Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO

keith wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 12:37:41 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> > "C.H." wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:16:24 -0400, Magnulus wrote:
> >>
> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem
> >> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar
> >> > car when you have a perfectly good (albeit damaged) car for 0 dollars is
> >> > bad.
> >>
> >> Because they give you approximately what you would pay for a used one in
> >> the same condition.
> >
> > That would be perfectly acceptable if the insurance company did the legwork,
> > found a selection of cars similar to yours and delivered them to your home or
> > office for you to make a selection.
>
> Come on, Bev! You don't pay for door service, so you're *not* going to
> get it. OTOH, often you can do quite well by insurance settlements.
> Shopping is the *CONSUMER's* job.

What do you mean, "door service"? The insurance company (AAA) of the bitch
who hit me was responsible, not my own liability-only company. I would have
been happy if they'd let me hack off her little finger, but NOOOOOO! I was
paid for medical stuff and pain/suffering, but what I really wanted was to not
have to search the county for a 1980 Datsun 210 with low mileage, a new
clutch, and total cleanliness on the bottom -- not steam-cleaning, just NO
DIRT. I didn't believe such a thing was possible until I looked under that
car.

> >> Why should the other insurance payers pay for you to
> >> replace your old clunker with a new car? If they really did that,
> >> insurance fraud by intentionally causing accidents would be through the
> >> roof.
> >
> > They don't even pay your costs to find a replacement car -- newspapers, phone
> > calls, time off from work, etc. I had to sue to get the cost of licensing
> > the new car. Screw 'em.
>
> No, they don't. Have you looked at your policy?

In this case, my policy was irrelevant. It was her liability policy and it
should have taken care of ALL my car problems, leaving me in the same state I
was before she plowed into me. If you ever want to sue an insurance company
in small claims court, make sure you get a real judge.

--
Cheers,
Bev
--------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as a foolproof device
because fools are so ingenious.

DTJ > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote

>> DTJ > wrote

>>>> Cant see why they would, natural reaction
>>>> would be to apply the brakes harder.

>>> Depends.

>> I doubt it with the brakes already applied.

>>> I was hit once when I was stopped, and the force threw my head
>>> back against the head rest, and my feet were lifted off the floor.

>> I doubt that would happen with the foot on the brakes.

> You seem to doubt a lot of facts.

You need to get your seems machinery seen to.

Not a single 'fact' visible in the above.

>>> I was also hit once where it drove my feet onto the pedal.
>>> Of course that time I was doing 65, and the blond bimbo
>>> **** who hit me was doing about 95. She hit me so hard
>>> the wheels lost their grip, and the acceleration from me
>>> slamming the gas to the floor revved the engine far past red line.

>> Sure, but thats nothing like the situation being discussed,
>> stopped at the lights with the foot on the brake pedal.

> It is exactly like it.

Crap. In that other situation, the vehicle rammed into isnt even stationary,
stupid.

> The issue is the driver reaction to an unexpected rear end collision,

The actual issue is cars stopped, and whether having the brakes
applied when stopped would reduce the likelyhood of the stationary
car being moved enough to hit and damage the car in front of it.

Do at least TRY to keep up.

> and my experience PROVES that a driver can react
> by applying more OR less pressure to the pedals.

Pity its completely irrelevant to the situation actually being discussed.

"The Real Bev" > wrote in message
...
> keith wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 12:37:41 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> > "C.H." wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:16:24 -0400, Magnulus wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They
>> >> > don't seem
>> >> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K
>> >> > dollar
>> >> > car when you have a perfectly good (albeit damaged) car for 0
>> >> > dollars is
>> >> > bad.
>> >>
>> >> Because they give you approximately what you would pay for a used one
>> >> in
>> >> the same condition.
>> >
>> > That would be perfectly acceptable if the insurance company did the
>> > legwork,
>> > found a selection of cars similar to yours and delivered them to your
>> > home or
>> > office for you to make a selection.
>>
>> Come on, Bev! You don't pay for door service, so you're *not* going to
>> get it. OTOH, often you can do quite well by insurance settlements.
>> Shopping is the *CONSUMER's* job.
>
> What do you mean, "door service"? The insurance company (AAA) of the
> bitch
> who hit me was responsible, not my own liability-only company. I would
> have
> been happy if they'd let me hack off her little finger, but NOOOOOO! I
> was
> paid for medical stuff and pain/suffering, but what I really wanted was to
> not
> have to search the county for a 1980 Datsun 210 with low mileage, a new
> clutch, and total cleanliness on the bottom -- not steam-cleaning, just NO
> DIRT. I didn't believe such a thing was possible until I looked under
> that
> car.
>
>> >> Why should the other insurance payers pay for you to
>> >> replace your old clunker with a new car? If they really did that,
>> >> insurance fraud by intentionally causing accidents would be through
>> >> the
>> >> roof.
>> >
>> > They don't even pay your costs to find a replacement car -- newspapers,
>> > phone
>> > calls, time off from work, etc. I had to sue to get the cost of
>> > licensing
>> > the new car. Screw 'em.
>>
>> No, they don't. Have you looked at your policy?
>
> In this case, my policy was irrelevant. It was her liability policy and
> it
> should have taken care of ALL my car problems, leaving me in the same
> state I
> was before she plowed into me. If you ever want to sue an insurance
> company
> in small claims court, make sure you get a real judge.
>
Actually, It doesn't matter what her insurance policy says. Her policy
indemnifies her against claims to the limit of the policy. As the injured
party, you have a right to be made whole by the party causing your loss.
Your claim is against the other party, not her insurance provider. Their job
is to defend her against your claim. To that end, they may make you an
offer. You don't have to accept it. If you don't like the offer, you can
file a civil suit against her and ask a judge and jury to decide. Her
insurance company will defend. A court will decide damages in terms of
dollars. You can ask for what ever trips your trigger but the court will
decide. It could be more or less than her insurance company offers as
settlement. That's what you sign, an agreement that the offer settles the
claim to some degree. Understand, your claim is against the other party, not
their insurance company.

Now, if you have colission insurance, your insurance company will offer to
trade your wrecked car for some cash, less deductable, depending on the
terms of your policy. You can still file suit for outstanding damages but
you won't get paid for the car twice.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:55:53 GMT, Bob Ward >
wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:31:18 -0700, L Sternn > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:34:09 GMT, Bob Ward >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:26:42 -0700, L Sternn > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:10:00 -0700, Steve > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>L Sternn > wrote:
>>>>>>Then there are the people in unprotected left turn lanes who simply
>>>>>>enter the intersection and wait for the light to turn red ignoring
>>>>>>gaps large enough to taxi a 747 through.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, the ones who won't move until they can't see any trace of an
>>>>>oncoming car thru high-power binoculars. Or maybe a telescope.
>>>>
>>>>Around here, some of them like to see that cross-traffic has come to a
>>>>complete and full stop for the red light before proceeding.
>>>>
>>>>They trust that cross-traffic will see them in the intersection and
>>>>let them thru - unfortunately, they are not always right.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sounds liker the cross-traffic driver is totally at fault for assuming
>>>that the intersection was clear without actually looking to verify.
>>>
>>
>>?
>>
>>Even if you wish to make that argument, it still doesn't change the
>>fact that being in an accident can negatively affect you.
>>
>>You'd be sitting there in your hospital bed content in the knowledge
>>that you were in the right, wouldn't you?
>
>That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Keep changing the
>subject long enough, and you moght find an angle that will let you win
>the point, but this one isn't it.
>

Well, the subject is "driving habits". Why shouldn't I be able to
bring up bad ones?

If I changed the subject of this thread at all, it was several posts
ago, not my last one.

Since you've entered this thread I haven't waivered from the topic
I've been discussing.

If you didn't want to discuss the topic I'm discussing, you should not
have replied to my post.

JustMe wrote:
>
> "The Real Bev" > wrote:
> > keith wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 12:37:41 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
> >>
> >> > "C.H." wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:16:24 -0400, Magnulus wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They
> >> >> > don't seem
> >> >> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K
> >> >> > dollar
> >> >> > car when you have a perfectly good (albeit damaged) car for 0
> >> >> > dollars is
> >> >> > bad.
> >> >>
> >> >> Because they give you approximately what you would pay for a used one
> >> >> in the same condition.
> >> >
> >> > That would be perfectly acceptable if the insurance company did the
> >> > legwork,
> >> > found a selection of cars similar to yours and delivered them to your
> >> > home or
> >> > office for you to make a selection.
> >>
> >> Come on, Bev! You don't pay for door service, so you're *not* going to
> >> get it. OTOH, often you can do quite well by insurance settlements.
> >> Shopping is the *CONSUMER's* job.
> >
> > What do you mean, "door service"? The insurance company (AAA) of the
> > bitch
> > who hit me was responsible, not my own liability-only company. I would
> > have
> > been happy if they'd let me hack off her little finger, but NOOOOOO! I
> > was
> > paid for medical stuff and pain/suffering, but what I really wanted was to
> > not
> > have to search the county for a 1980 Datsun 210 with low mileage, a new
> > clutch, and total cleanliness on the bottom -- not steam-cleaning, just NO
> > DIRT. I didn't believe such a thing was possible until I looked under
> > that
> > car.
> >
> >> >> Why should the other insurance payers pay for you to
> >> >> replace your old clunker with a new car? If they really did that,
> >> >> insurance fraud by intentionally causing accidents would be through
> >> >> the
> >> >> roof.
> >> >
> >> > They don't even pay your costs to find a replacement car -- newspapers,
> >> > phone
> >> > calls, time off from work, etc. I had to sue to get the cost of
> >> > licensing
> >> > the new car. Screw 'em.
> >>
> >> No, they don't. Have you looked at your policy?
> >
> > In this case, my policy was irrelevant. It was her liability policy and
> > it
> > should have taken care of ALL my car problems, leaving me in the same
> > state I
> > was before she plowed into me. If you ever want to sue an insurance
> > company
> > in small claims court, make sure you get a real judge.
> >
> Actually, It doesn't matter what her insurance policy says. Her policy
> indemnifies her against claims to the limit of the policy. As the injured
> party, you have a right to be made whole by the party causing your loss.
> Your claim is against the other party, not her insurance provider. Their job
> is to defend her against your claim. To that end, they may make you an
> offer. You don't have to accept it. If you don't like the offer, you can
> file a civil suit against her and ask a judge and jury to decide. Her
> insurance company will defend. A court will decide damages in terms of
> dollars. You can ask for what ever trips your trigger but the court will
> decide. It could be more or less than her insurance company offers as
> settlement. That's what you sign, an agreement that the offer settles the
> claim to some degree. Understand, your claim is against the other party, not
> their insurance company.

Yes. All of that is true, and I did indeed sue The Bitch, who appeared in
court with the AAA rep. I got more than AAA was originally willing to settle
for, and they paid me right away, but I still felt screwed. Is it conceivable
that a judge would order them to find me a car as good as the one the insured
destroyed through such gross stupidity that true justice would have given her
jail time? Apparently not, although in this case a Magistrate made the
decision.

> Now, if you have colission insurance, your insurance company will offer to
> trade your wrecked car for some cash, less deductable, depending on the
> terms of your policy. You can still file suit for outstanding damages but
> you won't get paid for the car twice.

I've never owned a car that was worth more than a few years' collision
premium. That doesn't mean that such good "worthless" cars are easy to find.

--
Cheers,
Bev
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 08:47:59 +1000, "Rod Speed" >
wrote:

>>>> The force of car colliding with another car even at very slow speed
>>>> is going to cause the front car to move despite having the breaks on.
>>>
>>>Complete crap. The front car is only going to move if its hit with
>>>enough force to drag all 4 tires across the road with the brakes on.
>
>> Agreed, except that if the person who
>> is hit releases the brake as they are hit,
>
>Cant see why they would, natural reaction would be to apply the brakes harder.

Depends. I was hit once when I was stopped, and the force threw my
head back against the head rest, and my feet were lifted off the
floor. I was also hit once where it drove my feet onto the pedal. Of
course that time I was doing 65, and the blond bimbo **** who hit me
was doing about 95. She hit me so hard the wheels lost their grip,
and the acceleration from me slamming the gas to the floor revved the
engine far past red line.

The interesting thing was her saying it was my fault. ???

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:31:53 GMT, Bob Ward >
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:59:30 -0700, L Sternn > wrote:
>
>>
>>Then there are the people in unprotected left turn lanes who simply
>>enter the intersection and wait for the light to turn red ignoring
>>gaps large enough to taxi a 747 through.
>
>Perhaps they are better acquiainted with the acceleration
>characteristics of their car than you are. Would you prefer that one
>of them pull out in front of you and then have the engine stall?

Even a moron like you should understand that cars which are that
poorly maintained should not be on the road.

In article >, The Real Bev wrote:
>keith wrote:

>> Come on, Bev! You don't pay for door service, so you're *not* going to
>> get it. OTOH, often you can do quite well by insurance settlements.
>> Shopping is the *CONSUMER's* job.
>
>What do you mean, "door service"? The insurance company (AAA) of the bitch
>who hit me was responsible, not my own liability-only company. I would have
>been happy if they'd let me hack off her little finger, but NOOOOOO! I was
>paid for medical stuff and pain/suffering, but what I really wanted was to not
>have to search the county for a 1980 Datsun 210 with low mileage, a new
>clutch, and total cleanliness on the bottom -- not steam-cleaning, just NO
>DIRT. I didn't believe such a thing was possible until I looked under that
>car.
<SNIP>

>> No, they don't. Have you looked at your policy?
>
>In this case, my policy was irrelevant. It was her liability policy and it
>should have taken care of ALL my car problems, leaving me in the same state I
>was before she plowed into me. If you ever want to sue an insurance company
>in small claims court, make sure you get a real judge.

Insurance companies, and even most courts in most places where "things
tend to work" do not quite make victims whole on an average.

If the average victim is "made whole", then one who works more than
average at being "made whole" comes out ahead by being victimized.
Insurance costs more when some find a profit motive to be a victim.

Insurance costs much less where potential victims have financial
motivation to do what is reasonably necessary to avoid being victims or
victimized worse than they could be if they used some prudence.

As in insurance costing less where jaywalkers are not quite made whole
if they get hit while jaywalking, and where you have a financial incentive
to keep at least 1/4 of one eye out for bad drivers and keep a bit of
extra distance from them, and to stop far enough behind a vehicle stopped
ahead of you to not hit it or get hit by it if something goes somewhat
wrong.

I find it perfectly acceptable for the owner of a car totalled in a
non-at-fault accident to be paid only what it costs to buy a comparable
car (and not more merely if the market lacks anything quite like the car
that got totalled), and not for value of time spent shopping for one.

- Don Klipstein )

In article >, Steve wrote:
>The Etobian > wrote:
>>>>>Just a matter of curiosity. Would having the shift lever in "Park"
>>>>>prevented the OP's car from hitting the car infront.
>>>>
>>>>Probably not - no doubt the OP was already standing on the brakes;
>>>>having the trans in park wouldn't have made much difference. The best
>>>>defense would have been to stop far enough behind the car in front.
>>>
>>>Good idea. Plus, it gives you room to go around the guy if his car
>>>stalls or whatever...
>>
>>The tactic also works well in Rhode Island, where drivers only start
>>signalling their left turns AFTER the light turns green (in some
>>cases, only after they actually started to make the turn).

Too many drivers in Philadelphia start their turn signals when they
start turning the wheel - if they signal turns at all!

And too many Philadelphia drivers who bother to signal their turns do
not signal lane changes. And too many who consider to signal lane changes
do not do so when the lane change is entering or exiting the parking lane.
(And in the last 5 years plenty of drivers parking in Philadelphia or
nearby parts of some "inner suburbs" such as Upper Darby double-park even
when empty legal parking spaces can be found within 1 block - in some
cases even double-parking against a parking space!)

- Don Klipstein )

In article >,
"Rod Speed" > wrote:

> >> >> > The force of car colliding with another car even at very slow speed
> >> >> > is going to cause the front car to move despite having the breaks on.
> >> >>
> >> >> Complete crap. The front car is only going to move if its hit with
> >> >> enough force to drag all 4 tires across the road with the brakes on.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about physics.
> >>
> >> Even you should be able to bull**** your way out
> >> of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
> >>
> >> Its VERY basic physics that if the brakes are on, it takes a lot
> >> more force to move the car into the car in front of it, dragging
> >> the tyres across the road than it does with the brakes off.
>
> >> Try pushing the car in both situations and then find
> >> a VERY large towel to use on your silly little face.
>
> > I never said it was as easy to move a car
> > with the brakes on as with the brakes off.
>
> Even you should be able to bull**** your way out
> of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
>
> Obviously not.
>
> > But if you hit a car at anything above a very slow walking
> > pace, it is going to move some, even with the brakes on.
>
> And what matters is whether it moves
> enough to hit the car in front of it, stupid.

I'd tell you to do the math, but I don't think you can.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."