New here and have an auto insurance question -- thanks in advance for guidance.
I was in a collision about 8 weeks ago - someone ran a stop sign and hit me on the front driver's side. It resulted in ~$6K in damage. The car is worth ~$13K so repairs were made.
Got the car back about 3 weeks ago. I was driving the other day and the car started making a terrible grinding noise and wouldn't drive. It sounds like the transmission is in pieces and they are estimating another ~$6K. This is residual damage from the original collision so is going on the original claim.
It sounds like they plan to total the vehicle now and I'm being told that I'll likely be paid out the value of the auto, minus the $6K that was paid that was already paid on the claim. This doesn't sound fair. I understand that it makes sense to total the car at this point, but don't understand why I'm only likely to be paid $6K-7K for a $13K car. I understand that my carrier would end up paying out something like $18K for a $13K car, but don't see how that's my problem. The onus should be on them to properly identify the extent of the damage at the onset of the claim. Had it been correctly diagnosed at the onset, the vehicle should have been totaled from the get go and I'd have gotten fair value for the car.
Their mistake, now I'm stuck getting half of the vehicle value?
I was in a collision about 8 weeks ago - someone ran a stop sign and hit me on the front driver's side. It resulted in ~$6K in damage. The car is worth ~$13K so repairs were made.
Got the car back about 3 weeks ago. I was driving the other day and the car started making a terrible grinding noise and wouldn't drive. It sounds like the transmission is in pieces and they are estimating another ~$6K. This is residual damage from the original collision so is going on the original claim.
It sounds like they plan to total the vehicle now and I'm being told that I'll likely be paid out the value of the auto, minus the $6K that was paid that was already paid on the claim. This doesn't sound fair. I understand that it makes sense to total the car at this point, but don't understand why I'm only likely to be paid $6K-7K for a $13K car. I understand that my carrier would end up paying out something like $18K for a $13K car, but don't see how that's my problem. The onus should be on them to properly identify the extent of the damage at the onset of the claim. Had it been correctly diagnosed at the onset, the vehicle should have been totaled from the get go and I'd have gotten fair value for the car.
Their mistake, now I'm stuck getting half of the vehicle value?