Not at fault victim of total loss

  • Hi Guest, welcome to the help forum. You can get fast answers to your customer service questions here. We have a dedicated team of advocates who are ready to help. Just go to the section that matches your question and ask us!
  • If you've posted a question or issue for our advocates to assist with, please be sure to check back frequently for responses and requests for clarification.
  • Did you know you can get email notifications when something new posts to your favorite forum? It's easy. Just click the "watch" link right next to the "post new thread" button at the top of your favorite forum. The rest is easy. Now you'll never miss another conversation.
  • Want to become an expert user? Drop by the How to use this forum section and all will be revealed. We'll show you how to make the most of your experience.
Jul 30, 2018
22
38
13
48
#41
The OP's only loss is the vehicle. That is what his post is about . He was not inside the vehicle during the accident. The persons inside his vehicle that were injured in the accident will have to sort things out with the insurance company individually.

The OP's dispute is that the insurance company is "totalling" the vehicle by giving him current market value for it instead of repairing it, which is
their legal prerogative. It appears that the market value amount is not sufficient for the OP to pay off his loan and acquire a replacement vehicle.

The insurance company is doing what they are legally contracted to do. The amount they are offering appears to be the fair market value of the now- totalled vehicle. All other aspects of the accident are irrelevant to the OP (as far as the insurance company is concerned) since he personally wasn't in the vehicle during the accident. Nothing is going to change this. An attorney would be no help to him because his only standing is the loss of the vehicle and the insurance company is willing to pay for this.
 

weihlac

Verified Member
Jun 30, 2017
1,414
1,382
113
Maui Hawaii
#42
The OP's only loss is the vehicle. That is what his post is about . He was not inside the vehicle during the accident. The persons inside his vehicle that were injured in the accident will have to sort things out with the insurance company individually.

The OP's dispute is that the insurance company is "totalling" the vehicle by giving him current market value for it instead of repairing it, which is
their legal prerogative. It appears that the market value amount is not sufficient for the OP to pay off his loan and acquire a replacement vehicle.

The insurance company is doing what they are legally contracted to do. The amount they are offering appears to be the fair market value of the now- totalled vehicle. All other aspects of the accident are irrelevant to the OP (as far as the insurance company is concerned) since he personally wasn't in the vehicle during the accident. Nothing is going to change this. An attorney would be no help to him because his only standing is the loss of the vehicle and the insurance company is willing to pay for this.
Except that the OP likely is the insured for the occupants of the car (his family) at the time of the incident. He is so focused on the loss of the vehicle he did not see the totality of the incident. He needs an attorney.
 

weihlac

Verified Member
Jun 30, 2017
1,414
1,382
113
Maui Hawaii
#43
I am not disagreeing with that assessment. But The OP presented a question on insurance totaling a car. That was the extent of the original post.

Again you missed my point. You asked why there was a deductible and why the OP was not dealing with the at fault driver’s insurance. I gave one example — no fault state — but the situation appears to be subrogation.

The parents can sue for their medical costs and pain and suffering — they are separate from the car owner. And the money would go to them and outstanding medical bills.

The OP suffered the loss of the car. The recovery on the car value would go to the OP.
And maybe the family members will buy a car and let the OP use it. That would make him whole.
 
Dec 19, 2014
281
508
93
46
#44
I think I am missing something here. The OP has a 2014 Nissan Xterra that was "totaled"
The OP has $7000 outstanding on the loan.
The insurance is offering $14000 for the "value" of the vehicle
$14000-7000 = $7000 payout to the OP
This is pretty standard for an insurance payout for a loss of a vehicle.

The OP states that he has paid $20000 on the vehicle and that he cannot find a replacement vehicle for $7000. While that may be true, he is not entitled to anything that exceeds the fair market value of the vehicle. He will NOT recover the $20000 he paid. Is that fair? Nope. But, that is what he is entitled to.

Everything else is irrelevant. Injuries, medical bills, etc. That is between the victims and the insurance company.

The OP's only recourse is to argue the fair market value of the vehicle. It may be $14k, it may be $16k, but there is no way the "book" value of a 2014 Nissan Xterra in 2018 would be worth $22k or $29k. The OP owes the loan amount, regardless if the car is totaled or not. So, why does he feel that the insurance company shouldn't count the $7000 loan payoff as part of his compensation?

GAP insurance covers the difference between the loan amount and the fair market value. If he owes $16k, and the vehicle is worth $14k, the insurance company will give him $14k + $2k (GAP insurance). In this situation, GAP insurance wouldn't apply.

In my understanding, this is a pretty straight forward case. What am I missing?
 

Neil Maley

Moderator
Staff Member
Advocate
Dec 27, 2014
17,051
15,556
113
New York
www.promalvacations.com
#45
I think I am missing something here. The OP has a 2014 Nissan Xterra that was "totaled"
The OP has $7000 outstanding on the loan.
The insurance is offering $14000 for the "value" of the vehicle
$14000-7000 = $7000 payout to the OP
This is pretty standard for an insurance payout for a loss of a vehicle.

The OP states that he has paid $20000 on the vehicle and that he cannot find a replacement vehicle for $7000. While that may be true, he is not entitled to anything that exceeds the fair market value of the vehicle. He will NOT recover the $20000 he paid. Is that fair? Nope. But, that is what he is entitled to.

Everything else is irrelevant. Injuries, medical bills, etc. That is between the victims and the insurance company.

The OP's only recourse is to argue the fair market value of the vehicle. It may be $14k, it may be $16k, but there is no way the "book" value of a 2014 Nissan Xterra in 2018 would be worth $22k or $29k. The OP owes the loan amount, regardless if the car is totaled or not. So, why does he feel that the insurance company shouldn't count the $7000 loan payoff as part of his compensation?

GAP insurance covers the difference between the loan amount and the fair market value. If he owes $16k, and the vehicle is worth $14k, the insurance company will give him $14k + $2k (GAP insurance). In this situation, GAP insurance wouldn't apply.

In my understanding, this is a pretty straight forward case. What am I missing?
Nothing. This is the same thing I told him in my first reply.
 
Sep 8, 2018
4
4
3
82
#48
I believe the OP has the right to buy the car from Progressive for a very nominal amount (less than $100) and then pay for the repairs himself. Probably not wise in this case if there is frame damage.
 

weihlac

Verified Member
Jun 30, 2017
1,414
1,382
113
Maui Hawaii
#49
I believe the OP has the right to buy the car from Progressive for a very nominal amount (less than $100) and then pay for the repairs himself. Probably not wise in this case if there is frame damage.
Given the description of the accident in the original post trying to repair this car would be an exceptionally bad idea.
After spending $1000s of dollars he would still have a damaged and unreliable car likely with hidden damage, and with no resale value. This is not a vintage Ferrari, but a consumer vehicle of which there are 1000s on the road to replace his car.
 
Last edited:
Mar 8, 2018
20
32
13
55
#52
You say that you can't buy a similar car for $7,000, but remember your debt has been paid off for the old car. So you can buy a similar car for $14,000 which you would put the $7,000 down you got and you would be left with a $7,000 debt. This would put you in the exact place you where in before, a similar car with a $7,000 loan. That is the purpose of the insurance, to put you in the place you where before the accident.
 
May 15, 2016
34
39
18
64
#53
You say that you can't buy a similar car for $7,000, but remember your debt has been paid off for the old car. So you can buy a similar car for $14,000 which you would put the $7,000 down you got and you would be left with a $7,000 debt. This would put you in the exact place you where in before, a similar car with a $7,000 loan. That is the purpose of the insurance, to put you in the place you where before the accident.
That is a simple and straightforward and perfect explanation. I think the OP would have had a better understanding of his situation if KMC had been the first reply, and would not have been so distraught. As it stands he was thinking "How am I going to replace my Exterra for $7000?

My understanding is that "no-fault" refers to injuries and not property damage. Also the OP is free (in any state) to contact the insurer of the at-fault driver OR go through his own insurer. It sounds like he chose the easy way and went through his own insurer. They will pay him off minus the $1000 deductible. Then they (Progressive) will go after the at-fault insurer, and be made whole themselves, at which time they will send the OP the $1000 deductible.
 
May 26, 2018
38
32
18
68
#54
If you - or your car, at least - was rear-ended by a semi driven by someone with a CDL, I recommend you contact an attorney IMMEDIATELY. Why are you dealing with your own insurance company? It's the semi driver's company who should be paying. There are attorneys who specialize in this type of thing. Do NOT settle or sign ANYTHING until you speak with an attorney.
 

weihlac

Verified Member
Jun 30, 2017
1,414
1,382
113
Maui Hawaii
#55
If you - or your car, at least - was rear-ended by a semi driven by someone with a CDL, I recommend you contact an attorney IMMEDIATELY. Why are you dealing with your own insurance company? It's the semi driver's company who should be paying. There are attorneys who specialize in this type of thing. Do NOT settle or sign ANYTHING until you speak with an attorney.
I believe he was hit by a car and pushed into a semi, but your advice is still correct. He needs an attorney to advocate for him.
 
May 15, 2016
34
39
18
64
#56
Deacon Bob said:
If you - or your car, at least - was rear-ended by a semi driven by someone with a CDL, I recommend you contact an attorney IMMEDIATELY. Why are you dealing with your own insurance company? It's the semi driver's company who should be paying. There are attorneys who specialize in this type of thing. Do NOT settle or sign ANYTHING until you speak with an attorney.
I believe he was hit by a car and pushed into a semi, but your advice is still correct. He needs an attorney to advocate for him.
I will respectively and strongly disagree with Deacon Bob and weihlac. The OP was not in the vehicle at the time of the accident, so he has no medical injuries, only property damage. The other vehicle is at fault. The OP is free, as I did say, to simply phone the appropriate insurance company and they will pay the "totaled" value of the car. There should be no dispute over the amount or over the fault. Or he can do what he already did, and work through his own insurance and will collect the same amount, less the deductible, which he will eventually recover. His insurance company recovers the full amount from the other insurance company, and he is not penailzed at all. With no medical injuries, there is nothing an attorney can add to this, nothing an attorney can to do expedite this, but there is something definitely an attorney can subtract from this - which is 33-40% of the recovery. So the worst thing the OP can do, in my opinion, would be to contact an attorney.
 
Last edited:

weihlac

Verified Member
Jun 30, 2017
1,414
1,382
113
Maui Hawaii
#57
I will respectively and strongly disagree with Deacon Bob and weihlac. The OP was not in the vehicle at the time of the accident, so he has no medical injuries, only property damage. The other vehicle is at fault. The OP is free, as I did say, to simply phone the appropriate insurance company and they will pay the "totaled" value of the car. There should be no dispute over the amount or over the fault. Or he can do what he already did, and work through his own insurance and will collect the same amount, less the deductible, which he will eventually recover. With no medical injuries, there is nothing an attorney can add to this, nothing an attorney can to do expedite this, but there is something definitely an attorney can subtract from this - which is 33-40% of the recovery. So the worst thing the OP can do, in my opinion, would be to contact an attorney.
You seem to discount the very serious injuries of at least one of the occupants of the car who were driving his car, presumably under his insurance. He is at risk for the medical costs for his family members driving his car. The occupants of his car may not have had a car, or insurance, hence they were driving his car. Right now he will get $13-14,000. He will get that without an attorney. With an attorney, his family members can seek payment of their medical bills. If an attorney takes a % of something, it is still more than a % of zero, which is what the family will get now.