I spent this summer in Alaska and after a great trip my company offered to ship my 1990 Regency 34 to Texas where I would be starting my next assignment. Well it made it by boat down to Tacoma no problem it was then supposed to go by lowboy to Texas. Long story short the company that was loading it onto the lowboy unknowingly smashed the oil pan before deciding to drive it 30 miles to another location to load. Needless to say the 3208 Cat is now junk and the repair estimate exceeds the value. This is (was) a beautiful coach and the insurance is treating me very fair but tomorrow I will be signing it over and it will likely go to a junkyard.
Everything else is pretty much perfect and I'm a bit heartbroken over this loss but there may be an oportunity for someone out there to pick it up for pennies on the dollar--Time is of the essence as I'd imagine the junkyard will quickly gut it for the salvage value. As it sits right now the insurance company is going to have to spend even more $ to have it towed to a salvage yard. I've asked if it might be available for buy back and they are open to the idea. if anyone is interested let me know asap.

!!!! What awful news !!!
so sorry to hear you are the victim of such stupidity. But, I am sure glad you will be compensated. As you know, there is a similar coach for sale with reeaaallly low miles.

Don't be hasty in accepting a settlement. A new (Cat reman) can be installed for <$15K. Get the value the appraiser assigned, and challenge him to find comparable sales. NADA is worthless. Just because the insurance company is seeming to be cooperative and fair doesn't mean you're not being screwed.

I assume the trucker's insurance is covering.

That coach would be worth at least $25-30K; no way should it be totalled.

It would seem to me that the transport company is at fault, and their insurance company should pay for the cost of a new engine. That cost would be far less than the value of the Barth. Is the transport company's insurance company the one that is claiming that the repairs exceed the value? If so, you're getting screwed. Get a lawyer. The transport company is at fault, insurance or no insurance. After their insurance pays what it will, go after their assets to pay what is left.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim and Tere:
Get a lawyer. The transport company is at fault, insurance or no insurance. After their insurance pays what it will, go after their assets to pay what is left.

Legal fees are not part of the tort feasor's liability. This was a bailment situation. The legal liability is limited to the Actual Cash Value loss. That would not be a NEW engine. A NEW engine would constitute BETTERMENT.

John said, "the insurance is treating me very fair". If they are willing to pay market value of the coach, they should. A carrier prefers a definitive constructive total loss settlement to uncertain repair costs. It is usually advantageous for the insurance carrier AND the claimant to settle as a total even when repairs might be presumed less than market value. A constructive total loss is when the estimated cost of repairs (plus anticipated supplementals) combined with the residual salvage value, equals or exceeds the market value.
I handled such matters for 34 years.

Don't need a lawyer -the state insurance commissioner will have many ways to help. The use of the term, "bad faith settlement" to the adjuster is a great attention-getting device.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Don't need a lawyer -the state insurance commissioner will have many ways to help. The use of the term, "bad faith settlement" to the adjuster is a great attention-getting device.

Rusty, Bad Faith pertains to first party claims. This is not. It is a third party claim. Regardless, no unfair handling has been alleged or implied. To the contrary, Johns says, "the insurance is treating me very fair".
-------------------------------------
ps. Although the locus appears to have been in the state of Washington, the original common carrier who issued the Bill Of Lading is liable for any damages or loss to the goods caused by the connecting carrier.

Did your company choose the shipper? If so you have a claim against them and together you might get a settlement that gets you an agreed reman engine for less than the cost of defense and replacement value. Is your company in Texas? I can tell you we get our legal fees from insurance cases in just about every case.
Attorney at Law

quote:

Originally posted by Mogan David:

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Don't need a lawyer -the state insurance commissioner will have many ways to help. The use of the term, "bad faith settlement" to the adjuster is a great attention-getting device.

Rusty, Bad Faith pertains to first party claims. This is not. It is a third party claim. Regardless, no unfair handling has been alleged or implied. To the contrary, Johns says, "the insurance is treating me very fair".

Not always. I owned an insurance agency for 25+ years, and in FL, bad faith could, in some circumstances, be applied to third-party claims (I had a few insureds successfully apply the concept, although none had to go so far as adjudication). And although it could be assumed, it's not been confirmed the trucker's insurance is involved.

I agree there's bailment, but I believe there's more than simple negligence (Why would the carrier want to go 30 miles to a different loading place? If it were due to the carrier knowing that the coach were damaged at the first place and due diligence in inspecting the damage were ignored, the carrier has engaged in gross negligence). As to "betterment", I don't think that's an effective defense for installation of a reman engine if a used engine couldn't be located in a reasonable time, and because of the aggravated nature. If due diligence had occurred, the damage would have been contained to a new oil pan and appurtenant parts. (Would you consider replacing the old leaked oil with new oil "betterment"?) And kindly re-read my post - I used the cost of installing a reman to illustrate that this coach SHOULD NOT BE TOTALLED.

"No unfair handling"? Totalling a vehicle with damage probably less than half FMV? That's clearly unfair. If $15K is 80% of the coach's ACV, then the adjuster is obviously low-balling. (I'd snap up a Regency at $19K). Possibly no unfair handling has been alleged because John is unaware of an attempt at avoiding indemnification.

I would NEVER advise one of my insureds to accept this settlement without further review and consideration.

I don't know if this is a viewpoint you could use...


I've been in the insurance industry for 25+ years.

I had a claim in which a client hit a beaver on the road, tore off the oilpan and ruined the engine. The car had 100,000 miles. My company gave her the offer of a NEW ENGINE and 50% depreciation or a REMAN ENGINE with NO DEPRECIATION.

Off course, she took the reman engine offer and was happy.

It's almost overwhelming how much knowledge and help one can get on Barthmobile on so many subjects. Hope your situation can get resolved. I had a situation with a 96 Caprice a few years ago. The insurance company wanted to declare it a total loss and made the repair cost come out to exceed the KBB value. When I say 'made', they used prices of factory new parts even though I had ok'd the use of salvage parts. I fought it to no avail. I bought it back from the insurance company, fixed it myself. The 'salvage title' value ended up to be almost nothing.

The rule of thumb is that if repairs will exceed 80% of the ACV, the vehicle is totalled; this is because salvage value is around 22% for most vehicles.

One item that is sometimes overlooked or underestimated is the condition and maintenance history of the damaged vehicle, and I've frequently had to have "frank and animated" discussions with adjusters on the topic.

I have no doubt about that, Rusty. But, repairing a borderline total loss often results in misery for the vehicle owner and the insurer. In the process, I have seen shops get partway through a major repair job and then a re-evaluation converts the job to a total loss.
The owners of repaired borderline total loss are often unhappy with the results, after protracted, extensive repairs are 'completed', various flaws, noises, leaks, vibrations, etc haunt the owner, the shop and the adjuster. Hence, as may be the case with John's Barth, the carrier averts that possibility by paying a generous total loss. In my most recent total loss experience, as an insured rather than adjuster, I was paid more than I had paid for the auto.

Who was it a few years back that crunched a storage compartment door and the insurance company seriously considered totaling the coach? When the numbers were put to paper it almost made sense, but come on, trash a nice coach because the repair guys are crooks? In this case I'd say put a good engine in it and keep it, but I'm just a reasonable person, not a pencil pushing crook.

Sorry everyone but I took the money- They paid off my loan $4500 and gave me a check for $36000.
Lets just say the old girl went down swinging and kept giving even on her death bed.
She will be going to a salvage auction and I'd bet you could have her for a thousand bucks if you were so inclined. I just dont have the time to play around with it as I still have a job to do. If it wasnt stuck 1200 miles from my home I'd consider buying it back myself but it just isnt in the cards.
Even if you didnt fix the engine it would make one hell of a hunting shack-the generator only has 176 hours.
I'm sure gunna miss her. I've only had her 3.5 years and we've been from Ca to Cape Cod to Florida back to Ca and lastly to Alaska for the last 6 months and other than replacing an A/C unit the coach has been bullet proof. Kinda sad to say goodbye.