Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

84740296169 t1_jeeyktx wrote

That's very weird. Typically you either:

  • Go through your insurance, pay your deductible, and your insurance company subrogates the other party's insurance. If your insurance company successfully subrogates, then you get your deductible back.
  • Go through their insurance initially.

I've never heard of an insurance company offering to pay your deductible and rental but not pay for the repairs. They are ultimately liable for the repairs.

Edit: To add a bit more, if this is to get you to sign a release, then that would be a violation of your policy (most likely) with your insurer. If you sign the release, your insurer can deny your claim. A subrogation clause in your policy typically says you cannot prejudice the insurer’s subrogation right.

424

Mayor__Defacto t1_jefpk3e wrote

They’re trying to get you to settle with their client for $500 and waive further claims to his policy. The aim of this is to attempt to limit their liability to $500.

211

84740296169 t1_jefpnw1 wrote

That was my guess as well. That there would be a release from liability attached to this but does not sound very ethical.

59

MikeyMike01 t1_jefqinu wrote

Nothing about insurance is ethical

They charge exorbitant premiums then do everything to avoid paying claims

50

84740296169 t1_jefr72a wrote

I would disagree. Consumer-Facing insurance like Personal Auto and Homeowners is very regulated on how much they can charge and what is covered.

−1

garrettj100 t1_jefxa3s wrote

Are there regulations against insurance companies encouraging OP to commit insurance fraud? Seems like there oughtta be.

21

Mayor__Defacto t1_jeg0jb7 wrote

They’re not encouraging OP to commit insurance fraud. They’re encouraging OP to break their own contractual relationship with their insurance company, but that isn’t fraud.

27

stlhockeyman777 t1_jegs5pb wrote

What do you mean “by encouraging them to break their contractual relationship with their insurance company?” The presumed at-fault party’s insurance company is encouraging OP to utilize that contractual relationship with OP’s insurer…..albeit as a way for at-fault insurer to gain some advantage themselves and save money or hassle.

2

Mayor__Defacto t1_jegx512 wrote

Well, your contractual relationship with your insurance company says that as part of your contract with them you agree not to accept settlements on their behalf. They’re encouraging OP to essentially take $500 so they don’t have to pay their deductible, and then go to their insurance filing a claim with the caveat of “I have already accepted a settlement regarding this matter and as such you cannot pursue the opposing party’s insurer for compensation”

And so your insurer will then cover your damages per your collision policy, but then they’re going to go ahead and raise your premiums (or just drop you).

7

garrettj100 t1_jegnsqr wrote

You should explain that to OP's insurance company. I'm sure they'll be very receptive to that argument.

−4

Mayor__Defacto t1_jegxkew wrote

I know exactly what they’ll do if OP takes this offer. They will cover OP’s damages per their collision policy, and promptly tell OP that they will need to find a new insurer, because they will no longer do business with OP.

9

Mayor__Defacto t1_jefqekg wrote

On further thought I am betting that they have looked at the damage and estimated that it’s more than their client’s policy limits, or they decided to drop them as a client previously but this happened before that became effective.

24

caveat_cogitor t1_jegms36 wrote

I think this would mean that you basically accept responsibility on the claim on your insurance. Which means your rates will go up, it would not be worth it. Don't do it.

19

Mayor__Defacto t1_jegxoow wrote

Your rates go up is the best case. More likely you’re dropped as a client.

8

shinobi500 t1_jefych1 wrote

Is that even legal?

5

Mayor__Defacto t1_jefyjw3 wrote

It’s not illegal. They have no contractual relationship with you, they have a contractual relationship with their client. Their interest is in paying as little as you will accept to absolve their client of further liability. Their client has damaged your property; if there was no such thing as insurance, you would be filing a lawsuit against the person who damaged your property, seeking a judgement against them. When their insurance offers you a payment, they’re offering to settle your claim of damages against their client; you’re agreeing not to seek further damages.

14

DocPsychosis t1_jef849w wrote

>Go through your insurance, pay your deductible, and your insurance company subrogates the other party's insurance.

In some cases your company may even waive the deductible pending the investigation and subrogation process. Mine did after I was rear-ended; presumably it's so unlikely to have been my fault that it's not worth charging then refunding the few hundred dollars every time.

79

shadracko t1_jefkfc2 wrote

Usually in those cases, the other insurance company already admits fault quickly without any substantial investigation, which allows your insurer to waive deductible. If you are hit from behind, and there are no serious injuries, it's pretty common for insurance companies to come to an understanding about fault in <24 h.

25

garrettj100 t1_jefwzj3 wrote

> I've never heard of an insurance company offering to pay your deductible and rental but not pay for the repairs. They are ultimately liable for the repairs.

Sounds like that's why they're offering.

It's cheaper for them to pay a $500 deductible and allow OP's insurance to cover the balance, than to pay for the repairs minus the deductible.

It sure does sound like the other driver's insurance company is encouraging OP to commit insurance fraud.

10

AlabamaPanda777 t1_jefze9z wrote

It's weird too because I have trouble imagining the insurance company is happy footing a repair bill (minus deductible) when the other company should be paying?

Like when OP goes to their insurance and says "hey bud my car needs repaired" aren't they gonna ask how it happened? And then contact the other insurance?

Hell I would worry about the insurance company denying to cover anything and saying policy was somehow violated by making an agreement that might save the other insurance company from paying damage they should

8

Cetun t1_jeg2lw8 wrote

Are they even allowed to be taking to them? They are known to be represented by a lawyer paid for by their insurance company. Isn't this ex parte communication?

−1