Ins co wants to total Leaf after it's already fixed! UPDATED

[schatzely]

Yeah but you'll be paying the body shops involved (or reimbursing your insurer) to the tune of $22k...plus the $24k payout...so you'll be the proud owner of a $46k Leaf.

If the insurer is footing the repair bill, you're largely at their mercy in terms of what will happen with the car, whether it be repaired or declared a total loss.

Oh, yea! That is correct! I am pretty sure that we would have to pay the repairs too in such a scenario... And it is not a viable option for us... I am just stating the options that the leasing company gave us, since someone else asked what we were told by the leasing company...

Best case scenarios for us would be (and I think they are less likely): 1) we get back the fixed car and continue our insurance with their already $100 per 6 months suggested renewal rate ( they may change their mind and increase it even more) or 2) ins co pays repairs and totals the car by cutting a check for $26K market value and we get a new leaf

Most likely scenario, which will suck for us, is that we end up without a car and losing money not allowing us to get a new LEAF for some time and who knows what will happen with the outstanding body-shop bill...


Rant follows, sorry! You don't have to read it or respond to it...
That is the last thing I needed to worry about in the last month of writing a PhD dissertation and preparing for its defense, while having some issues with the daycare provider for our 2 year old, and being sleep deprived...I am already under enough stress... I just want my LEAF back
Thanks for letting me rant! I apologize again!

 

[davewill]

... Best case scenarios for us would be (and I think they are less likely): 1) we get back the fixed car and continue our insurance with their already $100 per 6 months suggested renewal rate ( they may change their mind and increase it even more) or 2) ins co pays repairs and totals the car by cutting a check for $26K market value and we get a new leaf

Most likely scenario, which will suck for us, is that we end up without a car and losing money not allowing us to get a new LEAF for some time and who knows what will happen with the outstanding body-shop bill...

You shouldn't be responsible for the body shop bill. After all, they would have accepted the insurance company as the responsible party.

The more I think about it the more I find it likely that the insurer is planning to refuse payment of at least part of the repair bill, and probably claw back what they paid to the first repair shop. Nothing else makes any sense. If they were planning to pay it, there would be no reason not to turn the car back over to you, but with the bill in dispute, the repair shop would refuse to release the car, and you'd be stuck waiting.

 

[donald]

Thanks for letting me rant! I apologize again!

Been there ... and, yeah, sometimes you just need to chew over the scenarios to clear your head. Just go ahead! You have a sympathetic audience! Hope it all clears up fine for you.

 

[RonDawg]

You shouldn't be responsible for the body shop bill. After all, they would have accepted the insurance company as the responsible party.

The more I think about it the more I find it likely that the insurer is planning to refuse payment of at least part of the repair bill, and probably claw back what they paid to the first repair shop. Nothing else makes any sense. If they were planning to pay it, there would be no reason not to turn the car back over to you, but with the bill in dispute, the repair shop would refuse to release the car, and you'd be stuck waiting.

The part I worry about for the OP (as if he needs more excuses for sleep deprivation) is that if the insurer refuses to pay body shop #2 for work not authorized, they might invoke a "Mechanics Lien" on the car and refuse to release it back to the OP or his insurer. Although if they did the additional work without authorization it would weigh against them, if they want to be difficult about it they can force the OP and/or his insurer to go to court.

I've never heard of this happening with cars, but it very much happens in the construction business, where a general contractor refuses to pay sub-contractors and/or suppliers. The poor homeowner is stuck having to pay those individuals or risk losing their home.

 

[schatzely]

Update in OP on first page!

 

[RonDawg]

I'm glad you are going to get your car back after all but it bothers me that your insurance company is putting a claim on your comprehensive coverage for something that happened while the car was out of your hands, and being transferred from one body shop to the other. A $100 deductible is nothing, but what if your deductible was $1k, which is the maximum allowed by NMAC?

Once you filed your claim and handed the car over to your insurer to be repaired or declared a total loss, what happens to it while they are trying to "make you whole" is their problem, and should not be yours. Especially since if you were allowed to use the shop of your choice in the first place, the post-accident damage may have been avoided.

 

[davewill]

I'm glad you are going to get your car back after all but it bothers me that your insurance company is putting a claim on your comprehensive coverage for something that happened while the car was out of your hands, and being transferred from one body shop to the other. ...

I get it. It's like the time a tow truck driver damaged my Prius. My daughter had lost BOTH keys, :roll: and the car was stuck in Park head in to a parking space. The idiot used a cheapo jack to lift the front wheels and roll it out. Of course it fell off the jack and damaged the car. If I had had comprehensive coverage on that car, I would have had a choice between doinking around with the tow company's insurer or filing a claim on my own comprehensive insurance, and letting them do the fighting.

Since I had to work with the tow company myself, it took much yelling, and two whole weeks to get it fixed. It's the same situation here. The car belongs to the owner, and a third party damaged it. The fact that it was already being repaired really doesn't matter...it makes sense to handle it with a new claim. Otherwise, the owner would have to fork over all the extra money, and fight the tow company that damaged the car himself. The only thing I would want to be sure of in the OPs shoes is that it's clear that fault did not lie with me and that the second claim will not affect my rates.

 

[RonDawg]

I understand it's easier for the OP to just file it as a comp claim and pay the low deductible, but it's the principle of the whole thing that bothers me. This situation may not have happened at all if the Leaf were to be repaired in a shop that was specifically trained to repair it, and not some insurance company's "preferred" shop. I don't know if the OP was required to use that preferred shop, but even in states where that is specifically illegal (like CA) insurance companies do try to pressure you into using their preferred shops. I know, because I was one of those people, and despite their "lifetime guarantee" on the repairs I was never really happy with the way it turned out.

Insurance companies supposedly won't ding you for comp claims, but is there a way to know for sure? When your renewal bill comes up and it's higher than before, they can always claim some BS that it's due to increased risk for drivers in your area. You really don't know what their reasons are for the increase, unless it's something obvious like an at-fault accident or tickets or you just bought an expensive car.