You should talk to GM about that, they sued to get the insuers to use OEM parts, but they lost.

It comes down to the insuers having to pay for the costs, and they cut every corner there is. Time and materials is the only areas where they can cut.

When I was a kid, I got a 1965 Mustang Shelby GT in my bay to repair.
The owner a chica hit a curb and pushed the uni-body sub frame back into the firewall.

After inspecting the car, I went to the owner of the shop and said the car needs to go to the frame shop for a new sub frame.

He refused to send it out and said, "I don't make money on outside frame repairs", he said "pull it on the floor", in those days there no frame machines. Pull it on the floor, meant use a (damage dozer) and heat to get the wrinkles out.

We all know how much that car is worth today, and I bet anything that somewhere along the line it got a new sub-frame.

Insureance compaines and body shops.........not good.

 

That was my experience, black is black.
White is much harder to match, theres a 1000 whites.

Any metalic is hard to match without a "747" blend.

I wouldn't worry about black.

 

I've been with Geico since 2004 but haven't been in any accidents. Does anyone know their policy or how they are to deal with in an accident situation?

Thanks

 

You bet I do!, They stink like the rest of them. I got hit in my 95 C/K Chevy pickup truck from behind. Pushed me into a jeep in front. So I had rear and front end damage. The guy (going 45 miles an hour at night in rain and stop and go traffic during rush hour - had Geico. I have State Farm. Well the cops show up and of course he is at fault. I take my truck to my dealer (this happened in 97 so the truck was only two years old). Geico calls me and starts telling me what all has to be done and I say I do not want any after market parts on my truck, nor do I want used parts. I want all new GM factory parts, exactly the same that was on the truck. The only saving grace here is that GM will not warranty any after market parts that are placed on a vehicle that is under GM warranty. Now whether or not GM lost their law suit before or after this policy is beyond me. But GM has the right NOT to ensure what they concider sub-standard replacement parts.
Geico and I went round and round on this issue to the point that I threatened to sue them for holding up the repairs. Virginia (where the accidident occurred has a "loss of use" clause in their laws. So I fought for that, also if you have a truck you are entitled to a rental truck of equal quality, I got that. I had to call a lawyer and "drag" all this information out of him - until I reminded him that I was paying his bills, he was reluctant to "Rat out on the insurance lawyers". What a *&^%%$ con game they play.
Also if you drop off your vehicle at a repair shop and say, the car gets more damage from the weather because there is a delay in settlement, the insurance company is not held responsible for that damage, this is usually either weather or vandal damage on cars/trucks sitting outside at a repair facility.
Also if the car/truck is over, I think 7 years old; insurance companies ARE NOT going to use new parts on your car, you can forget that one unless you want to pay the difference in cost. Just be sure they use replacement parts in good condition. Trust me the parts yards, pull all the good stuff off of these cars and keep them in the warehouse. Most parts yards that deal with insurance companies don't want a bad reputation for sending poor quality parts to repair shops or dealership collision facilities.
Also it pays to get to know your insurance agent real well, in most cases if you end up using your own insurance to quickly get your car fixed he can work with the regional office to insure you are taken care of correctly. He can persuade them and in some cases over-ride their stupid thoughtless decisions on the quality of parts.
I have had state farm for over 25 years, they insure all my property - 3 cars, a truck and my house. I give them too much business for them to screw with me to much and I know my agent real well, I don't know about how your insurance company handles broken windows - but say a rock hits your window and puts a star in it but not within your immediate visual area - say low in the center, State Farm covers the cost of repair, like I think most insurance companies do. Now if that star happens to be in my line of sight for driving or I get a big crack that runs across the windshield - I pay $100.00 buck out of pocket and State Farm pays the rest and I don't get any penalties for it. Windshields now a days run close to $400 bucks a pop. They even replaced the back window when the wind picked up the bed cover and pulled if off it's hooks and rammed it through the window!.

 

One of the things insurance companies point out (and win with) is that your vehicle (body, paint.etc) is used. They are only required to put your car back to the condition it was before the accident (no they can't make it a virgin again). It used to be (and probably still is) that if you're in a multi vehicle accident and are pushed into the vehicle in front of you, you are required to pay for the damage to the vehicle you hit (I guess you can sue the guy who hit you for your costs)......... edit. this maybe only Ariz, but it has happened to my wife (the illegal who hit her didn't have insurance) and a couple of people I know.

 

That's not true at all, the person that CAUSED the accident, i.e. the guy that hit me is responsible for ALL of the accidents that may have incurred, that is the reason following to close or tail gating is a very bad thing to be ticketed for in a mult-car accident. In the multi-car I was in, neither my insurance company or I heard from the jeep that was in front of me and trust me, that was a brand new jeep and you can bet the guy wanted the damage fixed. If the cops are called and its determine the guy in the rear is at fault - he pays for all.

 

Well, you pretty much summed it as to your cars repair, but ask the people of Mississippi and Louisana how they like State Farm.

 

The following is me speaking from experience and being a retired policeman from AZ, I know the law there well. When you are in a multi-vehicle accident, the person that does the initial hitting, is ultimately responsible. But, if you get hit in the rear and smash into someone in front of you, that person will sue you. Because you actually hit him, you are responsible, even though you were pushed into him. But what happens is, your insurance company will sue the person who hit you and collect the damages that resulted in your car smashing into the car in front of you. Does this all make sense? It's complicated, but once you understand it all, it's actually quite easy.

Now, when I was a policeman and rolled up to a multi-car accident, I only ticketed the person who did the initial hitting. I never ticketed the person who hit someone in the rear, when that person was hit in the rear. I don't care if it was a 10-car accident, I only ticketed the last one in line. I could have and it would have been within my right to ticket a driver when he/she hit someone in the rear, even when he/she was hit in the rear him/herself. But I didn't think that was fair. I tried to put myself in their shoes. It's not their fault they smashed someone in the rear. Some idiot drunk or some fool not paying attention deserves the ticket(s). Not the person sitting there, minding his own business and then wam! The domino effect. Insurance companies hate them because everyone sues everyone and eventually, the last person in line pays for it all. Then, when you have the driver who has no insurance, like every other driver in AZ, you've got problems. This is when your own insurance company doesn't want to pay out.

Most illegals don't carry insurance. If you get hit by one, your insurance would rather forget about him because they know they're not going to get a dime from him. So, they play games. They stall payment. They don't pay enough. This has happened to me. I was involved in a 4-car accident. I was in the middle. It was a boom, boom, boom accident. Naturally, the driver in the rear didn't have insurance. He was ticketed, but so what. He probably didn't go to court and threw the ticket in the garbage. At that time, I had Progressive and they did everything they could not to pay for the damage done to my car. I would up suing them and that's when I collected.

 

Illegals don't carry insurance, or have a valid licence, or a current reg,
in the PRC a officer even if he knows that its a illegal, he can't ask or arrest them.

California is a safe haven for illegals.
Folks here complain all the time about them not obeying the traffic laws, why would they obey the laws of the land they're here illegally?

You're right 1st to hit is at fault.

An interesting note, its not that way on the water.

Clear Lake Ca.

A lake county deputy sheriff was racing his boat across the lake at an estimated 50 mph in the night, and he hit a sail boat under sail.

A sail boat under sail has the right of way over a power boat.
A woman was killed by the deputy's boat and the man at the helm of the sail boat was drunk. the salon lights were on on the boat.
But not the running lights.

The Lake County DA filled manslaughter charges against the man at the helm of the sail boat, because he was drunk at the helm.

No charges were filled against the deputy.
In this case the fault was placed on the other party than the one who did the hitting.

The deputy broke more than a few maritime laws, but he was never charged. The purpose of an investigation is to assign guilt, in this case it didn't.

A small power boat closing at 50 mph in the dark is hard to see and almost impossible to avoid drunk or sober.
If you want you can read about in www.latitude38.com/letters/200707.html

 

That is a wild story! I just read it and a bunch of readers' comments. I can't help but believe that the deputy wasn't assigned any guilt due to where he was employed. Like you said, even if the guy wasn't drunk, the accident still would have occurred. Just because the drunk guy happened to be sitting at the helm is the reason why he was arrested. He was at the wrong place at the wrong time. The guy was charged with manslaughter due to the felony murder rule. But I think he got screwed and on top of that, the deputy sued him civilly. I think the guy arrested should be suing the deputy. I never knew that law involving a sailboat and a power boat. There's some weird water laws on the books.

By the way, you couldn't be more correct about illegals not carrying insurance. I don't think I ever ran into one that carried it. Why should they? It's not like our laws will do anything to them. Congress won't make them leave and they're supposed to get insurance? Sure! That's why I will always have an under-insured and a non-insured clause in my insurance policy. There's too great a chance you'll be hit by one of them. Not only don't they carry insurance, but they're so often drunk and don't give a second thought about getting behind the wheel.

I could never live in Ca. I just couldn't do it. There's more non-English speaking people there than any other state and that's what they want and encourage. There's more homeless living there than anywhere else and the illegal/homeless numbers increase daily. I've got to hand it to you for being able to live there and not drive off a cliff. I think the only way I could possibly live there was if I was mega rich and was able to completely isolate myself from that element.

I know redwing76, you are very straight-forward and sometimes tick people off with your comments, but I've got to tell you that I agree with just about everything you write.

 

Well, thanks, cops seem to be about the only real people on the planet.
If we could only get a police officer elected to the white house we'd have something.
Take care friend.

 

You too and I hope to meet you some day.

Cops will never be elected into office. They know exactly what must be done because they experience the problems firsthand. And Congress would never go for those wild and crazy ideas such as making the country illegal free.

 

It's not so much the congress (bastards) it's the business men, the last thing they want is legal workers. Now they don't have to worry about layoffs, firing, workmens comp, absenteeism, and all the protections/benefit packages American workers have. the pay scale is secondary. They let the government (us) pick up all the tabs for for that. (if you work for a company does the government pay for your health care?)

 

Update first page.

 

hm... there is this nasty thing called "making you whole." Meaning, your car gets repaired, regardless.

I don't know the laws of your state, but if it was me, I would be going to MY insurance company and getting them involved. They will fix your car, then go after their insurance company.

I don't know any state that says a $5k property damage policy is acceptable. Neither do I know of any loan company that would accept that.

Your next logical move would be to sue his *** off for the difference.

 

I agree with everyone else about wanting to use only GM parts. And since the insurance company will opt for cheaper parts... I see a big scratch in your $300 tire there. That means an alignment too. I've found alignments easy to mention to adjusters and have approved.

 

Funny thing is the owner of the dealer told me, "I Don't know why the state of california limits peoples policys to 5k property damage" Or something like that


Basically if it costs more, I'll have it out with his insurance, Prolly go to court.


I havent signed a form of release yet..I was planning to wait till my car is fixed to do that.

So far all that's been said is they'll give me 5K

 

Buy a cheap $1000 motorcycle to get to class. far better then any 4cycl any day of the week. I would talk to a lawyer if i where you about all this....seems kinda fishy.

 

State farm is gay...

 

Assuming he had 5k max property damage ins, it sounds like it is time to go back to your insurance and use the uninsured/underinsured coverage.
This of course asssumes you will ultimately have more than 5k in damages.
I am currrently involved in a similar situation, but regarding personal injury damage.