So I'm taking my car in for repair this week and want to know what my options are for a rental car.
The other parties insurance guy stated they will only pay up to $30 a day for rental reimbursement, this will get me a tin-can on wheels.
I've browsed the CA Insurance site without finding any info on what they may be liable for. What I'm looking for is a comparable rental replacement for what I have loss, My Vette.
Now I know Hertz rents vettes, and I could consider that a like vehicle, but the $30 a day wouldn't cover the cost of the paper the contract would be written on.
So what are my options?
Do I drive a tin-can on wheels and suck it up?
Rent a vette and take the risk of not getting reimbursed over $30 a day? Go after the insured in Small Claims for the difference?
Can someone quote me on why the $30 a day is such a firm figure from the insurance code?
Help?
Yes, I'd really love to get a Vette as a replacement.
Location: Supporting the Corvette Community at Abel Chevrolet in Rio Vista, CA 707-374-6317 Ext.128
It has always been $30/day as far as I know. I had an accident that was not my fault in my Camaro and I paid the extra $15 / day for the upgraded. I figured that if I wanted to drive an Aveo, I would have bought one so I paid for a CTS.
Only if you find a judge with a expensive car and hit him up with the scenario.
"Judge, if someone hit your SL55 and they give you a Focus as a rental, would you be here standing in my shoes?"
Only if you find a judge with a expensive car and hit him up with the scenario.
"Judge, if someone hit your SL55 and they give you a Focus as a rental, would you be here standing in my shoes?"
Location: Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest.
This sounds like a third party liability claim rather than first party. Here's what that means...
3rd party means someone is legally liable to you for your damage, expenses, etc. and the extend of those damages are not defined by, or limited to policy terminology, they are defined by what a judge would rule. All the OP's policy says relative to you is "we will pay on behalf of our insured any and all damages resulting from liabilities caused by bodily injury or property damage to others".
1st party means you wrecked your car and want your insurance to pay for it. In this scenario you are contractually bound by policy terms and conditions including limitations on reimbursement for a rental car.
Sooo, to answer your question - his insurance will tell you they have rules & limitations on what they will allow you to rent a car, but that's absolutely bunk. You are entitled to seek like kind and quality and be put whole as you were before the accident and you are NOT subject to any of their policy limitations. Can you rent a Vette to replace a Vette - sure. Will they lay down on this and concede - No. Usually it's a bit of tit for tat, or small claims court. Don't even waste your breath thinking a threat of court scares them - they have a full time in-house paid legal staff sitting around with nothing to do. However they also know if your the real deal that court actions cost them a lot more money. So go about this calmly and professionally. If all you want is less than $5K, small claims court is an easy option.
FYI... you are also entitled to:
1. Loss of resale market value due to negative car fax (diminution of value), but only if other party is 100% liable.
2. Loss of earnings - having to take time off work.
3. Loss of use - still paying payments & insurance on a car you can't drive?
4. Loss of consortium - we all love our vette's don't we? Okay this one might be a stretch.
... all sorts of things. If they don't want to make nice with you, then hard ball's always a last resort.
Additionally (since you are not their policyholder) you are not bound to their repair garages, or estimates to repair, or "betterages", or any of the crap they have yet to pull. However courts usually do rule based on used for used, rather than used for new when used for used is practical.
Lots more BS coming your way, just always keep in mind you are not their policyholder, you have no contractual terms limiting or defining their "liability" to you. Basically the guy who hit you is liable to you. The insurance is only supposed to pay on his behalf - this whole deal is between you and the other guy they are just there to cut the checks the courts tell them to. If you get frustrated, just sue the guy who hit you and tell his insurance to hit the road they really have no role here and certainly don't make the rules.
Location: Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inky Pinky
But then this means I can recoup the difference via small claims from the insured person who hit my car, right?
Or do you think a judge would
Nah, a judge should rule you're entitled to like kind and quality. If you think about it... doesn't matter about him being an "insured person" - he's legally liable to you for any and all damages period... like I said before the only role his insurance has here is to cut the checks he's "legally liable" to pay and that means what a judge would, or did, rule. The beauty of Small Claims Court is his insurance company can't even send an atty in for his defense... it's just you and the other guy (if he even bothers to show).
His insurance company sure wouldn't like to see you go this route because they have no control and probably a hostile insured at that point. You can imagine how pissed of their policyholder will be that they drove you to sue him rather than treat you fairly. God, help me...... I know it's sick, but how I love this stuff.
This sounds like a third party liability claim rather than first party. Here's what that means...
3rd party means someone is legally liable to you for your damage, expenses, etc. and the extend of those damages are not defined by, or limited to policy terminology, they are defined by what a judge would rule. All the OP's policy says relative to you is "we will pay on behalf of our insured any and all damages resulting from liabilities caused by bodily injury or property damage to others".
1st party means you wrecked your car and want your insurance to pay for it. In this scenario you are contractually bound by policy terms and conditions including limitations on reimbursement for a rental car.
Sooo, to answer your question - his insurance will tell you they have rules & limitations on what they will allow you to rent a car, but that's absolutely bunk. You are entitled to seek like kind and quality and be put whole as you were before the accident and you are NOT subject to any of their policy limitations. Can you rent a Vette to replace a Vette - sure. Will they lay down on this and concede - No. Usually it's a bit of tit for tat, or small claims court. Don't even waste your breath thinking a threat of court scares them - they have a full time in-house paid legal staff sitting around with nothing to do. However they also know if your the real deal that court actions cost them a lot more money. So go about this calmly and professionally. If all you want is less than $5K, small claims court is an easy option.
FYI... you are also entitled to:
1. Loss of resale market value due to negative car fax (diminution of value), but only if other party is 100% liable.
2. Loss of earnings - having to take time off work.
3. Loss of use - still paying payments & insurance on a car you can't drive?
4. Loss of consortium - we all love our vette's don't we? Okay this one might be a stretch.
... all sorts of things. If they don't want to make nice with you, then hard ball's always a last resort.
Additionally (since you are not their policyholder) you are not bound to their repair garages, or estimates to repair, or "betterages", or any of the crap they have yet to pull. However courts usually do rule based on used for used, rather than used for new when used for used is practical.
Lots more BS coming your way, just always keep in mind you are not their policyholder, you have no contractual terms limiting or defining their "liability" to you. Basically the guy who hit you is liable to you. The insurance is only supposed to pay on his behalf - this whole deal is between you and the other guy they are just there to cut the checks the courts tell them to. If you get frustrated, just sue the guy who hit you and tell his insurance to hit the road they really have no role here and certainly don't make the rules.
.
I didn't even think of #1. Yes they are 100% liable. I assume it would be hard to determine the value though.
#2 I'm salary and my work is very flexible. I guess I could get hard ball on it, burn a vacation day to take my car to the shop, etc.
#3 Didn't think of that either. This figure would be easier to determine. I'll hit them up for it.
#4 Yeah, a stretch. I'll let that one slide.
Keep in mind, I'm not trying to screw anyone or claim more damage then there actually was, I just want what is reasonably fair.
FWIW, 8 years ago my wife's V6 Accord was hit and the other party was deemed at fault. My insurance company had a limit of $25 a day.
I complained that amount didn't get close to a similar quality rental. My insurance company argued on my behalf to the other parties insurance company and the limit was upped to get a car of similar build/quality. Zero hassle. Don't remember the rate - was probably around $50/day.
Have a feeling getting that to happen on a Vette, which is around $200/day, might be tough...
Location: Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetpix
FWIW, 8 years ago my wife's V6 Accord was hit and the other party was deemed at fault. My insurance company had a limit of $25 a day.
I complained that amount didn't get close to a similar quality rental. My insurance company argued on my behalf to the other parties insurance company and the limit was upped to get a car of similar build/quality. Zero hassle. Don't remember the rate - was probably around $50/day.
Have a feeling getting that to happen on a Vette, which is around $200/day, might be tough...
I keep harping on this because people keep getting confused and mixing stuff up.
If your going through your own insurance (even if some one else is liable for the accident), then you are bound by your policies terms, conditions and limitations. In this scenario, your insurance will assume your legal rights to recover from the person who caused the accident (subrogation). A lot of folks do use their insurance on
3rd party claims cuz they think the OP's insurance is too much of a fight to deal with. I understand all that, but in doing so you are contractually limited to how your policy defines and limits how a claim is adjusted.
When some one else is liable and your are getting your claim adjusted through their liability section of insurance - there are no terms, conditions, or limitations you are bound by... again his policy says.... "we will pay on behalf of our insured all sums he shall become legally obligated to pay because of liabilities arising from BI or PD"
Trust me if I run a red light and plow into some dudes Bentley because I'm holding a bottle of Vodka between my knees, talking on the cell phone, while jambing a needle into my arm and trying to remember just how many of those little red pills I've already had - the courts aren't going to require him to drive a VW on accounta I don't want to pay him more than $29 per day.
I'm not mixed up or confused. What I reported above is exactly how it happened. And it was hassle-free...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLtrYellowLtr
I keep harping on this because people keep getting confused and mixing stuff up.
If your going through your own insurance (even if some one else is liable for the accident), then you are bound by your policies terms, conditions and limitations. In this scenario, your insurance will assume your legal rights to recover from the person who caused the accident (subrogation). A lot of folks do use their insurance on
3rd party claims cuz they think the OP's insurance is too much of a fight to deal with. I understand all that, but in doing so you are contractually limited to how your policy defines and limits how a claim is adjusted.
When some one else is liable and your are getting your claim adjusted through their liability section of insurance - there are no terms, conditions, or limitations you are bound by... again his policy says.... "we will pay on behalf of our insured all sums he shall become legally obligated to pay because of liabilities arising from BI or PD"
Trust me if I run a red light and plow into some dudes Bentley because I'm holding a bottle of Vodka between my knees, talking on the cell phone, while jambing a needle into my arm and trying to remember just how many of those little red pills I've already had - the courts aren't going to require him to drive a VW on accounta I don't want to pay him more than $29 per day.
I keep harping on this because people keep getting confused and mixing stuff up.
If your going through your own insurance (even if some one else is liable for the accident), then you are bound by your policies terms, conditions and limitations. In this scenario, your insurance will assume your legal rights to recover from the person who caused the accident (subrogation). A lot of folks do use their insurance on
3rd party claims cuz they think the OP's insurance is too much of a fight to deal with. I understand all that, but in doing so you are contractually limited to how your policy defines and limits how a claim is adjusted.
When some one else is liable and your are getting your claim adjusted through their liability section of insurance - there are no terms, conditions, or limitations you are bound by... again his policy says.... "we will pay on behalf of our insured all sums he shall become legally obligated to pay because of liabilities arising from BI or PD"
Trust me if I run a red light and plow into some dudes Bentley because I'm holding a bottle of Vodka between my knees, talking on the cell phone, while jambing a needle into my arm and trying to remember just how many of those little red pills I've already had - the courts aren't going to require him to drive a VW on accounta I don't want to pay him more than $29 per day.
I'm with you.
Is there a stipulation in the insurance code that I can quote? So when I do deal with the other parties insurance I can quote it and we can move on to the next issue. Which will be loss of use, then diminshed value. I'll aslo get my work to sign a letter saying I used vacation/sick time to deal with this.
I'm almost positive this will turn into a small claims court issue. With the other party living in Chula Vista, I doubt they will show up to the court. Which would be a guarantee win, the problem then will be collecting.
Is there a stipulation in the insurance code that I can quote? So when I do deal with the other parties insurance I can quote it and we can move on to the next issue. Which will be loss of use, then diminshed value. I'll aslo get my work to sign a letter saying I used vacation/sick time to deal with this.
I'm almost positive this will turn into a small claims court issue. With the other party living in Chula Vista, I doubt they will show up to the court. Which would be a guarantee win, the problem then will be collecting.
You should be ok there.. When renewing a vehicle, they run a report to see if there is any litigation for traffic. Reason I know this, is that my mom got in a wreck awhile back, went to small claims, won, and couldn't get the friggin money. About a year later when it was time for the lady to renew her registration, she couldn't get it. She showed up at our house with a check and a number to call when the check cleared. This was MN but I'm sure if MN does that, CA does too..
Corvette Store
Any Isurance Brokers/Agents? Rental Car Question
