Spencer_P

I don't want to go off topic here, I understand what everyone was saying, and i get there may be more damage than the xj owner is aware of, but my main point was that if both parties agreed to just settle with cash and were okay with that than that's what they should do. If I was in the position of the xj owner i would rather have cash than risk my jeep being totaled. I didn't really mean to play favorites just put it in perspective. Just my opinion.

PatHenry

Absolutely with you on that! Like Jordan was saying, if you're not at fault, morally, logically and in most cases legally, you don't have to settle for having your vehicle totalled. The offending insurance provider would love to convince you that the "total value" is all they are obliged to pay out, but that's not true. If you are zero percent at fault, you can and should -demand- FULL restoration.

If someone damaged a truly priceless possession like my XJ, if they survived (exaggerating) they'd pay full restoration whether -they- believed it "worth" doing or not or they'd see me in court and deal with me taking it extremely personally.

awg

I went through this, my XJ got smashed, both of us only had "at fault" cover. Statutory Insurance write-off value $2400

As my XJ was worth twice that, I threatened to relentlessly sue the guys **** in Court, and he eventually cash settled

bought another '96, and repaired the other one for spares, its now driveable, but the frame got damaged & rear qtr mangled

swapped over the good stuff to the newbie

* actually twice..another XJ got smashed from behind, bent the frame rail a smick..got paid out $2900

lol.. I am actually cash flow positive for my XJs, including all maintenance, after Insurance payouts, and I have the 3 x '96 on the books as asetts

jordan96xj

That is how my father in-law got 45k instead of 7k. They wanted him to accept just what it would cost to repair the vehicle. They make people feel like this is their only option/choice. He knew that was nonsense. He showed that his vehicle was the type that typically appreciated over time. Of course he had to have facts and data, and threaten to sue them, and be prepared to do it. He then demanded the amount for the actual current damage to be repaired - but then also all of the damage to the future value of the car. Because in the future, a car like his that has never had any damage would be far more valuable/desirable than one that had had body damage/repair in its history. They paid.

That is an extreme example. But the main idea is...they use much pressure and your desperation to make you think that they get to set the terms of the settlement. But the settlement is something that both parties (the insurance company and the damaged party) must agree to. If you can't come to an agreement, you go to court. Both sides want to avoid this. So just a small willingness to fight can lead to several more thousand dollars in the settlement (on a case by case basis, do you think they care one bit about a $3k vs. $10k settlement? Not at all).

On the "totalling" issue. If you are the one that suffered damage, and it is the other person's insurance provider is trying to settle. It's not even just about your vehicle. If you happened to have a $100k priceless heirloom in the vehicle that day, and it was destroyed. They get to make that whole as well (at least up to the limits of the policy - but the remainder of the liability would still rest on the person they insured). They may even say things at first such as "we can't be responsible for anything other than the vehicle". But they don't get to choose. They are just trying to get it settled quickly and cheaply.

Most people learn about making claims by having made a couple claims for their own vehicle, through their own insurance provider. But this type of coverage is VERY different than the type of coverage that pays for the damage that you accidentally do to other people and their property. The first is limited by agreements you made with the insurance company in advance when you signed the policy (such as that they get to set the value of your vehicle and will never pay more than that to repair it). The latter is between two parties that have no prior agreements (the damaged party and the insurance provider).

lawsoncl

First off, are you in a no-fault insurance state? Also since it looks like he hit you (regardless of whether you did anything to precipitate it), it will likely be his insurance paying out and not yours.

jordan96xj

No fault insurance just means that you are not obligated to work with the other parties insurance company if they were at fault. You can simply make the claim with your own trusted insurance company (you won't have to fight as much, but you may get a lot less because you have agreements with your insurance company that came into effect when you signed the policy - such as how the value of your vehicle and property will be determined). If both parties have insurance, typically the insurance companies utilize their own internal processes to share the expenses between themselves based on trust (insurance companies trust each other much more than they trust us).

awg

a comprehensive"agreed value" policy is probably best if your XJ (or any older vehicle) is well sorted

in the situation some idiot wipes you out (the usual) it will help

read the fine print

not many XJ would be worth 10k