Negotiating With Insurance Company

Steve Sr. wrote:


I would like to be reimbursed for replacement for my damaged property
and bike components. Any idea as to whether the insurance company is
going to try to depreciate my property damages before making a
settlement offer?


Yes, because that's the law. You can get 10 law firms hired and that
won't change the law. A court won't permit an unjust enrichment which in
this case means you get new when old was damaged.

What you can discuss is the residual value of the damaged goods. since
your damage is probably well below the limits of your local small claims
court, what you can do is file there if the initial offering from the
insurance is below what you consider fair.

Remember, legally 'fair' means being made whole again. It doesn't mean
being made better than you were before the incident.

I handle these cases regularly. Most plaintiffs expect more than they'll
get based on what they believe is real on TV.

On Dec 31 2008, 5:26*pm, "Sandy" wrote:
"Still Just Me" wrote in messagenewscqnl45bsitaubgs3u2ridn3og82ripl97@4ax .com...

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:43:03 -0800 (PST), Jay Beattie
wrote:

Keep looking for a lawyer. The insurance company will use one, you
should too.- Hide quoted text -

Unlikely that the insurance company would hire a lawyer. They don't
want to spend the money handling a small claim and will retain counsel
only when the plaintiff sues. *The dynamic is different with large
claims or where there are coverage issues.

I dunno... from my recent experience in this area, and from the drift
in the industry, the insurance companies seem to have adopted a "deny
everything, fight everything" strategy in the last few years. And, as
noted, their attitude will change very quickly once you have a lawyer.

While Jay may be better situated regarding resolution dynamics, I know
enough about insurance (former insurance GC) to say that the cost of
maintaining higher levels of assets to guarantee payment works against the
insurer, more so now with deflation in progress. *To sell a larger amount of
insurance, the company has to acquire and place in guarantee a larger asset
base. *When interest rates are high, the delaying tactic is more attractive,
but so is the cost of assets, or liquid backing in the form of a higher
percentage of premiums.

In short, an insurer is encouraged today to settle quickly, even somewhat
generously, and at a lower figure than extended discussions will lead to.
Get a lawyer's advice. *The ones who have declined to represent you figure
that their income is not pumped up by your congenial post-accident conduct,
and maybe by their estimate that they can't make much more of it for
themselves. *I would wait long enough to be sure that there aren't later
discovered effects of the crash, but not so long as to risk a curtain at the
end of the limitations period.

I have handled a number of nickle and dime bicycle-related PI claims
for freinds or acquaintances, and in general, I can do better with
hourly work. It is semi pro bono, and I do it as a favor. That's why
the contingent guys aren't taking the case. It is a money loser
unless they can jack up the recovery, and in a small case with no meds
and no wage loss, that's a hard thing to do.

If a lawyer can wrap it up for a fair price with a few phone calls and
a demand letter, then it may pay to take the case -- but then the
plaintiff is only going to get a little more than he would without an
attorney, maybe not enough more to cover the contingent fee. That's
why I say in a no meds no wage loss kind of case, go it alone. Now,
if there are unusual circumstances like a known vicious dog or the
owner sicked the dog on the rider or some real psychological injuries,
then I would get a lawyer to work those issues. -- Jay Beattie.

On Jan 1, 10:52*am, slide wrote:
Steve Sr. wrote:

I would like to be reimbursed for replacement for my damaged property
and bike components. Any idea as to whether the insurance company is
going to try to depreciate my property damages before making a
settlement offer?

Yes, because that's the law. You can get 10 law firms hired and that
won't change the law. A court won't permit an unjust enrichment which in
this case means you get new when old was damaged.

What you can discuss is the residual value of the damaged goods. since
your damage is probably well below the limits of your local small claims
court, what you can do is file there if the initial offering from the
insurance is below what you consider fair.

Remember, legally 'fair' means being made whole again. It doesn't mean
being made better than you were before the incident.

I handle these cases regularly. Most plaintiffs expect more than they'll
get based on what they believe is real on TV.

For certain values of 'unjust'.

My bicycle is my primary means of transportation, and is not an off
the shelf item since it has enhancements such as fenders, racks,
lights, etc. If it were to be damaged or destroyed by another, I would
expect proper reimbursement to mean I'd get another bicycle with
similar usefulness and quality. Given that time has a value, a new
bike might be the best way to do that.

And yes, I've been through this, and the insurance companies didn't
have an issue with that way of thinking. I didn't have to go to court
or get lawyers involved.

On Dec 31 2008, 9:10*am, "
wrote:

With all due respect here, your statement, "The dog
got in front of my front wheel and caused a crash at about 20-25MPH."
appears to me to imply that your competence at bike handling might be
a contributing factor.

Easy to say. Why are you casting stones here?

I had a puppy knock me down by running into my front wheel, like a
little bowling ball. An unexpected move, dumb of me to try to outrun a
dog (even a puppy, with 20-20 hindsight!) something "I knew better"
for many years previous, and so forth, but my "bike handling skills",
which are pretty fair, thankyouverymuch, weren't of any use. A perfect
hit and down I went.

If a dog runs in front of your bike it is not attacking you. *It would
have to contact you personally to 'attack' you.

I think you should definitely try to get the authorities in your area
to pursue whatever charges against the dog's owner that they can
because it is very irresponsible to allow the dog to do what it did
and, also, it is very irresponsible for them to allow the dog to get
into a situation where it might get injured or killed.

Dogs, and other animals that attack in groups, try "anything" to make
prey easier to kill, including trying to knock the prey down, and/or
causing it to change path, thus falling or at least slowing down in
order to make it easier to do damage.

So, you are completely wrong in your assertion that a dog "running in
front of you" does not constitute an attack. Running in front,
crossing your path, colliding with you, all of these are most
certainly attacks.

Yup, "they're only dogs", it is the owners' responsibility to control
their animals, but I defend myself agressively when necessary (when
shouting or a squirt from the water bottle doesn't work) with no
compunction IRT hurting the dog. At that moment, it's you or the dog,
as they say, and the dog's gotta lose, no matter what.

Or, you can be bitten, possibly crippled (dog's instinct to do damage)
or dragged down and mauled as a female rider in my old club was.
--D-y

On Jan 1, 12:11*pm, Brian Huntley wrote:
On Jan 1, 10:52*am, slide wrote:



Steve Sr. wrote:

I would like to be reimbursed for replacement for my damaged property
and bike components. Any idea as to whether the insurance company is
going to try to depreciate my property damages before making a
settlement offer?

Yes, because that's the law. You can get 10 law firms hired and that
won't change the law. A court won't permit an unjust enrichment which in
this case means you get new when old was damaged.

What you can discuss is the residual value of the damaged goods. since
your damage is probably well below the limits of your local small claims
court, what you can do is file there if the initial offering from the
insurance is below what you consider fair.

Remember, legally 'fair' means being made whole again. It doesn't mean
being made better than you were before the incident.

I handle these cases regularly. Most plaintiffs expect more than they'll
get based on what they believe is real on TV.

For certain values of 'unjust'.

My bicycle is my primary means of transportation, and is not an off
the shelf item since it has enhancements such as fenders, racks,
lights, etc. If it were to be damaged or destroyed by another, I would
expect proper reimbursement to mean I'd get another bicycle with
similar usefulness and quality. Given that time has a value, a new
bike might be the best way to do that.

And yes, I've been through this, and the insurance companies didn't
have an issue with that way of thinking. I didn't have to go to court
or get lawyers involved.

That was my experience as well. There was no hint from the insurance
companies that I should accept a depreciated value for my damaged
bicycle.

On Dec 31 2008, 10:10*am, "
wrote:

With all due respect here, your statement, "The dog
got in front of my front wheel and caused a crash at about 20-25MPH."
appears to me to imply that your competence at bike handling might be
a contributing factor.

There is no implication, there is your inference based on an evidence-
free assumption. You have no idea what direction the dog came from or
any of the other specifics. If the OP calls it an attack, it probably
was.

If a dog runs in front of your bike it is not attacking you. *It would
have to contact you personally to 'attack' you.

Another assumption. You seem to be implying dogs are required to come
up from behind people to give them a sporting chance at outrunning
them.

R

Brian Huntley wrote:
On Jan 1, 10:52 am, slide wrote:

For certain values of 'unjust'.

My bicycle is my primary means of transportation, and is not an off
the shelf item since it has enhancements such as fenders, racks,
lights, etc. If it were to be damaged or destroyed by another, I would
expect proper reimbursement to mean I'd get another bicycle with
similar usefulness and quality. Given that time has a value, a new
bike might be the best way to do that.

And yes, I've been through this, and the insurance companies didn't
have an issue with that way of thinking. I didn't have to go to court
or get lawyers involved.

Unjust enrichment in this case means being made substantially better
than whole. Nothing in your post indicates you were so that doesn't
apply. The OP in this case was hoping for new from old and that's unjust.

peter wrote:
On Jan 1, 12:11 pm, Brian Huntley wrote:


That was my experience as well. There was no hint from the insurance
companies that I should accept a depreciated value for my damaged
bicycle.

Good for you. Probably the matter was too trivial for them to bother
dickering with you.

On Jan 2, 6:49 am, slide wrote:
Brian Huntley wrote:
On Jan 1, 10:52 am, slide wrote:
For certain values of 'unjust'.

My bicycle is my primary means of transportation, and is not an off
the shelf item since it has enhancements such as fenders, racks,
lights, etc. If it were to be damaged or destroyed by another, I would
expect proper reimbursement to mean I'd get another bicycle with
similar usefulness and quality. Given that time has a value, a new
bike might be the best way to do that.

And yes, I've been through this, and the insurance companies didn't
have an issue with that way of thinking. I didn't have to go to court
or get lawyers involved.

Unjust enrichment in this case means being made substantially better
than whole. Nothing in your post indicates you were so that doesn't
apply. The OP in this case was hoping for new from old and that's unjust.

Maybe (and I haven't really read the whole thread), but he experienced
a crash onto the pavement at speed! How do you make that whole?

And I don't know about insurance and that kind of stuff, but I feel
like punitive damages might be in order if the dog owner routinely and
flagrantly neglects to control this hazard. (Loose dogs are often a
menace.)

On Jan 2, 9:49*am, slide wrote:
Brian Huntley wrote:
On Jan 1, 10:52 am, slide wrote:
For certain values of 'unjust'.

My bicycle is my primary means of transportation, and is not an off
the shelf item since it has enhancements such as fenders, racks,
lights, etc. If it were to be damaged or destroyed by another, I would
expect proper reimbursement to mean I'd get another bicycle with
similar usefulness and quality. Given that time has a value, a new
bike might be the best way to do that.

And yes, I've been through this, and the insurance companies didn't
have an issue with that way of thinking. I didn't have to go to court
or get lawyers involved.

Unjust enrichment in this case means being made substantially better
than whole. Nothing in your post indicates you were so that doesn't
apply. The OP in this case was hoping for new from old and that's unjust.


The original poster wrote "I would like to be reimbursed for
replacement for my damaged property
and bike components".

I wrote that I got a new bike to replace the one that was effectively
destroyed (frame bent, etc) by a car making a lane change without due
care*, without any discussion about depreciation or "new from old"
issues. I don't see any "unjust enrichment" in either case.

* IE, cutting me off and striking my bike in the process. I ended up
with a broken arm, too, but that was taken care of by my insurance.