If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:32:41 GMT, "Dave C." > wrote:
>> I think you're dealing with the wrong insurance company! :-) >> Mine doesn't do that. It pays fair market value. >> > >Have you actually made a claim? Yes. >That "fair market value" is probably less >than the contents of your wallet at the moment. You'd be shocked and >dismayed if you saw how they figure it. It has NO RELATION AT ALL to what a >used-car dealer would have sold your car for, assuming that it was still in >good shape. In fact, from fair market value, you can't even SEE retail >price with a 20 foot long telescope. -Dave > You're just plain wrong. Well, maybe with *your* insurance company, that's how it works. Maybe you should shop around. I don't know why you would stay with an insurance company like that. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
> >
> You're just plain wrong. > Well, maybe with *your* insurance company, that's how it works. > Maybe you should shop around. I don't know why you would stay with an > insurance company like that. > ummm . . . because they are ALL like that. (don't get me started on insurance companies) -Dave |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:42:29 GMT, "Dave C." > wrote:
>> > >> You're just plain wrong. >> Well, maybe with *your* insurance company, that's how it works. >> Maybe you should shop around. I don't know why you would stay with an >> insurance company like that. >> > >ummm . . . because they are ALL like that. (don't get me started on >insurance companies) -Dave > Well, from experience, I am telling you that you're wrong. But, hey, if you want to settle, it's your money. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Furious George wrote: > wrote: > > Big Bill wrote: > > > On 11 Mar 2005 10:23:19 -0800, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Big Bill wrote: > > > >> On 10 Mar 2005 17:16:18 -0800, wrote: > > > >> > > > >> >I should have been more specific... > > > >> > > > > >> >1. Why do I not have the option to keep a second car (liability > > > >only) > > > >> >for me and me alone in case my first car breaks or what not and > > not > > > >pay > > > >> >any more insurance. If that means others can't drive it so be > it. > > I > > > >> >currently pay full coverage for my new car, and to keep my > second > > > >> >(cheaper) car I have to pay more per month. If I wreck my first > > car, > > > >> >the insurance agency is out the cost of a new car plus the cost > > of > > > >the > > > >> >car I hit. If I were to have been driving my 2nd car my > > insurance > > > >> >agency would only be out the cost of the car I hit. In every > case > > it > > > >is > > > >> >cheaper for my insurance company if I have a second POS car, > yet > > I > > > >> >still have to pay more. If anything I should get a discount for > > the > > > >> >times I drive my POS. > > > >> > > > >> You're talling about two different kinds of insurance he > > liability > > > >> and collision. > > > >> On the first car, liability pays for the other car, collision > pays > > > >for > > > >> yours. > > > >> On the second (POS) car, why have collision? > > > > > > > >I think you are missing my point. On the first car I have full > > coverage > > > >(my car and other car are covered in accident -amounts don't > > matter). I > > > >don't think I should have to pay seperate liability on the POS > car. > > > >That should be automatic with me having liability on the first > car. > > > >What higher costs are there to the insurance agency when I drive > my > > POS > > > >car? None. If anything they are off cheaper. There is less (zero) > of > > a > > > >chance of me wrecking my new car when I am driving my old car. So > if > > I > > > >do wreck, they are only out the amount of the car I hit, and not > the > > > >amount of my new car. > > > > > > And if you wreck your first car, and then drive the second car? > > > > How is that different than me wrecking my first car, and then buying > > and driving a new car? Or me getting a rental car? > > You have to insure your new car before you can drive it. Let me break it down. I have a car, and pay 1 insurance. I wreck the car. I now buy a new car, and transfer my insurance to my new car. I am only paying 1 insurance the entire time. > > > I don't have to pay > > 2 insurance policies in either of those cases. > > Yes you do. Even if the rental car company insures the car, you are > paying for it (indirectly). Not true. When i rent a rental car my insurance covers the rental car. I'm still just paying one insurance. > > > Or if I drive my > > neighbors car. > > Hopefully you neighbor insures his/her car. My insurance is set up so I can drive any car (so long as I don't own it), and if I wreck it my insurance will pay for it. > > > Liablility should be on the person, and collision should > > be on the car. > > Why? Because it is a rip off. The odds of me getting in a wreck have nothing to do with how many cars I own. You think someone with 100 cars should pay 100 liabilities because they are 100 times as likely to get in a wreck? You think the number off cars someone owns determines the risk they are going to get in a wreck? > > > > > > > > > > Other than that, obviously you can't drive both at the same time. > > Just > > > as obviously, you aren't driving one car exclusively, or you > wouldn't > > > need to insure the second car at all. > > > While it would certainly be possible to come up with a rate > schedule > > > that would only have one premium for those who have two driven > cars, > > > it would still be as high. > > > > In no case can I drive both at the same time. So I am only driving > one > > car at a time exclusively, so there is no need for a second > liability. > > And in no case is the insurance company out any more money. Can you > > give me an example of how the insurance agency would be out more? > > > > What if I had a 100 cars. Are my odds of getting into a wreck any > > higher than if I had 1? > > Actually yes. Actually no. How are my odds any different? Just saying so is not enough. > > > No. So there shouldn't be an increase in my > > liability. > > > > > > > > > >> >2. I'm talking about full coverage. Why doesn't my rate go down > > when > > > >my > > > >> >car gets older? If I buy a 2005 car and get it insured full > > coverage > > > >I > > > >> >pay the rate for a brand new car the whole time I own it. 5 > years > > > >down > > > >> >the road I'm still paying the full rate, yet if someone else > were > > to > > > >> >buy my exact same car in 2010 they would get the rate of a 5 > year > > > >old > > > >> >car. The only way I can get the cheaper rate would be to switch > > > >> >insurance or sell my car and buy one just like it. > > > >> > > > >> Define "full coverage". > > > >> Is that the minimum required liability by the state, or > someother > > > >> combination of > > > >> liability/collision/comprehensive/uninsured/underinsured policy? > > > >> What limits? > > > >> I've actually heard people claim they have "full coverage" (as > > > >defined > > > >> by the agent) that is only minimum liability coverage. > > > > > > > >> The fact that you say your full coverage doesn't get cheaper as > > the > > > >> car ages leqads me to believ ethe car itself isn't insured, but > > > >you're > > > >> only carrying liability insurance. Collision coverage usually > gets > > > >> less expensive as the value of the car goes down with age. > > > > > > > >I have full coverage(collison, liability, uninsured motorist etc), > I > > > >know this for a fact. In Texas using state farm my collision > > coverage > > > >never goes down. That is my whole gripe. If you don't mind me > > asking, > > > >where do you live and who insures you? > > > > > > I live in Phoenix, AZ., and use USAA. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Are you sure you know what insurance you actually have? > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Bill Funk > > > >> Change "g" to "a" > > > > > > -- > > > Bill Funk > > > Change "g" to "a" |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Brent P > wrote: >In article .com>, wrote: >> 1.Why do I have to pay seperate liability for each car, when all i can >> do is wreck one at a time? Anyone have one good reason other than >> insurance companies making more money? > >I've always thought this to be ass-backwards as well. We really should >insure drivers for liability, not vehicles. > >> 2. And why doesn't my insurance go down even though the value of my car >> goes down? > >Because that's a small percentage of the cost. Yet if you replace an older car with a new car of a similar (or even the same) model, collision shoots right up. It's because insurance prices are on a ratchet. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote: >On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:01:50 -0600, >(Brent P) wrote: > >>In article .com>, wrote: >>> 1.Why do I have to pay seperate liability for each car, when all i can >>> do is wreck one at a time? Anyone have one good reason other than >>> insurance companies making more money? >> >>I've always thought this to be ass-backwards as well. We really should >>insure drivers for liability, not vehicles. > >If we did it that way, then every licensed driver would be required to >carry insurance, even if they do not own a car and choose not to >drive. After all, you might rent or borrow a car at any time. No more than you need insurance to simply own a car. A licensed driver without a car would only need insurance if he DID borrow a car. Occasional renters would likely be able to purchase insurance at ridiculously high prices at the rental counter, just like now. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Alex Rodriguez > wrote: >In article . com>, says... > >>Because you are not insuring your equity in the car. You are assuring >>against liability caused by your car. A POS car can generate just as >>much liability as a top of the line model. If anything your rates >>should go up because your brakes, etc are getting older. > >Makes sense. Why does the price of collision insurance not go down as the >car gets older? The premium for the form of insurance coverage called "collision" in Massachusetts does go down because it only pays for damage to the insured vehicle. The premium to insure property damage to others remains the same. -- John Carr ) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Toronto insurance sodomy | RichA | Ford Mustang | 18 | February 27th 05 02:21 AM |
Canada Insurance madness! NEVER go online! | RichA | Ford Mustang | 18 | February 17th 05 06:43 PM |
First time insurance charges | kr0 | General | 0 | December 17th 04 02:28 PM |
Auto Insurance Question (foreign driver) | Mike | General | 0 | August 16th 04 06:52 PM |
Insurance company to pay for impound fees of totaled car? | Gunbu | General | 2 | April 29th 04 08:39 PM |