Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not saying its right, but you have to understand how an insuracne company thinks. "pay what we owe" If the bumper had previous damage, they do not owe to repair that previous damage, so they will dedudcate that cost from what they pay out. The company ovbiously owes hime something, but if they are giving him the run around, the best thing to do is what he should have done in the 1st place, Call his insurance and let them deal with State Farm
If you have collision insurance on your own car, deal only with your own insurance company. They will repair your damage, and then go and collect from the other driver's insurance. If you do not have collision insurance, how much they will be inclined to do to help you is at their discretion.
By the way, nobody is ever 100% at fault anymore. You have at least some fault for just being there, if your engine is running and/or if there is somebody in the drivers seat, even if it is legally parked. You'll be very lucky if it is construed to be 100% fault for the other driver.
By the way, nobody is ever 100% at fault anymore. You have at least some fault for just being there, if your engine is running and/or if there is somebody in the drivers seat, even if it is legally parked. You'll be very lucky if it is construed to be 100% fault for the other driver.
No one is ever considered to be at partially at fault for for a collision "for just being there". That's like blaming a rape victim, for "being there". Both the police and the insurance companies consider a car that rear-ends another car to be 100% at fault. It's an open and closed case.
That said, I don't personally agree with that. I can think of all kinds of situations where are a car that rear-ends another car would not be a fault. But that doesn't matter, because the those drivers will never get a chance to argue their case. The insurance companies will have already settled the case.
No one is ever considered to be at partially at fault for for a collision "for just being there". Thats just silly. Both the police and the insurance companies consider a car that rear-ends another car to be 100% at fault. It's an open and closed case.
That said, I don't personally agree with that. I can think of all kinds of situations where are a car that rear-ends another car would not be a fault. But that doesn't matter, because the those drivers will never get a chance to argue their case. The insurance companies will have already settled the case.
Not entirely true, while it is rare, I have seen cases where the person that got hit from behind was at fault.
Not entirely true, while it is rare, I have seen cases where the person that got hit from behind was at fault.
I hope you read my entire post. Again I can think of all kinds of situations where a driver who rear-ends another would not be at fault. But it doesn't matter.
My car was totaled in a rear-end collision. By 9:00 the next morning the other drivers insurance had excepted full liability for damage to my car. It's that automatic. It's an instant settlement. Its not worth their money to even try to defend a case where an insured driver who rear-ended another vehicle. The only way you could ever successfully get out of liability for rear-ending another car would be to pay for your own defense. Odds are, you would find out what the insurance companies all ready know. That it's difficult if not impossible to defend yourself in that circumstance, and even if you do win, it won't be cost effective.
Is State Farm your carrier? usually it's best (and fastest) to file a claim with the other party's insurance if there's no dispute of who's at fault. I've done it both ways and my carrier (State Farm) withholds the deductible and then takes their sweet time on reimbursement, up to a month later. If that adjuster keeps on low-balling you talk with your agent.
I hope you read my entire post. Again I can think of all kinds of situations where a driver who rear-ends another would not be at fault. But it doesn't matter.
My car was totaled in a rear-end collision. By 9:00 the next morning the other drivers insurance had excepted full liability for damage to my car. It's that automatic. It's an instant settlement. Its not worth their money to even try to defend a case where an insured driver who rear-ended another vehicle. The only way you could ever successfully get out of liability for rear-ending another car would be to pay for your own defense. Odds are, you would find out what the insurance companies all ready know. That it's difficult if not impossible to defend yourself in that circumstance, and even if you do win, it won't be cost effective.
Again, Its not "Automatic or an Instant Settlement". Working in the insurance I have seen more then a few cases, where the driver of the car in front was at fault. The police can say what ever they want. The insurance adjusters will make up their own minds for the liability.
Insurance companies know how to use a persons inexperience against them when settling a claim. Evidently they are legally responsible to repair your car or they wouldn't have even considered your claim. Report it to your insurance company just to document you have done so. You need to get several estimates for the repairs. (note to them any prior minor damage ) Do not sign anything from the insurance company until you have them agree to a fair amount .They can not get away with treating you other than what is reasonable in order to "make you whole again" Pictures of the damage would be of great help . Even if you can fix it back ok yourself using chicken wire duct tape that isnt the issue. You need a professional estimate .You didnt tell us what kind of car it is but I assure you if you owed money on it they would pay for damage quicker. PS they are required to pay in full the cost of a rental car for your wife for at least several days while you get it all sorted out.
I've never had any problems with a check taking too long from the time of collision to time of check received. When I wrecked my bike I had the check for the full estimate of damages before the shop even had a chance to start working on it.
When my car got rear ended I told state farm what had happened, faxed them the police report, a day or two later an adjuster called to set up an appointment that week. and the next week I had a check.
One thing that really helps is the severity of the damage. If it's damage that has to be taken to a shop and will be there for days or if it's a total loss, they will go faster because they will have to pay more in the rental car expenses if they take longer. If it's a fender bender and you can still drive your car, they'll take longer because there is no extra expenses for them to take longer.
Statefarm already mailed paperwork to me and verbally accepted 100% at-fault. I just can't believe their saying since there was previous cosmetic damage (paint) that the bumper already needed to be replaced not repaired before the accident and that they don't see nothing wrong with the bumper. I'm like really its almost dragging on the ground and u see nothing wrong with it? I called my insurance again today and their supposed to contact Statefarm so we'll what happens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one is ever considered to be at partially at fault for for a collision "for just being there". That's like blaming a rape victim, for "being there". Both the police and the insurance companies consider a car that rear-ends another car to be 100% at fault. It's an open and closed case.
