My wifes car was $20,000 used back in 2019. Now after basically 10 years it gets hit. The insurance declares it totalled. So the car can’t be legally driven. The insurance will only pay us $9000. But now we’re trying to buy a replacement and for the same model year they are asking 16000!

WTF! What’s insurance for? Its just a tax. I much rather save to pay for my own car and have some sort of insurance that really actually covers the other driver.

Farmer this and state farm that and whatever General lizard, all are total bullshit regardless if you caused the accident or if you’re are the victim.

They should call it “pay slightly less than full price if you fucked up your car”

  • baggachipz@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Insurance isn’t a joke, it’s a giant scam. Their entire business model is to give you less than you put in. And they make insane amounts of money doing it. No choice though, as it is basically legally required to exist in society.

  • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 hours ago

    To be salty: you seem kinda bad at math.

    2019 was.six years ago, not “basically ten”. Which wouldnt matter, if the rest of your post didn’t have such “if the raise put me in the next tax bracket I’d actually lose money” energy.

    Car insurance is typically for the market value of your car as-s. Not the price for a car from the same model year that has a dealer’s warranty behind it.

    Or to put it another way: insurance should pay out the amount you could get if you sold your car, not the cost to buy another similar car.

    Now, there are insurance companies that will sell you “replacement cost” insurance, but this always means they’re charging a higher premium than they otherwise would.

    And you’re absolutely right that insurance companies categorically suck. Auto insurance is actually the friendliest one that regularly has to pay out. Health insurance is even worse.

    (Sorry for being so salty.)

  • StaticFalconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Insurance covers damage to the other party if you were at fault, any medical issues. To only see its value for taking care of your own car and nothing else is short sighted and ignorant.

    • LordCrom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Not true if you are in a no fault state. In Florida, diesn matter who’s at fault…you go through your own insurance and bear the coat of increased premiums …even if its 100% other guts fault.

      Had a car totalled. 2018 elantra. Ins gave me 8k, black book value… But a replacement could not be found for less than 17k for same model, blue book value+dealer profit shit.

      Wtf.

    • altphoto@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Liability only means your insurance pays the other car, you pay your own damages. I got liability only on my very old car. Our safer car that is driven by my wife and which carries the kids that one has comprehensive. It would cover both parties… Get this, up to Tue great sum of 100,000.00! Anything beyond that you are on your own buddy!

  • tomi000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    What do you mean ‘the insurance’? The other parties insurance, right? They usually have to provide an equivalent replacement, accepting a payment should be your choice. Dont know what its like in your specific case though.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      When it’s totaled, then you get a cash payoff for what they declare it to be worth. It being the other person’s insurance does give you a bit more leverage than is it were your own.

      At least in my case, I was able to negotiate a bit and got the other person’s insurance to at least go up to paying the blue book retail for mint condition of the car. They also tossed in a few thousand for pain and suffering and covered a full month of rental car. In my case someone in the other car was unresponsive and needed an ambulance ride, and on my part I had been very thorough in documenting everything that legally would count including damaged contents in the trunk, missed work, and other things.

      However ultimately it is a check and car sales can be rough. So it may be that they were underpaid, or that the car’s general book value didn’t match their subjective value for the car, or they were thinking they should get what they paid for it. I could imagine if they bought a 2015 in 2019, they were probably getting a decent, off lease practically new car. Now they have a check appropriate for buying a 2015 of the same make and model and the 2015s now available are in worse shape than they kept their own, previous owners that neglected their car over a longer period.

    • altphoto@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yeah the other party’s insurance is like, well here’s 9000 bucks for your car. So it means that if you’re driving a passenger van you can get hit by some idiot and then end up driving your family in a beat up mini cooper! Yey! You know, because your van is old. Its your fault that you have chosen to ride something affordable vs wanting to pay a car mortgage like a smart person.

  • i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    15 hours ago

    You can appeal a total loss settlement. They’re supposed to take into account the cost to replace the car at local rates, so unless that 16k model you’re looking at is in dramatically better condition or has way way less mileage on it, they need to justify that.

      • 0ops@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Well because the front fell off. It’s a bit of a giveaway. I’d just like to make the point that it’s not normal.

    • altphoto@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      15 hours ago

      1000% in our neighborhood during winter you cannot go get food at all without a car. There’s no walk to market or bus station. Very poor choice of location but it’s what I can afford.

  • fodor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    So it sounds like your insurance company is trying to game the system. This isn’t necessarily a problem with insurance as a concept, it’s just something that happens because private companies are greedy m************.

  • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    15 hours ago

    If you can afford to, you should go for liability only coverage. We recently bought a new car and have comprehensive on it. But for years we just had a single old Toyota as our only vehicle. And we didn’t keep comprehensive on it. Instead we purchased the highest liability policy the insurance company sells. A car that cheap is a small part of our financial world; we can afford to replace it. But the potential damage a vehicle can cause? It’s very easy to cause a million in damages with any vehicle. Long term care and medical bills add up quick.

    I recommended just sticking to liability if you can otherwise afford to replace a vehicle. It’s a lot easier to figure out what you’re buying when you’re buying liability coverage as well. If I cause an expensive accident, the company will be liable for it. They can’t easily weasel their way out of paying a fake amount. If I have a $1 million liability policy, and I lose a judgment for $1 million, there’s not much the insurance company can do but pay for it. In fact, their lawyers will be fighting the case for me, as they’re the ones who will ultimately have to pay if it fails. From an insurance purchase point of view, liability insurance is a pretty good deal. It’s easy to know what you’re purchasing, and it’s hard for the company to weasel their way out of payment on the back end.

    • foodandart@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      14 hours ago

      This is the way.

      It’s hard though, to just get liabilty on a car if you’re still making payments on it.

      It’s gotta be 100% yours with no payments or liens on it.

      Then you can go for a nice high liability policy. I’ve always bought older used and just gotten policies to cover OTHER people I may accidentally hit. No collision - If i’m not paying attention and slide off the road into a rock… that’s on me.

      I also would add glass and theft to that liability policy. The glass coverage saved my ass a few years ago when I caught a rock behind (what else?) a dump truck.

  • AreaKode@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Insurance is for liability. To pay for the damages you do to someone else. What you’re describing is full coverage.

    Once you’ve paid off your vehicle, you may consider dropping down to liability only. Full coverage is convenient because they’ll pay you when your vehicle is damaged, but the monthly payments will quickly far exceed the money you will recover if you get in an accident.

    This is just an example of insurance companies making it more convenient to continue paying them extra money. In the end, insurance still isn’t a utility, and it continues to be run by private, for-profit companies that will nickel and dime you at every corner.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 hours ago

        If your car got hit, then I’m guessing you’re dealing with the other drivers liability insurance, right?

        I can’t speak for how the legal system where you are works, but I would hold the other driver liable for every single cent, involving a lawyer if necessary.

        • altphoto@lemmy.todayOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Yeah we got a lawyer. It’s annoying to have to do that because by default the insurance companies don’t want to do what they’re supposed to be doing.

          • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Definitely. The business model for basically all of the insurance industry - denying as many claims as possible directly contributing to the margin of the company - is fundamentally broken. A real pity on account of how good and beautiful the core idea of insurance is.

      • foodandart@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        No, they won’t. You’ll only get a new car if the vehicle is new (within 5 years and under a certain mileage) and still being paid off, because then the financier/lender is still in the mix. Lenders can and will aim their own lawyers at the insurers.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The car isn’t always the most expensive part of a collision.

      Anything that requires one or more person to go to the hospital will dwarf the value of the car before the gurney gets all the way in the building.

  • CallMeAnAI@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    You just didn’t understand what you were buying.

    If you want guaranteed value insurance you should purchase that.