A cow-orker was involved in a car accident last week -- her immaculate 10 year old Chrysler LHS was rear-ended and totalled.

She loved that car, wants another one just like it, and ones just like it are selling for about $4500 -- $5500 here in Alaska.

Her insurance company (actually, the insurance company of the guy that hit her) is telling her that they will give her $2600. It is absolutely impossible to replace that car for that price.

What recourse does she have?

tanstaafl.

Get a bunch of quotes showing how much it will really cost to replace the car, and bitch at the insurance company until they relent?

Start by formally challenging the amount offered.

I can tell you that my mom just bought a fully loaded 94 LHS w/90kmi. She paid ~$5500us. I must say though that this LHS was, one owner and in incredably immaculate condition.

stop trying to talk to the insurance company and just get a lawyer. if you're not at fault, somehow they always seem to get all the repairs/replaced car plus a 10,000$ settlement, 33% going to medical, 33% to you, and 33% to them. its happened to me, my girlfriend, and some other friends.

as much as i hate to sound sue-happy, i don't think you can ever take on an insurance company without getting ripped a new one without some backup.

If you're not at fault, simply refuse the amount offered by the insurance company. A few quotes and prices of replacement cars should get them going in the right direction.

"Oh, roight, guv'nor. See 'ere, you opted for the 'Never Pay' policy. Which is great if you never claim, but then you 'ad to go and claim..."

but when people actually need that service that they've been paying for, do they want to play fair?

I can understand their point of view -- remember that the prime directive of an insurance company is not to provide protection for their clients, but to provide profits for their shareholders.

I see nothing wrong with this.

I do object to obvious malfeasance, as in this case, offering half the actual value of the car in question and hoping that the owner will just meekly accept it.

About 10 years ago I had a similar experience. Somebody pulled out in front of my wife on a 60 MPH road. He wasn't careless or reckless, he just made a mistake: the stretch of road he was crossing was quite icy, and he couldn't accelerate as quickly as he thought he could, nor could my wife slow down as quickly as might be expected. I would guess the speed at impact to be in the area of 40 MPH. Surprisingly, there were no injuries of any sort for any of the parties involved.

The guy's insurance company started playing the same low-ball tricks as I am seeing today with my cow-orker's accident. They changed their tune and no questions asked gave me $500 more than I had paid for the car two months earlier (they had offered $2600, I had paid $4100 for the car, they gave me $4600) when I pointed out to them how incredibly fortunate they were to be on the receiving end of a claim for an accident that involved a 40+ MPH T-bone collision and no personal injury claims were being filed!

That caught somebody's attention, and they became instantly co-operative.

Perhaps a similar strategy could be employed in this present case...

tanstaafl.

Ummm, while I understand the desire to provide profits for shareholders, it is also their responsibility to provide the services they claim to provide. Your statement is akin to saying that it's okay for Dell to ship you a Pentium 200 computer instead of the Pentium 4 1.8 you paid for as long as they're providing profits to their shareholders.

Which is why I prefer a true mutual, the prime directive of which is to serve its members (i.e., clients), and *NOT* be publicly traded for the profit of shareholders. I see something right about that....

This is also why I prefer credit unions to banks, as well.

Quote:
but when people actually need that service that they've been paying for, do they want to play fair?

I can understand their point of view -- remember that the prime directive of an insurance company is not to provide protection for their clients, but to provide profits for their shareholders.

blah blah blah