merziac

Last one I had, the adjuster said to find the highest priced replacement parts on the web or efbay, whatever I could find, every single nicked part, shoes, helmet, camera, etc and my overhaul labor for teardown and rebuild.

$8500 within 2 weeks since it took me awhile to find everything, she couldn't get it done fast enough.

bamboobike4

Patently false.
Based on purely ignorant assumptions.

bamboobike4

Incorrect regarding one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US. They aren't retail stores. They generally make money on their investments, and by lending money overnight to banks. Their rates are almost entirely set by the states, and what they pay out in claims is heavily regulated. Their operating expenses are where they save money. It's illegal to reduce claim payments to be more profitable, despite what ambulance chasing scumbags and street corner lawyers like to say, one because they create a market for themselves, and the latter because they are just ignorant.

Again, incorrect, and coming from ignorance.

When you are "hit with a loss," you either have contractual 1st party coverage, likely homeowners, which can easily be replacement cost, or you are being paid by someone representing a liable party who is supposed to pay you under the property damage statues of your state. It's not replacement cost, either, it's "fair market value" and often described as "actual cash value." However, there are ways, already outlined here, that can help you get what you may consider "fair market value." States define "fair," because they can, and people can't, and it's often defined as "an agreed price between an uncompelled buyer and an uncompelled seller."

The build sheet does two valuable things: it outlines what it took to get the bike into existence, and it gives the adjuster the information needed to measure the damages. As stated, most carriers don't get too involved in the pricing if the claimant is providing good information for the claim file, and claimants can take advantage of this aspect of human nature to inflate their claims or not, whether or not they have a conscience. The "victimhood" effect generally helps to inflate this value, and has long been understood by the insurance industry.

A friend of mine, hit from behind at a stop light, hip broken off in the socket, had a 2010 Madone, in very nice condition, with Di2 Ultegra and Aeolus 5.0 wheels. A market value for the complete bike is about $2000-$2500. She went ballistic, and had a shop prepare a parts list, using only the damaged parts, using new part prices, for $9687. Being very familiar with the bike, I think $2500 is too low, and there are no suitable comparison 2010 models. I also think $9687 is way too high, but it reflects an accurate repair cost. The bike is a total loss, so the $2500 may apply, but simply not accurate. I found 3 comparables, albeit much newer, but in the same condition with the same components, for $5200-$7000. It's too hard to quantify the difference in value between a very clean 2010 Madone and a very clean 2017-2018 Madone. My guess is she'll get between $5200 and $7000 and I'm pretty sure she'll be happy with that. She won't replace the frame, a rear wheel is available new, and she'll live with the scratched parts, come out spending about $1200 and riding the same bike, pocketing the difference.

A build sheet is simply a very accurate way to start. Human nature means we want way more for our stuff than we'd pay for it were we to buy it again. I'd love a 2022 Corvette to replace my 2010, but it ain't gonna happen. Same with bikes, but bikes have much more grey area, because they are not Corvettes.

bamboobike4

Not.

1-most likely, the $1200 was supported by information provided by the owner, and was under the small claims threshold of the carrier, which means it's a rubber-stamp agreement with what the OP provided. Small claims are turn and burn processes, designed for speed, and partially based on the premise that most people are honest. The labor savings by the carrier often results in light padding, favorable to the claimant, because in the long run, time is money, and operating expenses that go too high are not favorable to the shareholders.

2-less likely, the $1200 was accurate, and the industry is regulated on accuracy, not "getting off lightly." 99% of small claims adjusters would look at that and input the check so they can move on to the next claim.

"Getting off lightly" has nothing to do with it. Not a speck.

bamboobike4

Hold it, this doesn't jibe with some of what the other experts are saying!

But, Exactly. She gave you the reins, you took them and she paid you for driving.
You were thorough, you were accurate, as instructed, and you were paid as agreed.

The question is, did you spend $8500 getting back to where you were?

philbob57

Are you arguing with the reason (to increase profits) or with the proposition that insurance companies work hard to minimize payouts? No matter what the reason for minimizing payments, the results show up in the P & L.

Consider:

In 1966, I was hit from behind while stopped in traffic. $1800 in damage, $1200 offered by the insurer.

A friend's car was totaled. The insurer offers the wholesale 'FMV' for the car to the victim and refuses to include sales tax. Tells the victim to sue if he wants more than the offer.

Many of us can go on and on with examples of insurance companies trying to minimize their payments. How many insurers go to jail for minimizing payments?

bamboobike4

None. They don’t minimize payments, and they don’t use “go to court” as a negotiating tactic. Lawyers do, but insurers can’t.

If you were offered $1200, there was a basis for it. Unlike people making demands, carrier offers are regulated. Greed is a bad thing.

If the friend’s car was totaled, the offer was based on supporting documentation, period. Your friend would likely have lost in court, once the evidence was heard. Every offer is presumed to end up in court. Ignorance of the process is about the only reason any property damage claim ends up in court. The jury instructions are what the statutes call for, and rarely do they increase any previous property damage offer.

The “going to court” thing is common among people who embrace victim mentality as an entitlement. Every time an offer is declined, it’s off the table. A generous offer, refused, is almost always less than the jury award in a property damage claim.

You may have examples, but no supporting documentation. Everyone wants more. Everyone. Carriers are regulated, statutes govern their behavior, evaluations, and adjusters, especially property adjusters, are rated based on accuracy.

What you don’t hear too often is “they paid me more than I would have paid for it, 5 minutes before it was hit.” That’s quite true, though, based on a lot of research. Our market system is based on buying lower than selling; we’ve been taught that from an early age. The same thought process applies when we think someone owes us something.

Drillium Dude 

This was resolved days ago. Nobody cares.

DD

philbob57

No sane person wants to go to court if it can be avoided, and court can be and is avoided in the vast majority of property losses. And a case that doesn't go to court cannot be governed by law. Settlements have to be negotiated. They don't have to follow the law - they just have to be spinable so they look like they do.

Obviously I've hit a sore point for you. In my almost 78 years, I've seen too many times when companies and individuals get away with violating laws because enforcing the law is simply too expensive in money, time, and energy. That's a sore point for me.

merziac

Yep, ground zero, square 1.

miamijim

I wrote insurance insurance estimates for 14 years, both theft and accident.

Half of you are talking straight up extortion….

Any $750 bike will do everything better than a 197x LeTour. eBay says it’s worth $550

You all remind me of the tourist whose Patek watch was stolen in a mugging, he told the cops it was worth $300,000, the serial number said it was worth $30,000.

miamijim

I wrote insurance insurance estimates for 14 years, both theft and accident.

Half of you are talking straight up extortion….

bamboobike4

You are wrong, but at 78, likely only for a while. Best wishes in that respect.

smd4

I suspect it’s pretty foolish to argue insurance issues with bamboobike or miamijim. In case anyone (everyone?) hasn’t realized it, they appear to be in the business.

philbob57

Wow, bamboobike, I really did hit a nerve! I'm sure you can imagine my initial response, which I'll spare everyone, since it violates BF guidelines.

For the record, according to the SSA, life expectancy for a 78 year old male is 9+ years. I'm white, middle class, married, and a resident of Illinois, and all of that may ups my expected life span. And think about this: my mom lived past 102, with no dementia.

miamijim

Nope, not in the insurance business. I wrote them as an employee of a bicycle store.

So I’m wrong because I don’t agree with you? lol

smd4

You do get that what I wrote is in agreement with you, right?

mstateglfr 

This is a distinction without a difference when the lawyer that can go to court is negotiating on behalf of the insurance company. Lawyer takes offer to company, company declines, and trial happens. That is the insurance company deciding to go to court. You are arguing a distinction that just isn't different from what the other poster said.
^ this is real, it isnt ignorance, you arent the only one with years of experience in insurance and law. Insurance companies are notorious for lowballing(minimizing) personal injury and work comp cases.



On a personal note, I still remember the name of the representative I had to work with from Liberty Mutual when their client turned me 15 years ago. He was so awful to work with and lowballed so severely that his name has stuck with me even now. It was excrutiating to work out what ended up being a price that was simply in line with actual comparables in the region. I certainly didn't come out ahead and it was exhausting to get him to stop trying to use absurd comparables.

bamboobike4

Illinois.
Explains.