PDA

View Full Version : Good news and bad news


Judy G. Russell
May 1st, 2006, 06:11 PM
Got the police report today (finally!) from the NJ State Police after my April 5 accident on the NJ Turnpike. It has good news and bad news.

One piece of good news is the conclusion (duh...) that the idiot who hit me was following too closely.

But the bad news is that the trooper didn't cite the guy. Not that it's necessary or anything, but I would have felt better.

The other piece of good news is that the idiot was (apparently) insured (or at least was able to produce an insurance card).

But the bad news is, if he was telling the truth, he's insured with State Farm. State Farm is a great company to be insured by. It's a first class lousy royal PITA to deal with if it's their insured who's at fault.

I'm leaving this in the hands of my insurer, which very much wants to get its $2600 in repairs plus $70 in towing plus $30/day in car rental plus... back, in the hopes that it can also get my $500 deductible back.

But I ain't gonna hold my breath...

Mike
May 1st, 2006, 11:56 PM
<crossing fingers>

Mike Landi
May 2nd, 2006, 06:22 AM
Let them fight it out. Hopefully you will see the $500.

How's the car?

How are you?

Peter Creasey
May 2nd, 2006, 10:22 AM
my $500 deductible

Judy, In this case, you are lucky to have such a small deductible; however, keeping it so small really bumps up your premiums.

I wonder why the trooper wouldn't cite the other guy. I would have argued for that at the time and again later, if necessary.

Judy G. Russell
May 2nd, 2006, 10:34 AM
How's the car?Dunno. Hope to see it this afternoon -- I'm really getting tired of driving this little cheap Chevy rental.

How are you?Still in a bit of pain and waiting for the PIP folks to approve a neck MRI...

Judy G. Russell
May 2nd, 2006, 10:36 AM
In this case, you are lucky to have such a small deductible; however, keeping it so small really bumps up your premiums.That's not a particularly small deductible -- most lenders want you to carry $250 or less.

I wonder why the trooper wouldn't cite the other guy. I would have argued for that at the time and again later, if necessary.I was somewhat distracted at the time, as I was in the process of riding away from the scene in an ambulance... Plus remember that NJ is a no-fault state, so it doesn't matter here as much as it does in other states. As long as the police report says (as it does) that it was the other guy's fault, it's no big deal.

earler
May 3rd, 2006, 05:16 AM
They want a low deductible in order to have you pay more. It is best to have a $1000, or even a $2000 deductible. Cheaper.

-er

Mike Landi
May 3rd, 2006, 08:25 AM
I hope your neck is okay. You thinking of a pain and suffering suit?

Judy G. Russell
May 3rd, 2006, 08:48 AM
It is best to have a $1000, or even a $2000 deductible. Cheaper."Best" and "cheaper" are not always the same thing. It depends on the individual circumstances. Many people don't have a spare $1000 or $2000 to put towards repairs in the case of an accident, and they need to balance that against how much cheaper the insurance will be. In some cases, the difference is so small that they would lose BIG time in the event of an accident. (One niece has a policy where the annual difference between $250 deductible and $2000 deductible is about $100 a year. That means, in the event of an accident, she'd need seventeen years of insurance premiums to break even.)

Judy G. Russell
May 3rd, 2006, 08:51 AM
I hope your neck is okay.Thanks, pal!

You thinking of a pain and suffering suit?Actually, and this may come as a surprise from a lawyer, no. Lawsuits are terrible things to be involved in -- emotionally draining and often a waste of time and resources. And remember that NJ is a no-fault state, so recovery is limited. As long as I can get things basically fixed, I won't sue.

earler
May 3rd, 2006, 09:43 AM
I have found that $1000 deductible costs about $500 more than $500 deductible. In other words, what's the point? If you have no accidents you are $500 richer, if you have one you pay later rather than in your premium.

-er

Judy G. Russell
May 3rd, 2006, 01:56 PM
YOU have found that price differential. It's not the same for everyone. This is not a "one size fits all" deal.

davidh
May 4th, 2006, 11:00 AM
Dunno. Hope to see it this afternoon -- I'm really getting tired of driving this little cheap Chevy rental.

Still in a bit of pain and waiting for the PIP folks to approve a neck MRI...

FWIW, my wife bought a Homedics massage machine with heat. They look sort of like an "industrial strength" caliber of machine. She bought hers very inexpensively at a flea market. But I saw them on sale at a local drug store a few weeks ago too (maybe around $29?). (They look like some kind of weapon from "War of the Worlds" ;) )

Judy G. Russell
May 4th, 2006, 12:50 PM
Worth looking into, David, especially since it apparently takes 100 years to get anything approved after a MV accident (the insurer hasn't yet approved the MRI...).

ktinkel
May 4th, 2006, 01:50 PM
the insurer hasn't yet approved the MRI...Yikes! Is your neck back to normal?

Sure hope so.

Judy G. Russell
May 4th, 2006, 09:13 PM
Yikes! Is your neck back to normal? Sure hope so.Thanks, but it's not quite there yet... I don't think us old fogeys can get rearended like that without needing some significant time for recovery. At least I hope that's all that's needed.

ktinkel
May 5th, 2006, 10:34 AM
Thanks, but it's not quite there yet... I don't think us old fogeys can get rearended like that without needing some significant time for recovery. At least I hope that's all that's needed.Are you getting physical therapy? Stretching exercises might help with the pain without making anything worse.

Judy G. Russell
May 5th, 2006, 12:00 PM
Are you getting physical therapy? Stretching exercises might help with the pain without making anything worse.The orthopedist didn't want to start PT until after the MRI is approved. With luck that'll be next week. It's "only" been a month (exactly, today) since the accident...

Mike
May 6th, 2006, 12:58 AM
I don't think us old fogeys can get rearended like that without needing some significant time for recovery.
Talk about, uh, "straight" lines...

ktinkel
May 7th, 2006, 09:27 AM
The orthopedist didn't want to start PT until after the MRI is approved. With luck that'll be next week. It's "only" been a month (exactly, today) since the accident...That’s a long time!

But PT should help (as will the MRI, so they know what you need to fix).

ndebord
May 7th, 2006, 10:32 AM
The orthopedist didn't want to start PT until after the MRI is approved. With luck that'll be next week. It's "only" been a month (exactly, today) since the accident...


Judy,

I would like to add one observation. The later you start PT, the harder it is. I had a "frozen shoulder" some time ago in which the diagnosis was either PT or they crack your shoulder like a chicken wing. If it works, you're fine, if not, you have a broken shoulder joint.

In the beginning I resisted going to a doctor and that retarded my recovery. The PT also, I have to say, was only adequate. After some period of work, I realized that I had hit a wall with their techniques, so did some research and developed my own eclectic methods which, in the end, managed to get my shoulder back to normal.

I mean, it was kind of embarassing. I could only lift my arm as far as a Nazi salute there for a while!

ktinkel
May 7th, 2006, 01:24 PM
The PT also, I have to say, was only adequate. I am finding that physical therapists (and PT places) vary a lot in quality. I lucked out last year (or I have a smart doctor) and got sent to a local PT place where the therapists actually work with you, monitor progress, devise treatments that are particular to the patient, and where you almost always get your particular therapist.

But I hear that other places are much sloppier. I have seen therapists who point a patient to a machine, show them briefly how it works, and leave. No supervision or monitoring. Someone waiting for an appointment with me at the orthopedist’s recently said he was glad if the therapist spent 10 minutes of the 45-minute session with him. Yikes.

They do seem to be a bit formulaic, though, as you describe. Still, I got a lot out of my PT sessions, and learned a lot.

ndebord
May 7th, 2006, 05:03 PM
I am finding that physical therapists (and PT places) vary a lot in quality. I lucked out last year (or I have a smart doctor) and got sent to a local PT place where the therapists actually work with you, monitor progress, devise treatments that are particular to the patient, and where you almost always get your particular therapist.

But I hear that other places are much sloppier. I have seen therapists who point a patient to a machine, show them briefly how it works, and leave. No supervision or monitoring. Someone waiting for an appointment with me at the orthopedist’s recently said he was glad if the therapist spent 10 minutes of the 45-minute session with him. Yikes.

They do seem to be a bit formulaic, though, as you describe. Still, I got a lot out of my PT sessions, and learned a lot.

Kathleen,

I did my therapy at the VA and they spent 100% of their time with me, unless they were short staff and then I took a backseat to recently returned Iraq Vets who needed much more than I. The only criticism I have is one that we all suffer from. They were enamored with the techniques they knew, so I was pretty much on my own with developing new methods of "stretching" out my shoulder joint. When i realized I had reached a plateau, I stopped going, but only after I had devised my own therapy routine. After about 90 more days (after 6 months with them), I went back in to explain my routine and show them my, at that point, 98% recovery. They took notes and showed every intention of letting my experience help them with other patients.

(It was a crap shoot though. In 50% of the cases, you don't recover all the way and they do the wishbone thing on you.) <brrrrrrr>

Judy G. Russell
May 7th, 2006, 06:11 PM
That’s a long time!Tell me about it... I am soooooo annoyed that this is all taking so long.

But PT should help (as will the MRI, so they know what you need to fix).I sure hope so. I flew down to Virginia this weekend for my niece's college graduation and found it more than a little difficult to schlepp my stuff around.

Judy G. Russell
May 7th, 2006, 06:13 PM
I'm going to really push this during this coming week, Nick. If something's going to help, I want to get it going now.

Judy G. Russell
May 7th, 2006, 06:14 PM
Talk about, uh, "straight" lines...Shall we move this to Section 8?

ndebord
May 7th, 2006, 09:29 PM
I'm going to really push this during this coming week, Nick. If something's going to help, I want to get it going now.

Judy,

Push them hard. Failure to provide a test that might indicate early treatment makes a difference could be characterized as negligence....insurance people hate to hear the word liable bandied about!

Mike
May 8th, 2006, 01:23 AM
Shall we move this to Section 8?
I'll leave that as your call. Let's just say that I have lots of friends who think of that term differently.

Mike Landi
May 8th, 2006, 01:21 PM
ROLF!!!

Damn....now I have to clean the monitor again. <g>

Judy G. Russell
May 8th, 2006, 01:43 PM
I know, but I'm getting very tired of this whole thing. There was a mechanical noise in the engine compartment that began immediately after the accident. And I mean immediately. I had never heard it before the accident; it happened the first time I started the engine afterwards. But everybody agreed it wasn't related; it was the air conditioner compressor. So I spent $800 and had a new air conditioner compressor put it.

Guess what...?

Judy G. Russell
May 8th, 2006, 01:44 PM
Sigh... it's hard to come up with terminology these days that DOESN'T have SOMEBODY laughing at the screen...

Lindsey
May 8th, 2006, 10:36 PM
Dunno. Hope to see it this afternoon -- I'm really getting tired of driving this little cheap Chevy rental.
I know exactly what you mean! But does New Jersey law not provide that you have to be given a car that is comparable to the one that was damaged? Virginia law does; I was prepared for the insurance company to try to stiff me on that score, but the rental company they sent the voucher to offered me a Camry straight out. It wasn't as nice as my Avalon -- I really missed my leather seats -- but it was a pretty decent car.

I was finally able to pick up my car today. (I think it was ready sometime last week, but I was out of town.) And it's sooooo nice having it back. There is a small area where the paint is rippled, though. :( I want my brother-in-law to take a look at it to see if it's something I ought to inisist on having taken care of. <sigh>

I'm glad that you at least have a chance of getting your deductible back, and gladder still that it's your insurance company and not you that will need to fight them for it. But don't be too accommodating on the personal injuries. You never know what ramifications that sort of injury might have 15 or 20 years from now.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
May 8th, 2006, 10:41 PM
They want a low deductible in order to have you pay more.
No, the lender's chief interest is in protecting the collateral. They don't want their borrowers carrying a deductible so high that they can't afford to have the car repaired if it is damaged.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
May 8th, 2006, 10:49 PM
does New Jersey law not provide that you have to be given a car that is comparable to the one that was damaged?No. In NJ, you can buy whatever rental coverage you want, but it costs. So most folks take the standard $30 a day coverage. Interesting that Enterprise will rent you a car for $30 a day, everything included, if insurance is paying, but wouldn't rent you that same car for less than twice that amount if it was on your own ticket...

Lindsey
May 8th, 2006, 11:45 PM
Interesting that Enterprise will rent you a car for $30 a day, everything included, if insurance is paying, but wouldn't rent you that same car for less than twice that amount if it was on your own ticket...
Yeah, I was surprised by that, too. But I guess they cut the margin to the bone expecting the volume of business will make up for it, and it lets them make productive use of idle cars.

--Lindsey

earler
May 9th, 2006, 04:12 AM
I was speaking of a high deductible when you have paid cash for it, not when you have bought it on credit. In any case, say you have borrowed $15,000 to buy a $20,000 car. If your deductible is $1000 and you can't afford to pay that amount you have no transportation. As long as you are paying off the loan the credit company doesn't give a damn. If you then stop paying them they repossess and resell the car.

If you total the car and you have say a $1000 deductible rather than $500 or $250 then if you can't pay the deductible, the car doesn't get repaired and you have no transportation until you do. If you also default on the car loan then the credit company will pay the deductible due and resell the car.

Car insurance is a very profitable business, as you certainly know, and so did the group that bought a majority in gmac from gm the other day.

-er

Judy G. Russell
May 9th, 2006, 04:04 PM
As long as you are paying off the loan the credit company doesn't give a damn. If you then stop paying them they repossess and resell the car.But obviously you're far more likely to default if you can't afford to get the car repaired, and they do NOT want to repossess, try to fix and try to resell a busted up vehicle.

earler
May 9th, 2006, 05:46 PM
A $1000 deductible may have seemed high back in the days when one paid $10,000 for a new car. Today, well things are different.

-er

Judy G. Russell
May 9th, 2006, 06:45 PM
A $1000 deductible is high to anyone who doesn't have easy access to $1000 if needed. It's really as simple as that.

Lindsey
May 9th, 2006, 10:39 PM
I was speaking of a high deductible when you have paid cash for it, not when you have bought it on credit.
Well, in that case you weren't following the conversation, because the message of Judy's that you were answering when you said "they want you to have a low deductible" had said, "... most lenders want you to carry $250 or less."

If your deductible is $1000 and you can't afford to pay that amount you have no transportation.
Precisely; which is why most people -- here in the US, anyway -- don't carry policies with that high a deductible. Maybe you have $1000 to toss off if some idiot without insurance runs into your car; most of the rest of us don't have that kind of money to burn.

--Lindsey

Mike
May 10th, 2006, 12:54 AM
<snicker>

earler
May 10th, 2006, 04:50 AM
You make the assumption that someone will run into you annually and have no insurance, or that you run into someone else annually. Most people I know take the higher deductible because they don't fall into either of the above categories.

I do the same, by the way, with supplemental medical insurance. I found that $1000 deductible (on an annual basis, not a per illness one) costs $502 more than $500 deductible.

-er

Judy G. Russell
May 10th, 2006, 09:52 AM
Medical insurance is separate in the US. Car insurance deductibles are only for comp and collision (vehicle damage only). So the difference in premiums is much less. And regardless of the overall dollar difference over the life of the vehicle, it still boils down to one question: do you have $1000 to toss to car repairs if you have to? If not, then a lower deductible is necessary.

Lindsey
May 10th, 2006, 10:56 PM
I found that $1000 deductible (on an annual basis, not a per illness one) costs $502 more than $500 deductible.
The premium, you mean? Sounds like a very bad deal to me!!!!

--Lindsey

earler
May 11th, 2006, 08:45 AM
Yes, the premium for $1000 deductible is a bit over $500 over the premium for $500 deductible. It's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

I think anyone should make the calcuation of the cost of a lower deductible and then say, am I willing to pay x for insurance against y occurring?

There's yet another point in all this. In case of a minor event, say the cost of repair would be $200 or so. Is it worth claiming that $200 when you realize your insurance premium will be increased the next time around? Not bloody likely!

-er

Dan in Saint Louis
May 11th, 2006, 09:28 AM
Yes, the premium for $1000 deductible is a bit over $500 over the premium for $500 deductible.That's quite a load of chutzpah on the part of the insurance company. You are really saying that it costs $500 MORE in premiums to get $500 LESS in coverage?

Sounds like the way my grandfather sold lettuce from his vegetable stand: a nickle a head, two for 15, and three for a quarter.

Lindsey
May 11th, 2006, 11:50 PM
Yes, the premium for $1000 deductible is a bit over $500 over the premium for $500 deductible. It's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.
As I said, that sounds like an outrageously bad deal to me. Why go with the high deductible if the premiums are higher? Where are the savings????

--Lindsey

earler
May 12th, 2006, 06:19 AM
Did I not make it clear? To get $1000 deductible I'd have to pay $500 more. What's the point then. If I have no accidents I am $500 richer, if I have one then I pay the $500 later rather than at the beginning of the period.

-er

Dan in Saint Louis
May 12th, 2006, 09:50 AM
Did I not make it clear?No, Earl, I'm afraid you did not. As we are understanding your statements:

Let's say your premium is $1000 for $500 deductible. You have a crash. That year you paid out $1500.

If you opted for $1000 deductible you stated your premium would be "$500 more" or $1500. You have a crash. Your cost for that year is $2500.

SO: NO crash, the first option is $500 less. CRASH, the first option is $1000 less.

See what has us confused?

Lindsey
May 12th, 2006, 09:20 PM
Did I not make it clear? To get $1000 deductible I'd have to pay $500 more. What's the point then. If I have no accidents I am $500 richer, if I have one then I pay the $500 later rather than at the beginning of the period.
Yes, you made it clear that you would have to pay a premium $500 higher to get a higher deductible. What I don't understand is why anyone would want to do that.

--Lindsey