#111
|
|||
|
|||
Crazy Accident
Scott wrote:
I'm surprised that no one, especially the numerous shop owners who've contributed to this thread, have mentioned the potentially greater profit inherent in creating an incredibly loyal customer. Customer loyalty is not dependable. I remember a customer of mine when I worked in bike shops. We liked him because he was friendly, rode all the club rides and dependably stopped when riders had flats and hung back with the discouraged beginners when they couldn't keep up. He also didn't make a lot of money and had kids so funds were always tight so we just didn't feel right making a profit on sales to him since he seemed to do so much good for local cycling. We sold him everything at cost and when he needed work done we "let him use our tools" which usually meant us doing the work and him making pleasent conversation. After one winter ride we were drinking hot chocolate and warming up at a local restaurant he must have not realized I was there because he was bad-mouthing our shop and recommending an out of town shop. Truth be known we helped him because we wanted to, not because we expected his undivided loyalty or we expected some kind of return on our investment but we never expected that he would be so duplicitious. I asked around and several cyclists told me that he had been bad mouthing our shop for years. No one's suggesting that the shop sell the bike for their invoice price. When I worked in shops after we factored in our costs we averaged about 10% profit on bikes and high end bikes were a little less. Asuming the shop sold the $2,000 bike for $1,800 were the really going to buy that much goodwill? |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Crazy Accident
Broken Bicyclist wrote:
The cyclist is clearly the innocent party here. Any suggestion that the insurance company is under a "burden" because one of its policyholder hit someone is insane. Insurance companies are supposed to pay out when one of their insureds are in an accident. That's the legal (and social) contract that they make when they take the bet (the premium). Oi vey! The issue as stated before is that the cyclist is reimbursed 100%, in this case $2,000 by the insurance company for his loss and the cyclist in turn purchases the *same* bike from the *same* shop at a discount price (for some amount $2,000). |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Crazy Accident
Fritz M wrote: Even if the bike shop gave the replacement bike for FREE to the insurance company, the original customer gets NOTHING extra out of the deal other than having his bike replaced, which is going to happen anyway. I am guessing that you have never been hit by an insured motorist and had insurance replace your bicycle. They give you a check (well in my case my attorney who then gave me a check minus the legal fee... but then we had to go to arbitration) for everything, the replacement of the bike, the medical, the pain and suffering, and so forth. Was I made "whole".... sort of.... it was whole less 33%. So if the Bike Shop had "cut me a deal" I would have been less "unwhole". What kind of good will or community karma is the bike shop generating by giving time and product away to the insurance company? Of course, you're not. You're giving the time and product away to your broken Customer. Sorry, Broken, but your arguments make absolutely no sense at all. It makes sense as long as you are in the real world where the insurance company gives the victim the check, not in your fantasy world where the insurance company goes out and buys the new bicycle, the new helmet, the new gym shorts, etc. I'd like to see this infinite supply of bikes, also. For purposes of the lost sale, its an infinite supply of bikes, not for purposes of pricing. If this were, for example, Renoir's, selling a replacement Renoir to me would be a lost sale becuase the supply of Renoir's is so finite as to mean that selling it to me means that you could not sell one to the next person that wanted one. In the case of Custom Bicycles, in contrast, selling it to the victim at a discount does not preclude selling it at full mark-up to the next person or the person thereafter or the person after them. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Crazy Accident
Broken Bicyclist wrote:
Was I made "whole".... sort of.... it was whole less 33%. Okay, I guess I see where you're coming from, a little. I've had two house fires, three car-bike collisions (including one that resulted in a total loss of a very nice custom frame), and my share of fender-benders. The insurance company won't bother to mention that full replacement costs includes accessories and whatever taxes you need to pay -- you have to pay attention and ask for these things. Anyway, the customer has $2600 burning a hole in his pocket and needs to replace the damaged bike and accessories. After that, it's just then normal dealing that occurs when any existing customer comes in to buy a bike. Regarding capitalism and corporate ethics and so forth -- some bike shop owners feel they have an obligation to pay their employees a living wage. ...selling it to the victim at a discount does not preclude selling it at full mark-up to the next person or the person thereafter or the person after them. It's a mid-range Specialized road bike. Maybe the bike shop have five of these on the floor and two of them are the right size. And maybe the shop will have to deeply discount one or two next year to make room for the next year's models. Or maybe there's a three week waiting list just to get the bike shipped from Taiwan. Who knows? RFM http://www.cyclelicio.us/ |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Crazy Accident
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:22:05 GMT, "Sir, It's Just Me" nospam?@thanks?.?
wrote: Broken Bicyclist wrote: The cyclist is clearly the innocent party here. Any suggestion that the insurance company is under a "burden" because one of its policyholder hit someone is insane. Insurance companies are supposed to pay out when one of their insureds are in an accident. That's the legal (and social) contract that they make when they take the bet (the premium). Oi vey! The issue as stated before is that the cyclist is reimbursed 100%, in this case $2,000 by the insurance company for his loss and the cyclist in turn purchases the *same* bike from the *same* shop at a discount price (for some amount $2,000). In other words, the cyclist performs insurance fraud. You're supposed to be reimbursed *replacement* cost, not what you paid for it. Jasper |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Crazy Accident
Dans le message de ,
Jasper Janssen a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:22:05 GMT, "Sir, It's Just Me" nospam?@thanks?.? wrote: Broken Bicyclist wrote: The cyclist is clearly the innocent party here. Any suggestion that the insurance company is under a "burden" because one of its policyholder hit someone is insane. Insurance companies are supposed to pay out when one of their insureds are in an accident. That's the legal (and social) contract that they make when they take the bet (the premium). Oi vey! The issue as stated before is that the cyclist is reimbursed 100%, in this case $2,000 by the insurance company for his loss and the cyclist in turn purchases the *same* bike from the *same* shop at a discount price (for some amount $2,000). In other words, the cyclist performs insurance fraud. You're supposed to be reimbursed *replacement* cost, not what you paid for it. No. Wrong. You get money. You can buy jellybeans, if you like. You can buy at another store. You can take a trip to Las Vegas, win more than you imagined, and buy an unobtanium bike. Replacement is not obligatory. Proof of valuation is all needed to disgorge money from the insurer. And the insurer has NO interest (legal) in making you buy another bike, meaning they can't say "Hey, we can do you a bike ..." Last, the insurer doesn't owe the injured party anything. It's the dumb driver who owes. Any shortfall in an offer from the insurer should be rejected, and then you go after the bad driver. Finally, when he pays up, you own his litigation rights against the insurer, which include bad-faith settlement practices, which leads to attorney fees and exemplary damages, all of which is fun for a lawyer. Just stop getting this basic stuff wrong. -- Bonne route ! Sandy Verneuil-sur-Seine FR |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Crazy Accident
"Sandy" wrote: (clip) Just stop getting this basic stuff wrong. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ But, was it really wrong? The loser is entitled to be made "whole." Suppose the loss were for a $400,000 Lamborghini. And, let's say the insurance company, faced with this kind of a loss, searches the market and finds they can replace the car for "only" $375,000? Since they are allowed to mitigate their losses, wouldn't they be allowed to settle for the lower figure? In fact, the loser is also required to mitigate the loss, which means going for the best price. Suppose your car is damaged in a collision, and the insurance company asks for three estimates. You go out and get six or eight estimates, and submit the HIGHEST three. And, let's say the insurance company finds out that is what you did. What would be their recourse? Insurance companies don't tie up their examiners and legal staff on small settlements like bicycles, and that is why it may be possible to pull off some kind of slippery deal, like getting a discount and not telling them. It doesn't make sense for them to spend thousands of dollars policing cases where only hundreds can be saved. At least, that's the way I see it. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Crazy Accident
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:13:02 +0100, "Sandy" wrote:
Dans le message de , Jasper Janssen a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : In other words, the cyclist performs insurance fraud. You're supposed to be reimbursed *replacement* cost, not what you paid for it. No. Wrong. You get money. You can buy jellybeans, if you like. You can buy at another store. You can take a trip to Las Vegas, win more than you imagined, and buy an unobtanium bike. Replacement is not obligatory. Proof I didn't say it was. of valuation is all needed to disgorge money from the insurer. And the Exactly. And the valuation in question is *replacement cost*. Nobody says you actually have to replace it, but what you're entitled to is the amount of money to replace the item -- not as much as it cost new. insurer has NO interest (legal) in making you buy another bike, meaning they can't say "Hey, we can do you a bike ..." They can say it, but they can't require you to take it instead of the money. There's a few insurers over here that actually have a policy that you *are* required to take the replacement object, and they only go to cash settlements if they can't find one. This, of course, applies to regular insurance you buy for your own stuff, and not third-party indemnity. Just stop getting this basic stuff wrong. Stop misreading my statements into the most twisted form you can imagine in order to make them wrong. Jasper |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Crazy Accident
Dans le message de
, Leo Lichtman a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : "Sandy" wrote: (clip) Just stop getting this basic stuff wrong. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ But, was it really wrong? The loser is entitled to be made "whole." Suppose the loss were for a $400,000 Lamborghini. And, let's say the insurance company, faced with this kind of a loss, searches the market and finds they can replace the car for "only" $375,000? Since they are allowed to mitigate their losses, wouldn't they be allowed to settle for the lower figure? No. The insurance company has a legal relationship with the insured. It then is the insured who makes an offer to settle. The insurer has NO RIGHTS against the injured party. In fact, the loser is also required to mitigate the loss, which means going for the best price. No - that's contract law. Good leap of imagination, though. Suppose your car is damaged in a collision, and the insurance company asks for three estimates. You go out and get six or eight estimates, and submit the HIGHEST three. And, let's say the insurance company finds out that is what you did. What would be their recourse? Remember the relationship remains insured (dumb driver) to insurance company. No relationship (direct, except under direct action statutes, which are too complex to be relevant here). Insurance companies don't tie up their examiners and legal staff on small settlements like bicycles, and that is why it may be possible to pull off some kind of slippery deal, like getting a discount and not telling them. It doesn't make sense for them to spend thousands of dollars policing cases where only hundreds can be saved. Actually, in the case that was originally presented, the insurer is motivated to settle for a top figure and early. The alternative (technically speaking) is to hold the unpaid money in a reserve fund (where it can't be earning real money) and push the process to long term resolution. No one benefits, and the insurer risks significant embarassment, should the full story make it to the press or to the regulatory agency. Sorry, but the naïve impressions of how this all works pollute the thinking process. Creation of myth (NOT lore, which means "knowledge") ain't needed. At least, that's the way I see it. Well, that may comfort you, but don't bet a bar exam on it. -- Sandy Verneuil-sur-Seine ******* La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette, il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre. -- Einstein, A. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Crazy Accident
Dans le message de ,
Jasper Janssen a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:13:02 +0100, "Sandy" wrote: Dans le message de , Jasper Janssen a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : In other words, the cyclist performs insurance fraud. You're supposed to be reimbursed *replacement* cost, not what you paid for it. No. Wrong. You get money. You can buy jellybeans, if you like. You can buy at another store. You can take a trip to Las Vegas, win more than you imagined, and buy an unobtanium bike. Replacement is not obligatory. Proof I didn't say it was. of valuation is all needed to disgorge money from the insurer. And the Exactly. And the valuation in question is *replacement cost*. Actually you fail again. Wrong answer. The valuation is not even limited to the cost of buying a new identical bike ! Law school won't even get you close to the answer. Nobody says you actually have to replace it, but what you're entitled to is the amount of money to replace the item -- not as much as it cost new. Not true, again. The argument on replacement cost presumes that the buyer want the bike. And that he uses average skills to negotiate the purchase. But, as he is NOT obligated to purchase it, the _measure of damages_ is different - entirely different. insurer has NO interest (legal) in making you buy another bike, meaning they can't say "Hey, we can do you a bike ..." They can say it, but they can't require you to take it instead of the money. There's a few insurers over here that actually have a policy that you *are* required to take the replacement object, and they only go to cash settlements if they can't find one. This, of course, applies to regular insurance you buy for your own stuff, and not third-party indemnity. You still are obtuse to this simple idea. The injured party is NOT in contract with the insurance company. Your dumb idea is the same as saying that the dumb driver can dictate the price at which he pays damages. Sure you haven't been celebrating too much before the holidays ??? Just stop getting this basic stuff wrong. Stop misreading my statements into the most twisted form you can imagine in order to make them wrong. Try reading what you write before you post. Apply elementary logic, and you could make a couple of steps toward enlightenment. -- Sandy Verneuil-sur-Seine ******* La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette, il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre. -- Einstein, A. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[OT] Inquiry into rush-hour road accident | Richard | UK | 12 | October 28th 05 10:55 PM |
Bike rider in critical condition after accident | Garrison Hilliard | General | 16 | July 21st 05 04:57 PM |
$1.4 Million for bike accident | Gags | Australia | 13 | February 23rd 05 02:47 PM |
Follow up to accident earlier this month. | Paul - xxx | UK | 23 | January 2nd 05 03:07 PM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |