Off Topic ForumThis is the place for mature discussions not necessarily related to cars. This is however also moderated and only registred members are allowed to post. No religion and no vicious attacks.
Simple. Your insurance company owes you the money!
Unless you made the mistake of settling the claim in full and NOT including all registration fees AND SALES TAX as part of the settlement.
Don't blame the state- you were insured against this loss.
A
+1, your insurance company needs to put you back in the "same place before the accident", (there is a word for this). And that would include taxes and fees to get you back in the driver's seat.
+1, your insurance company needs to put you back in the "same place before the accident", (there is a word for this). And that would include taxes and fees to get you back in the driver's seat.
"Made Whole"
Wiki: "There is a common law term used among the insurance industry referred to as the "made whole" rule. While not all states require that insurance companies follow the "made whole" rule, most do. In the most simplest of terms, the concept of "made whole" involves the right of an insured, or claimant, to seek full recovery of damages to the extent they are "made whole" or returned to the pre-claim status. One of the most common areas in which this type of reference is made is within the workers' compensation claims or bodily injury claims associated with auto insurance."
The Following User Says Thank You to ard For This Useful Post:
Why should the insurance company be held responsible (and thus, everyone else)?
The owner had a registered, functioning vehicle that was in an accident. After the accident and before the car was declared a complete loss, the owner took it upon himself to re-register a car that, for all intents and purposes, was a wreck, a month in advance. Never in a trillion years would anyone other than the registrant be held responsible for the fees associated with re-registering a car that had zero status at the time. It was his responsibility to know what the insurance company was going to do and to wait until such time as to take further action.
He registered a wrecked vehicle. No one's fault but his own to know the proper actions regarding this. DMV keeps the money he threw away, insurance company has no responsibility. For all Cali DMV cares, what is called a total loss by the insurance company doesn't mean the car isn't still fixable and can be used later (of course that would mean out of pocket expenses).
And as to your quotation, ARD, the "pre-claim" notion has some sort of significance here, don't you think?
Last edited by glowrider; 21st October 2009 at 20:46.
Why should the insurance company be held responsible (and thus, everyone else)?
The owner had a registered, functioning vehicle that was in an accident. After the accident and before the car was declared a complete loss, the owner took it upon himself to re-register a car that, for all intents and purposes, was a wreck, a month in advance. Never in a trillion years would anyone other than the registrant be held responsible for the fees associated with re-registering a car that had zero status at the time. It was his responsibility to know what the insurance company was going to do and to wait until such time as to take further action.
He registered a wrecked vehicle. No one's fault but his own to know the proper actions regarding this. DMV keeps the money he threw away, insurance company has no responsibility. For all Cali DMV cares, what is called a total loss by the insurance company doesn't mean the car isn't still fixable and can be used later (of course that would mean out of pocket expenses).
And as to your quotation, ARD, the "pre-claim" notion has some sort of significance here, don't you think?
Maybe an interesting question. When is a "claim" made? Is it at the time of accident? Or is it when the insurer receives a description of the event AND inspects the car AND receives a damage report from their/the body shop.??
I would submit that a claim is NOT when you call or notify them, but rather when they are fully apprised of the loss.
(I assume that he registered a damaged car, but not an (as yet) totaled car...if he registered a totaled car then yes, dumb.)
One might also consider that if the insurer made the decision to total, based not on the value of the repairs, but other business interests, it was this decision that led to his loosing the registration fee- had the claim, as made, been paid (and the car repaired for say less than the total value) he would not have lost the registration.
Why should the insurance company be held responsible (and thus, everyone else)?
because that is how insurance works- we ALL pay in, to pay the legal claims of a few. The should only be held responsible if they are contractually obligated to cover a claim.
Hypothetical:
If he brought it to the shop, shop said $35k to repair, no worries- 2 weeks later insurer says "We're totaling it, don't want to take the risk, here is $57k" who caused the owner to loose the registration?
because that is how insurance works- we ALL pay in, to pay the legal claims of a few. The should only be held responsible if they are contractually obligated to cover a claim.
Hypothetical:
If he brought it to the shop, shop said $35k to repair, no worries- 2 weeks later insurer says "We're totaling it, don't want to take the risk, here is $57k" who caused the owner to loose the registration?
A
This is a direct consequence of the accident and the car...If this was the case, I would say, MAYBE, the insurance should cover the cost of registering a new car - not the cost of registration lost on the old car. Maybe I'm not understanding what's being discussed properly? I'm talking about the cost of re-registration, not a new registration. The original poster was discussing the context of the registration in the terms of the DMV's perspective. IE. The DMV wouldn't refund his money or allow that money paid to be transferred to the new vehicle.
If we are talking about the same thing, then, re-registering a car that you don't know the status of has zero relevance to the accident at all. He wasn't forced to re-register the car because of an accident. Perhaps if he had to pay the city/state/private company to haul the wreck to the shop, that should be covered, certainly. But the registration of a car isn't covered by insurance ever. Why should it be when it has zero relationship to the claim being made?
Last edited by glowrider; 21st October 2009 at 22:32.
Maybe an interesting question. When is a "claim" made? Is it at the time of accident? Or is it when the insurer receives a description of the event AND inspects the car AND receives a damage report from their/the body shop.??
I would submit that a claim is NOT when you call or notify them, but rather when they are fully apprised of the loss.
(I assume that he registered a damaged car, but not an (as yet) totaled car...if he registered a totaled car then yes, dumb.)
One might also consider that if the insurer made the decision to total, based not on the value of the repairs, but other business interests, it was this decision that led to his loosing the registration fee- had the claim, as made, been paid (and the car repaired for say less than the total value) he would not have lost the registration.
Interesting question actually.
A
A claim is defined as when a claimant demands (done by filling out the application/claims form) payment (or benefits) in accordance with his insurance policy. So I guess it is when the insuree files the necessary paperwork to get the ball rolling, not when they finish the investigation and come to a conclusion.
Last edited by glowrider; 21st October 2009 at 22:34.
This is a direct consequence of the accident and the car...If this was the case, I would say, MAYBE, the insurance should cover the cost of registering a new car - not the cost of registration lost on the old car. Maybe I'm not understanding what's being discussed properly? I'm talking about the cost of re-registration, not a new registration. The original poster was discussing the context of the registration in the terms of the DMV's perspective. IE. The DMV wouldn't refund his money or allow that money paid to be transferred to the new vehicle.
If we are talking about the same thing, then, re-registering a car that you don't know the status of has zero relevance to the accident at all. He wasn't forced to re-register the car because of an accident. Perhaps if he had to pay the city/state/private company to haul the wreck to the shop, that should be covered, certainly. But the registration of a car isn't covered by insurance ever. Why should it be when it has zero relationship to the claim being made?
I think we are talking about the same thing:
Lets take out the aspect of this situation where he registered after the accident... just a normal, "I registered the car on Monday and totaled it on Friday" scenario. Assume he was 2 months into the registration.
The owner had- at the time of the crash- a car that was registered for another 10 months. There is a 'value' to this state of his car. It is like adding mods to the car. Due to the accident he has lost this value- the value of 10 months registration.
Insurance needs to ONLY replace this value. If he had 'used' 2 months of the registration, then he is owed the other 10 months. But not a full 'new registsration' of the replacement. (This would be a 'betterment' as compared to his pre-accident condition.)
Now, had he chosen to register for the next year- and DMV allows this- I think the same argument applies. (For the sake of these comments, lets leave out the question on registering after the car was damaged.) While he might not have absolutely needed to re-up, he did choose to and suffered a loss- just like you can modify and upgrade a car (your own free will) and still be compensated, to some extent, for those upgrades if the car is damaged.
A claim is defined as when a claimant demands (done by filling out the application/claims form) payment (or benefits) in accordance with his insurance policy. So I guess it is when the insuree files the necessary paperwork to get the ball rolling, not when they finish the investigation and come to a conclusion.
I just don't know... these days there isn't any paperwork, you call, they say 'take it to one of our shops and we'll get back to you'
On one hand you say a claim is made when the actual amount of the loss is determined. So in essence, the claim is built in steps with the last step being the amount of the loss. Only when the dollar amount is determined is the claim complete....Which is when THEY decided it was a total.
But perhaps the claim is made, legally, when a loss is suffered and the insurer is told "I will want this repaired or paid".
One thing I do know- neither of us has the definitive answer!
I just don't know... these days there isn't any paperwork, you call, they say 'take it to one of our shops and we'll get back to you'
On one hand you say a claim is made when the actual amount of the loss is determined. So in essence, the claim is built in steps with the last step being the amount of the loss. Only when the dollar amount is determined is the claim complete....Which is when THEY decided it was a total.
But perhaps the claim is made, legally, when a loss is suffered and the insurer is told "I will want this repaired or paid".
One thing I do know- neither of us has the definitive answer!
A
Woah, I never said this: "a claim is made when the actual amount of the loss is determined."
I said: "A claim is defined as when a claimant demands (done by filling out the application/claims form) payment (or benefits) in accordance with his insurance policy. So I guess it is when the insuree files the necessary paperwork to get the ball rolling, not when they finish the investigation and come to a conclusion."
Big difference. The claim itself is just that. You're making a claim towards benefits owed. Whether this is now just a phone call, or filling out paperwork, etc. That's the actual definition of a claim. No decision need be made as to how much the person will be paid. They'll say don't touch it anymore.
--------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ard
I think we are talking about the same thing:
Lets take out the aspect of this situation where he registered after the accident... just a normal, "I registered the car on Monday and totaled it on Friday" scenario. Assume he was 2 months into the registration.
The owner had- at the time of the crash- a car that was registered for another 10 months. There is a 'value' to this state of his car. It is like adding mods to the car. Due to the accident he has lost this value- the value of 10 months registration.
Insurance needs to ONLY replace this value. If he had 'used' 2 months of the registration, then he is owed the other 10 months. But not a full 'new registsration' of the replacement. (This would be a 'betterment' as compared to his pre-accident condition.)
Now, had he chosen to register for the next year- and DMV allows this- I think the same argument applies. (For the sake of these comments, lets leave out the question on registering after the car was damaged.) While he might not have absolutely needed to re-up, he did choose to and suffered a loss- just like you can modify and upgrade a car (your own free will) and still be compensated, to some extent, for those upgrades if the car is damaged.
A
Let's imagine this. A claim is made on a car in a certain state. The car is brought into the shop and it is documented that it is in a certain condition. Fender is beat up, driver's side windows are gone, windshield shattered, and the complete underpinnings of the car are shot. The insurance company decides they'll pay $x for the repairs to the car in its current condition. However, the owner decides he wants to get new seats put in so he slashes them up and then demands payment from the insurance company for those as well (Sopranos style). But, this happened after the car was already in the shop and already under claim. Should they be required to repair those seats? This was a damage created after the fact.
I view the registration in the same manner. This was a "damage" created after a claim had been made. When a claim is made, the car is sort of like a crime scene - no touching. Insurance is on the hook for the pre-claim state of the car in a repair, or in the case of a total loss, to get you back on the road (so in this case I'd say they should pay for the registration of a new vehicle).
Last edited by glowrider; 22nd October 2009 at 17:24.
Linear Mode
