You are here:

Auto Insurance Claims/Refusing to total out a vehicle

Advertisement

Expert: - 2/24/2009


Question
We own a 2000 Chevy Silverado with 110K miles, clean  and in excellent condition prior to our accident. By the extent of the damage to the vehicle, we are fairly certain the insurance adjuster will want to total out the vehicle rather than have it serviced. I have a friend who told me that we can refuse the amount the insurance company considers FMV and ask for them to fix the vehicle or give us a comparable vehicle as a replacement. I do not want to take the FMV for the vehicle because I will not be able to purchase a truck in our condition for the FMV. Is this really an option? Can we refuse to take the "totaled" FMV value and demand the vehicle fixed or a comparable vehicle replacement? Thank you

Answer
Hi,

This was the biggest problem we had in repairing insurance vehicles. The owner's friends. 99% of the time they had no clue as to what they were talking about, but the insured listened to them like they were the experts.

It got so bad that after talking to friends, the insured knew exactly what the thief had done to the car, how many there were, how fast they went, what they hit and on and on. Frankly, after 17 years of this, I just flat out got tired of it.

The insurance company can do what they want. It is up to them as to how they will handle your loss.

our situation is specific to you and the insurance company. Demanding things will get you less.

None of us makes out when our vehicle is in an accident. Sure, we may have lots of money in keeping it maintained and that will give you fair market rather than less. It does not matter if you just put $3K into the trans or engine. We never make out. Even in a court situation, you are only to be made whole, nothing better, nothing worse, however if you stuck in lots of bucks into the vehicle and it is totalled, you will most likely not recover.

I may not be telling you what you want to here, but unfortunately, that is the way it is.

Rob

Auto Insurance Claims

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts

Volunteer

Rob Painter, Ase, CFEI, CAFATE

Expertise

Please remember. I am not an attorney and cannot legal advice. My answers are based on my experience due to litigation I have been involved in as an expert, for both insurance companies and while oposing them opposing them. I deal with only comprehensive claims on autos related to fire and theft. I have even had the opportunity to rewrite policy coverage language as it relates to vehicle theft and forced entry for insurance defense attorneys.

Experience

Experience in the area: Working with insurance companies and attorneys on these issues for over 20 years. It is very common to have a reported stolen car with a so-called factory anti-theft system to have the theft claim denied. I have served successfully as an expert witness in the courts across the US representing the insured and their attorney revealing that the insurance expert did not take all known theories into consideration before rendering their "Forensic" conclusion. Many insurance carriers us independent "Forensic" experts to examine reported stolen vehicles commonly using flawed methodology implicating the innocent insured with the theft. My job is to determine if the insurance expert reached his conclusions based on accepted scientific principals or just net opinion with no basis other than opinion. My case record against such experts is very compelling.My resume can be seen at the catagory "Auto Theft and Prevention." In "Forensics" the scientific method must be employed. In the forensic locksmith field determining how a reported stolen vehicle was last operated, many processes cannot be duplicated and are conveniently not addressed. If they were, juries would have the opportunity to make a fair and impartial opinion at least about what the expert could or could not prove. There is a purported process determining the last key used. The chances of determining such is very rare uless the key is found in the ignition lock. Experts commonly destroy evidence as well and are rarely questioned on this event. I reveal the weakness in their testimony on such instances.

©2012 About.com, a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.