Real world insurance problem

[Professor]

[John Galt]

why should anyone get a claim like that? they paid for the repairs. the risk you take in driving a car is that something might happen to it. insurance makes it whole again, but beyond that i don't see why they should pay. ridiculous that this even exists. it makes more sense if you sued him personally, not the insurance provider

even so, according to the state of louisiana you have to sue them in order to get anything http://hightowerlegal.wordpress.com/201 ... louisiana/

as for justification, that's easy. that's what the courts determined before so that's what they use

[Professor]

[John Galt]

sure, but why would they pay out that? i'm saying that you should sue him personally in order to recoup your perceived loses. i don't see how this is an issue for insurance companies. insurance is there to cover property damage in order to make it operable again, and any coverage for medical. its not to make sure you get primo dollar for your vehicle when you sell it years later, which is akin to covering personal items lost in a wreck (which they don't cover)

[Professor]

[John Galt]

the stuff was repaired and paid for correct? i don't see how the obligation goes farther than that from the insurance standpoint. his insurance helps with his attorney fees when you sue him for more than just repairing the damage

[Professor]

[John Galt]

poor gilbert godfrey, he's been telling you for years how that isn't covered

and yeah, the insurance pays to fix you up. that's it. you can sue him for more, and his insurance may help cover his lawyer

i don't want to pay more money jsut so you can make up the imagined difference in your resale rate. you don't even know what the difference is until you try to sell it. of course, i could sell you a one dollar coin for 5,000 dollars, and you might think it's a good deal depending on the coin. it's worth what someone will pay for it. insurance is just paying for someone to put back humpty dumpty. that he has a crack maybe someone would pay less. maybe more. you don't know, but you can sue him if you think you can make a case

[Professor]

[Professor]

Quick update. Got a preliminary letter back from the Dept of Insurance (DOI). Basically, they reiterated that they are unable to pass judgement on individual settlements. But, they agree with my opinion (not explicitly stated, but read between the lines).

So, I've taken 2 additional steps.

1) I escalated the matter within the DOI. I have worked in the past with the Deputy Commissioner over Property and Casualty Insurance. Not "close friends", but enough of a relationship that I could call him directly and have him know who I was. He is going to look into the matter first thing next week.

2) I contacted a friend of mine who is in the LA House of Reps. He was VERY interested in the case. He said, if my facts are correct (and he has no reason to think they aren't), that he wholeheartedly agrees with me. Assuming that I do not receive the relief I am seeking, we are contemplating 2 courses of action:

a) Next session, file an actual bill that forces DOI to come up with a policy to tell insurance companies that they must use scientific methods and evidence to determine the factors used in formulas to calculate settlements. Alternatively, we may actually put the language that we want DOI to use in the bill. The downside to this is that passing a bill that becomes law is relatively difficult. It'll be opposed by the insurance companies, and will be a tough fight.

b) Next session, file a Resolution that instructs DOI to make the same policy. These are relatively easy to pass, but don't carry the weight of law. So, if it passed, DOI could make that policy change, and then a year later, undo the change just as quickly.

So, we'll see where it goes from here.