) And I just want to get this over with, so I didn't want to deal with doctor bills too. I'm having second thoughts about my "just walk it off" attitude. It's been 5 weeks since the accident and the arm is still having issues.
I have not impeded this whatsoever, except for refusing to sign the paperwork until I have confirmation from the rental car company that the rental is paid. The insurance company is throwing that in my face. So, we're caught in a "catch-22."
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 12/27/2007 8:49:04 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
rpetty
Member
|
Total Posts: 51
Last Post: 10/2/2009
Member Since: 9/14/2006
|
|
In most states you are entitled to a rental until the day an offer of settlement is made to you- regardless wheher or not you accept it.
That said, you are also entitled to a rental from the date of loss.
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 1/3/2008 6:51:50 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
bigcurtis
Member
|
Total Posts: 5
Last Post: 2/20/2008
Member Since: 12/27/2007
|
|
Hmmm...that seems a little black and white.
Are we talking about a reasonable settlement offer, an offer that's actually accepted, or just any old offer to settle?
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 1/5/2008 3:32:42 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
rpetty
Member
|
Total Posts: 51
Last Post: 10/2/2009
Member Since: 9/14/2006
|
|
A reasonable offer. And with justification.
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:35:17 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
INDEP ADJ
Member
|
Total Posts: 40
Last Post: 7/31/2012
Member Since: 11/1/2006
|
|
| How will the claimant's duty to mitigate his/her damages impact all this.
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 1/31/2008 10:11:34 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
rpetty
Member
|
Total Posts: 51
Last Post: 10/2/2009
Member Since: 9/14/2006
|
|
Doesn't matter.
A rental is their right at the DOL. From there the at-fault carrier works up a justified & reasonable offer and tener it to the claimant. If it rejected, if there is no answer (delay tactic) or if the claimant suddendly decides to go threu their carrier... the offer has been made and the rental can be cut off.
Now, even those are black & white facts, if I have a few minor injuries I might make a package settlement by adding a few days of rental in exchange for a signed BI Release... But in general I draw a tight line on rentals as it's an area where carriers hemmorage a lot over a years time.
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 2/1/2008 10:20:33 AM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
Huskercat
Member
|
Total Posts: 146
Last Post: 12/28/2011
Member Since: 4/15/2007
|
|
| And, per my previous post, your treatment of the claimant on the PDand/or couple days extra rental (what... maybe $50-$75 more?) goes along way toward clotting the BI hemorhage. I think they used to call it adjusting/negotiating.
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 2/1/2008 10:57:04 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
|
INDEP ADJ
Member
|
Total Posts: 40
Last Post: 7/31/2012
Member Since: 11/1/2006
|
|
MK's got it right...that sounds a lot like "claim adjustment".
What's got me confused tho' is the comment that a claimant's failure to mitigate his/her damages "doesn't matter".
Maybe I'm missing something but it sure looks like the real issue is how the applicable statute or case law defines the measure of what a claimant can collect as damages for "loss of use" of his tangible property" (a/k/a the car).
And, so, if we're really dealing with common law on measure of damages and if failure to mitigate damages is a valid defense to claims for loss of use of tangible property as it is in most states - even California, last I heard - then I'm having a hard time seeing where the entitlement to a rental car is. What the person would seem to be entitled to collect is the $$ cost of equivalent transportation. But only for a time which is reasonable under the circumstances. Which is why I thought and still think that failure to mitigate can impact the analysis.
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 2/6/2008 5:42:22 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
|
bigcurtis
Member
|
Total Posts: 5
Last Post: 2/20/2008
Member Since: 12/27/2007
|
|
*Update:
I got a loan and bought a different car. I didn't want to do this, but had no other option other than bowing to the insurance company's less-than-stellar offer.
Since then, I got the insurance company to pay for 30 days of rental only. The balance of the rental car billing (including fees and insurance) is to the tune of around $1,300, which I put on a credit card.
They are not amending the offer for the car, which is far less than I'm willing to accept now that I've had to pay for the rental balance and a new car out of my own pocket.
Any suggestions?
Should I just file court papers and drag their client into court? It's a business, and I have their address, phone number, and a few names.
This all seems really stupid. If the insurance company would have just set up billing for the rental car and cut me a check for the original offer the day after the accident, none of this would be happening, and I would have only needed the rental a few days. It would have saved them A LOT of money, and it would have saved me A LOT of hassle.
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 2/18/2008 6:32:28 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
|
barbara
Member
|
Total Posts: 2
Last Post: 9/3/2008
Member Since: 2/19/2008
|
|
I do agree with what most have told you, I just wanted to add a few comments.
As the owner, in most states, you are to mitigate your damages.
I normally cut off any rental/loss of use the day after an offer has been made (regardless if it was accepted/denied) w/ few exceptions. (I have heard some carriers keep you in a rental until you get the paperwork, or until you get the check, so it does vary)
I may have missed how long you ended up keeping the rental, but on day 35 when u knew the rental would be a problem, you still kept it for an additional $1,300 more of rental? That does seem excessive, (Aveos normally go from 18-25 a day, so...) esp since you said that you had already verbally accepted the offer. If you are now in dispute of the value, as the owner, it would be up to you to prove why you feel its worth more. Maybe look into the local market (auto-trader is a good site normally) or NADA to get a better feel what what your vehicle goes for.
I would never say to get an attorney, or not to though. That decision can only be made by you.
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 2/19/2008 3:53:33 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
|
bigcurtis
Member
|
Total Posts: 5
Last Post: 2/20/2008
Member Since: 12/27/2007
|
|
Hi Barbara,
Here's what you missed:
1. The insurance company was the one delaying all this. It took them a week to even admit an accident had happened.
2. They didn't bother telling me until day 35 they were only paying for 30, and they still hadn't set up billing for the rental car, and the rental car company was calling to tell me this on day 15. And I had been calling the insurance company to resolve the situation on day 16.
3. The rental was the cheapest on the lot. A Chevy Aveo whith sketchy heating (this is Minnesota, and we had two blizzards in that 37-day period). The rental car folks told me the insurance company gets a special deal, so they only pay $10 a day. The balance of the bill is for insurance, tax, and other fees, and for 7 days of rental.
4. I'll be taking the insurance company's client to small-claims court. So, I won't need a lawyer. BUt I've been having issues with my left arm lately, so maybe there will be a "BI" claim soon (as you folks call it).
This accident was not my fault, and there's no question to that, So why is it that the insurance company feels the need to play games. As I said, if they had just cut me a reasonable check for the car around day 7 (instead of finally admitting an accident happened), and had set up billing for the rental, this would all have been taken care of in a few days.
Answer this question: Why should I lay down and accept a $1300 bill, and an amount far less than my car is worth when the accident is CLEARLY their client's fault. Why am I being punished for this accident?
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 2/20/2008 1:05:44 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
|
szalameytis
Member
|
Total Posts: 1
Last Post: 5/8/2009
Member Since: 5/8/2009
|
|
Long story short...the adverse insurance company (for the bus) owes you for your rental car costs regardless of their reason or excuse in delaying the settlement, unless of course you hindered that investigation. They cannot impose a 10 day limit, as they do not have a contract of insurance with you. I'm also assuming you rented a car of similar nature to the one you lost.
If you haven't done so yet, get on the phone and notify your own insurance carrier asking to utilize your own rental car coverage if you have it. They will take care of the expense up to the daily limit (ei. $30/day x 30 days), and then subrogate (demand reimbursement) the bus' insurance carrier.
You don't mention any injury involved, so hiring an atty probably is not in your best interest cost-wise. Afterall, they don't work for free. You should call your state insurance department, hopefully having all your facts/dates and names of the bus' ins co's adjuster contacts in hand. They will light a fire under someone to settle this justly for you.
[url=”http://www.legalx.net”rel=”DoFollow”]Attorney Directory[/url]
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 5/8/2009 4:05:16 AM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
|
Huskercat
Member
|
Total Posts: 146
Last Post: 12/28/2011
Member Since: 4/15/2007
|
|
Date: 5/8/2009 4:05:16 AM Author: szalameytis Long story short...the adverse insurance company (for the bus) owes you for your rental car costs regardless of their reason or excuse in delaying the settlement, unless of course you hindered that investigation. They cannot impose a 10 day limit, as they do not have a contract of insurance with you. I'm also assuming you rented a car of similar nature to the one you lost. If you haven't done so yet, get on the phone and notify your own insurance carrier asking to utilize your own rental car coverage if you have it. They will take care of the expense up to the daily limit (ei. $30/day x 30 days), and then subrogate (demand reimbursement) the bus' insurance carrier. You don't mention any injury involved, so hiring an atty probably is not in your best interest cost-wise. Afterall, they don't work for free. You should call your state insurance department, hopefully having all your facts/dates and names of the bus' ins co's adjuster contacts in hand. They will light a fire under someone to settle this justly for you. [url=”http://www.legalx.net”rel=”DoFollow”]Attorney Directory[/url]
OK... if someone is using my post to proposition a client...please send me my cut when you get a favorable verdict.
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 5/8/2009 10:45:17 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
tmurin
Member
|
Total Posts: 15
Last Post: 5/20/2010
Member Since: 12/9/2006
|
|
I do not agree with some of the comments posted on this topic. In general, the measure of damages for a total loss is the reasonable period of time reasonably required to replace the vehicle. Whether the claimant has the $$ to buy a replacement is usually not considered.
That said, the insurance carrier in this case dropped the ball and may have some issues from a fair claims act point of view. However, this would not be admissible in court for a claim against the bus company.
Tom Murin, CPCU, AIC, ARM, ARe, ASLI, SCLA
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 5/12/2009 9:09:04 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
Huskercat
Member
|
Total Posts: 146
Last Post: 12/28/2011
Member Since: 4/15/2007
|
|
Date: 5/12/2009 9:09:04 PM Author: tmurin I do not agree with some of the comments posted on this topic. In general, the measure of damages for a total loss is the reasonable period of time reasonably required to replace the vehicle. Whether the claimant has the $$ to buy a replacement is usually not considered. That said, the insurance carrier in this case dropped the ball and may have some issues from a fair claims act point of view. However, this would not be admissible in court for a claim against the bus company.
That was a very decisive conclusion, Tom...given all of the designations trailing your name. Have you, or are you, considering politics on a local level?
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 5/12/2009 11:42:04 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
tmurin
Member
|
Total Posts: 15
Last Post: 5/20/2010
Member Since: 12/9/2006
|
|
Huskercat - as you well know, there are not too many definitive things in insurance and the law. Hey, what exactly is "reasonable" anyway?
I am not currently considering politics, but I do believe I could do better than most of the elected officials here in the Garden State!
Tom Murin, CPCU, AIC, ARM, ARe, ASLI, SCLA
|
|
|
Revisions
: 0 |
Posted: 5/13/2009 8:17:51 PM
|
IP: Recorded
|
Report this post
|
 | Previous Page |
|
|
| Next Page |  |
|
|
|
| Ideal BB Version: 0.1.5.3c | Message forum software powered by the Ideal BB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
