4934
<<
Message Index
>>
4936
Number: 4935
From: "SNP Marq"
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:45 pm
Subject: Re: [ASC McLaren ] INSURANCE GUY WON'T FIX
Body:
Re: [ASC McLaren ] INSURANCE GUY WON'T FIX
|
|
First off... State Farm is notorious for attempting to defray or avoid paying for claims made against them.
Second, the purpose of automobile insurance is to 'restore the vehicle to the condition it was in prior to an accident'.
Frankly, it doesn't matter whether this 'adjuster' believes the vehicle was previously damaged and repaired. His first problem is that he has access to records that would indicate whether a claim had been made regarding that previous repair. All the insurance companies share that data among themselves in order to identify double claims or fraudulent claims. If he can't find proof of such a previous accident then he is just fiddling dixie.
Thirdly, any bump of any car into a or onto a curb is sufficient to throw any car into misalignment.
Fourth, with the Mustang and its construction, it is very easy to take the torque motion of a vehicle being forced on to a curb and cause a misalignment of the body. These cars are a unibody type construction with the fronts of the vehicles being particularly prone to the body twisting.
Fifth, and I am assuming you have an 88 convertible, the McLaren uses two large underframe braces to add rigidity to the mid-section of the car. As well, there is a large chunk of steel welded into the passenger compartment, which crosses from one door pillar to the other. These modifications was required because McLaren had taken a 'hard top coupe' and cut the roof off. As such the passenger compartment of the car and its underframe has the most rigidity in the car. By pushing a McLaren with force into a curb you would be exposing the weakest area of the McLaren to absorb the maximum flex of climbing the curb ( as the mid-section would have remained rigid during the impact ). So it is quite conceivable that a small impact from the rear, forcing the vehicle to climb a curb would distort or bend the subframe in the front section of the car.
Six, frankly, the 'adjusters' verdict that the rear section is ''new' is totally irrelevant to the claim. So what if it was new or original... you are seeking them to restore the vehicle to the condition that it was in 'prior' to the accident. Would he refuse to repair the body or paint because it had been recently painted ? No.. they would be on the hook to restore it to the condition it was in 'prior' to the accident.
I am not sure what State you are in or the particular rules by which you must handle accident or insurance claims. In Pennsylvania my insurance company would effect the repairs - using their adjuster - and then they bill it back to the other insurance company.
Parking lot accidents are a particular gray area in the way insurance companies treat them. Some treat them as 'collisions' - even when the vehicle was sitting unattended when it was hit. Other insurance companies treat accidents in parking lots as falling under the owners comprehensive portion of their insurance policy.
So things will depend very much on what the particular insurance configuration is that you are working with.
a) your insurance company is on the hook and effecting the repairs under your policy as a collision, or
b) your insurance company is on the hook and effecting the repairs under your policy as a comprehensive, or
b ) your insurance company is acting as a middleman effecting the repairs and then billing over to the other vehicle owner's insurance company, or
In scenario A & B you can understand why your insurance company and its appointed appraiser would love to minimize the cost of effecting the repair... since their insurance company only makes money by not spending money.
I think you need to become very serious with whatever insurance company you are dealing with and stand firm on your desire that nothing less is acceptable than a restoration of the vehicle to the condition that it was in 'prior' to the accident.
It may be a situation where you have to bring a lawyer into the case to enforce your rights. As a female, there is a high chance that you are being taken advantage of... just as women are frequently fleeced when they take their vehicles into a garage and convinced to make repairs that are not required etc.
The only weak point of bringing a lawyer into the picture is that the moment a 'lawyer' is brought into the settlement process there will be no further communication allowed between you and the insurance company. In fact, your lawyer will advise you to tread very carefully at this time with ANY information that you provide the adjuster or to the insurance company. No matter how 'friendly' and chatty they are just remember that 'anything and everything' you say can and will be used 'against you' should the case proceed to court. They tend to keep quite good captures of anything you might say that would support their case while conveniently losing or forgeting to note anything you put forward that supports your case.
Not withstanding the visible structure damage to the car, the invisible damage of a 'bent chassis' can be hellishly expensive to have repaired. And you would not enjoy or want a vehicle that suffers from a bent chassis.
The initial thing you would be annoyed about is that the vehicle will 'track' down the road like a 'crab' with the rear wheels not tracking true to the front wheels.
This in turn will cause not only odd handling, but as well it will put increased where and tear on the front tires and suspension components. In many cases these things cannot be simply remedied by doing an alignment. A bent chassis could put the car into a situation where the corrective measures of an alignment may be beyond the limits of the camber and toe in adjustments etc.
These are a few initial babblings on the topic. I will let one of the other chaps run out and check the trunk of their car for that welding that you mentioned. But as I said before, I believe that is a 'red herring' or a 'moot point' in this discussion. If the car was functioning properly prior to the impact, as evidenced by the fact that you had driven it to that parking lot then all you are asking for is that the car be restored back to that level of road worthiness.
A 50k mileage McLaren is a fairly young car and you may have to fight for your rights on this one. Accept nothing less then having the frame of the car checked to ensure that it was not damaged during the impact.
Yes... even a 1 mile per hour impact into a curb would be sufficient to bend the chassis given the right circumstances - angle at which the front wheel or wheels came into contact with the curb etc. A particularly worse scenario would be where the front wheels were turned and the wheel was pushed forward onto the curb or sideways into a curb.
Oh... one last thing... my friend Doug owns a 'wrecking yard' and he specializes in Mustangs that have been 'written off' by insurance companies. I have seen some amazing cars show up in his yard that left me scratching my head as to why they were there. It was through Doug that I learned of the 'achilles heel' of Mustangs - as most of those writeoffs had suffered bends to the chassis that were deemed either to be not repairable or BER ( beyond economical repair ).
Nuff said... I am still babbling... but be assured that State Farm runs in the same league as Allstate when it comes to screwing their customers.
Best of luck and stick to your guns !
Marq
|