[JIM E92]

I wrecked my car recently (one car accident) and they had to replace three tires. Before they replaced them they measured the tread depth. The insurance company tells my body shop that I am responsible for the difference between the new tires and the old tires. The body shop applied a percentage to the price of each tire and tells me that I should pay an additional $380 for the difference.

I know it's borderline insurance fraud to tell the body shop to absorb costs, but christ, I think they are going to make a pretty penny on this repair. There was about $24,000 damage to the vehicle. I've tried to contact my insurance company to discuss the matter but, my claims rep is on vacation.

Should, I cough up an additional $400, or should I tell my insurance company that my deductable is $1000 not $1400? I'm already displeased that I'm going to be rolling on three new tires and one old one.

[JIM E92]

anyone with advise?

[777ER]

Wait for the claims rep to get his @$$ back from vacation...Gieco tried to pull the same crap when I got rearended in my '99 Z28 and blamed the deep gouge on the rear bumper as being there before the accident.

It came close to small claims court over $200 difference but they gave in just a week before the court date.

[D1911]

If you're paying a deductable I don't see why you have to pay anything out of your pocket at all?

[Blake]

Originally Posted by 777ER

Wait for the claims rep to get his @$$ back from vacation...Gieco tried to pull the same crap when I got rearended in my '99 Z28 and blamed the deep gouge on the rear bumper as being there before the accident.

It came close to small claims court over $200 difference but they gave in just a week before the court date.

but do you fly B77W's?

[777ER]

Originally Posted by Blake

but do you fly B77W's?

No. I fix and maintain them

[JIM E92]

Originally Posted by 777ER

Wait for the claims rep to get his @$$ back from vacation...Gieco tried to pull the same crap when I got rearended in my '99 Z28 and blamed the deep gouge on the rear bumper as being there before the accident.

It came close to small claims court over $200 difference but they gave in just a week before the court date.

If you did have to go to court, what was going to be your case against them?

[JIM E92]

Originally Posted by D1911

If you're paying a deductable I don't see why you have to pay anything out of your pocket at all?

I think its their job to put you back to the point before the incident. If you are improved then they feel that they are entitled to be reimbursed. The thing is there is a dollar value to a car. How can you say a car with three new tires is worth more than a car with four half used tires? Also, a bit off topic, but I think the insurance owes me money beyond the cost of repairing the car. Since there is a very measurable drop in resale value after a car has been in a serious accident. It's their job to cover my loss, that's why I pay for insurance.

[777ER]

Originally Posted by JIM E92

If you did have to go to court, what was going to be your case against them?

I had pictures from the day before and had 2 friends who was traveling with me and was 100% sure there was no deep gouge in the rear bumper cover.
The gouge was like 1/4" deep at least and it matched the profile of the grand am grille (older style grand am) with the broken end sticking out and small bits of plastic chrome depoists was found in the groove, the bumper height matched.

There was no way they could weasel out of this one with me.

[JIM E92]

Originally Posted by damadama

Unfortunately, while they are required to get it back to the shape it was in before the accident, this seldom is the case. They do the best they can, but anyone who knows what they are looking for can quickly tell a car thats been in a serious accident and yeah you will take a pretty large hit on the resale of your car (probably 4-6k+ if i had to guess, in your case maybe more like 8k), but you will never be able to recoup that from an insurance company unless your car was nearly brand new... then you make them buy u a new one.

Life's a bitch... theres alot more to owning a car like this than just the monthly payments as I quickly figured out.

I think I will have a hard time getting out of paying for the betterment, and and even harder time getting a cent for the diminished resale value. Perhaps I should have insisted that the vehicle be totaled. I still don't figure how it was not totaled. I only paid $31k for it, and there were $24k damage.

The repairs are almost complete. The good news is I have confidence in the repair shop. I have visited the shop a few time during the repair process and they have done a very detailed and thorough job with my car. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[JIM E92]

Originally Posted by 777ER

I had pictures from the day before and had 2 friends who was traveling with me and was 100% sure there was no deep gouge in the rear bumper cover.
The gouge was like 1/4" deep at least and it matched the profile of the grand am grille (older style grand am) with the broken end sticking out and small bits of plastic chrome depoists was found in the groove, the bumper height matched.

There was no way they could weasel out of this one with me.

Sounds like they knew they had a very weak case. Good job with the documentation.

[JIM E92]

Originally Posted by Laszlo

Dude, that's not a bad deal for you making a mistake.

You're right, but it's the principle. I'm sure my insurance rate is going to quadruple after this accident. Pretty sure they are going to royally screw me for the accident. It's just insult to injury to ask for more money on top of my deductible--especially for something as petty as improvement of tread depth on three of four tire.

[JIM E92]

I found this regarding the diminished value issue. I wonder if this holds any merit in California.


"The most prominent case concerning diminution of value claims is a 2001 Georgia Supreme Court ruling that collision-damaged vehicles are worth less simply because they have been damaged, regardless of how expertly they are repaired (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Mabry, 274 Ga. 498, 556 S. E. 2d 114 (2001)). As a result of the decision, State Farm paid as many as 700,000 Georgia policyholders more than $ 100 million for the diminished value of vehicles repaired after since December 1993 and agreed to consider diminished value when calculating all future claim payments to Georgia policyholders. Soon after the decision, the Georgia insurance commissioner issued a directive requiring all auto insurers licensed in Georgia to abide by the court's ruling and cover diminution of value (Ga. Directive No. 01-P&C-1)."