TeGGeR's appraisal: TeGGeR makes a boo-boo

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by TeGGeR®, Jul 5, 2005.

  1. TeGGeR®

    TeGGeR® Guest

    http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/appraisal/index.html

    It pains me to have to admit this, but if making it public helps anyone
    else...
     
    TeGGeR®, Jul 5, 2005
    #1
  2. Okay - that makes my head spin. I understand the warped logic of it - they
    are hedging the recovery value rather than your loss - but it convinces me
    we live in the Land of the Weasel.

    Mike
     
    Michael Pardee, Jul 6, 2005
    #2
  3. Okay - that makes my head spin. I understand the warped logic of it - they
    are hedging the recovery value rather than your loss - but it convinces me
    we live in the Land of the Weasel.

    Mike
     
    Michael Pardee, Jul 6, 2005
    #3
  4. TeGGeR®

    TeGGeR® Guest


    What's really, really weird is that you can have an engine and transmission
    that are on their last legs and would cost many thousands to fix, and they
    treat that the same as a brand-new engine and transmission. IOW, they DON'T
    CARE EITHER WAY.

    But get a paint job and some nice rims on a mechanical shitbox, and they'll
    pay you for that.

    I did some digging for an insurance company here that would be willing to
    do "agreed value" they way they do in England, but no dice. Thanks to no-
    fault and the 1986 Family Law reforms, the pool of available insurance
    companies is about 10% of what it was in 1986.
     
    TeGGeR®, Jul 6, 2005
    #4
  5. TeGGeR®

    TeGGeR® Guest


    What's really, really weird is that you can have an engine and transmission
    that are on their last legs and would cost many thousands to fix, and they
    treat that the same as a brand-new engine and transmission. IOW, they DON'T
    CARE EITHER WAY.

    But get a paint job and some nice rims on a mechanical shitbox, and they'll
    pay you for that.

    I did some digging for an insurance company here that would be willing to
    do "agreed value" they way they do in England, but no dice. Thanks to no-
    fault and the 1986 Family Law reforms, the pool of available insurance
    companies is about 10% of what it was in 1986.
     
    TeGGeR®, Jul 6, 2005
    #5
  6. TeGGeR®

    SoCalMike Guest

    what were the Family Law reforms?
     
    SoCalMike, Jul 6, 2005
    #6
  7. TeGGeR®

    SoCalMike Guest

    what were the Family Law reforms?
     
    SoCalMike, Jul 6, 2005
    #7
  8. TeGGeR®

    TeGGeR® Guest


    After extensive discussion this morning with my insurance company, I have
    discovered that it is ILLEGAL for ANY insurance company in Ontario to sell
    me "agreed value" insurance unless the car is officially an "antique".

    The Ontario (Canada) Family Law Reform Act of 1986 (among other things)
    greatly expanded who could sue, when, where, and for how much, in the case
    of an automobile collision.

    The intentions were noble enough, as lobbyists and lawmakers sought to
    imitate American tort expansion in an effort to protect those adversely
    affected by unfortunate events. However, the cure ended up being much worse
    than the disease.

    The result of the new Act was near-instantaneous, causing a liability
    crisis by 1987 (which I remember quite clearly). By the next year or soon
    after, "no-fault" had been imposed as a solution.

    Each succeeding year, regulations on insurance companies have been
    tightened more and more, and each succeeding year, rates have gone nowheree
    but up and your choices have been steadily eroded. In spite of that,
    insurance companies as a whole in 2003 lost $1.17 in claims for each $1.00
    taken in in premiums. This was NOT the case before the screws were
    tightened on the insurance companies.

    Did you know that it is now ILLEGAL to bargain for insurance in Ontario? It
    used to be legal to negotiate premiums.

    The result of this fiasco is that about 90% of the companies that were
    selling auto insurance in 1986 have either stopped selling it, have greatly
    constrained who they will sell to, have jacked prices sky-high, or have
    pulled out of Ontario altogether.

    What a mess. Thanks, governments, for royally f***ing things up for me.
     
    TeGGeR®, Jul 6, 2005
    #8
  9. TeGGeR®

    TeGGeR® Guest


    After extensive discussion this morning with my insurance company, I have
    discovered that it is ILLEGAL for ANY insurance company in Ontario to sell
    me "agreed value" insurance unless the car is officially an "antique".

    The Ontario (Canada) Family Law Reform Act of 1986 (among other things)
    greatly expanded who could sue, when, where, and for how much, in the case
    of an automobile collision.

    The intentions were noble enough, as lobbyists and lawmakers sought to
    imitate American tort expansion in an effort to protect those adversely
    affected by unfortunate events. However, the cure ended up being much worse
    than the disease.

    The result of the new Act was near-instantaneous, causing a liability
    crisis by 1987 (which I remember quite clearly). By the next year or soon
    after, "no-fault" had been imposed as a solution.

    Each succeeding year, regulations on insurance companies have been
    tightened more and more, and each succeeding year, rates have gone nowheree
    but up and your choices have been steadily eroded. In spite of that,
    insurance companies as a whole in 2003 lost $1.17 in claims for each $1.00
    taken in in premiums. This was NOT the case before the screws were
    tightened on the insurance companies.

    Did you know that it is now ILLEGAL to bargain for insurance in Ontario? It
    used to be legal to negotiate premiums.

    The result of this fiasco is that about 90% of the companies that were
    selling auto insurance in 1986 have either stopped selling it, have greatly
    constrained who they will sell to, have jacked prices sky-high, or have
    pulled out of Ontario altogether.

    What a mess. Thanks, governments, for royally f***ing things up for me.
     
    TeGGeR®, Jul 6, 2005
    #9
  10. Because such things are visible to the insurance adjuster and to the
    person checking out used cars at dealer lots for the purpose of finding
    "comparable" vehicles. In neither case is a test drive or mechanical
    inspection likely to happen (if it is even possible, given a car that
    may be a total loss) due to the time involved.
     
    Timothy J. Lee, Jul 6, 2005
    #10
  11. Because such things are visible to the insurance adjuster and to the
    person checking out used cars at dealer lots for the purpose of finding
    "comparable" vehicles. In neither case is a test drive or mechanical
    inspection likely to happen (if it is even possible, given a car that
    may be a total loss) due to the time involved.
     
    Timothy J. Lee, Jul 6, 2005
    #11
  12. TeGGeR®

    Larry Guest

    "> I did some digging for an insurance company here that would be willing to
    Agreed value is only used on classic/antique auto policies, whereby the
    insurance carrier agrees to pay the value the car is insured for. In the
    world of antique/classic cars where they do appreciate in value rather than
    depreciate, the need for an appraisal is far more important to keep a
    vehicle properly insured. The standard auto policy does not have provisions
    for this, rather, settlement is based upon "actual cash value" at the time
    of loss. Insurance carriers use tools that track actual sales of vehicles
    within a specific radius and then make adjustments. If you look in
    valuation guides, even with classic cars, there are no adjustments for
    updated vehicle maintenance such as new tires, rebuilt engines/transmissions
    and such. However, given such documentation, the insurance company can make
    some fine adjustments with condition of vehicle to help counter these
    issues.....but even so, it adds minor dollars to the total value.
     
    Larry, Jul 7, 2005
    #12
  13. TeGGeR®

    Larry Guest

    "> I did some digging for an insurance company here that would be willing to
    Agreed value is only used on classic/antique auto policies, whereby the
    insurance carrier agrees to pay the value the car is insured for. In the
    world of antique/classic cars where they do appreciate in value rather than
    depreciate, the need for an appraisal is far more important to keep a
    vehicle properly insured. The standard auto policy does not have provisions
    for this, rather, settlement is based upon "actual cash value" at the time
    of loss. Insurance carriers use tools that track actual sales of vehicles
    within a specific radius and then make adjustments. If you look in
    valuation guides, even with classic cars, there are no adjustments for
    updated vehicle maintenance such as new tires, rebuilt engines/transmissions
    and such. However, given such documentation, the insurance company can make
    some fine adjustments with condition of vehicle to help counter these
    issues.....but even so, it adds minor dollars to the total value.
     
    Larry, Jul 7, 2005
    #13
  14. TeGGeR®

    TeGGeR® Guest


    Corresponds exactly with what I learned over the last couple of days.

    Oh well. Life is full of lessons, isn't it?
     
    TeGGeR®, Jul 7, 2005
    #14
  15. TeGGeR®

    TeGGeR® Guest


    Corresponds exactly with what I learned over the last couple of days.

    Oh well. Life is full of lessons, isn't it?
     
    TeGGeR®, Jul 7, 2005
    #15
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.