Wrecked it!

[Rex]

... Would the wheels and tires from a 95 J fit a 94 Q? Hmmm.... I need new tires...

I wouldn't recommend putting the Q's weight on J rims or (loadrated) tires :nono.

[maxnix]

Nice car. Follow Rex's and T-3's advice. A Civic mentality will cost you big time on the long run, if not the short. Treat it well, and you will be rewarded.

[PalmerWMD]

I had a post in here wonder where it went..

No biggie.

Congrats on your new car!!.Love those charcoal Q interiors!

Fred...

[AlabamaDan]

You guys were probably circling around waiting for me to say that I was going to part out the ol' J30. Well, my better half pursuaded me not to do that. We're planning on moving in the near future and I probably wouldn't have time anyway. But I do have a few things I salvaged and will put out here. Perhaps someone will be interested.

In the meantime, I found this on eBay. It's not mine or anything I just thought I'd share. This is the exact radio I had in my 95 J30.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...&rd=1

[AlabamaDan]

Brian's right. T-3 will give it to you straight. Expect to receive an estimate around $2,000-$3,000 for stuff that needs to be done...Don't be scared. They tell you everything that's not working in "as-new" condition. Bring that list back here and we can help you sift through what needs to be done now, what you can do without, and what you need to save your pennies for for future repairs...

Nick

I'm sure glad Nick gave me the heads up about T3's estimate. They actually came up with $3800. If Nick hadn't said what he did I might have shy'd away from it right then - instead I used it as more negotiating leverage.

Now, yall offered to help me go through T3's list. So, would yall mind going over to this other thread and taking a look?

http://www.nissaninfiniticlub....61895

[ardvarkus]

That would not be a good argument. The purpose of insurance is to put you back to a preloss state. In the case of property damage, it's done based on the financial loss. To ask for say tax and registration on a Brand New car would not be reasonable. When an insurance company pays the market value of a vehicle, it should reasonably represent a figure where you can buy an identical car with the money you received. So if your car was worth $7,000 then an identical car(condition, mileage, etc) should sell for that much. The tax included in the settlement should cover that, and the registration that is refunded is based on the portion of registration you did not use(what you paid-the number of days since the registration period started/365). So by refunding the amount you did not use, you can apply that towards the new registration. And if you had half a year remaining on the registration, the insurance company only owes you for that. Not a whole year. Keep in mind, in California, the DMV actually reimburses this to the Insurance company as well. The insurance company pays it to you up front so you don't have to wait and so the title transfer and such is not held up.

Not sure I follow you....

Just because the State of CA requires tax be included does NOT mean that insurance adjusters (other than you and your company, of course) will include it. As long as both parties know the tax gets added in AFTER the 'market value' of 'financial loss' is detedrmined.

Do all states in the US refund pro-rated registration, title and license fees? If so, then you are correct- you just get the money back and pay for your new car. Truth is, not all states do, and many have fixed fees that do no get refunded.

There is also the legal issue of 'insurance as a contract' protecting the policy holder from their OWN loss (collision)' and 'LIABILITY'. It is true that for a Collision claim, you have a contract with the insurance company to compensate you, to whatever extent, for your financial loss. However, when someone hits you, your THEY are liable- the issue is with that person...NOT with their insurance policy. Sure, everyone deals with their 'at fault parties' insurance company, but they are just acting for the at fault driver. The contract between the at fault party and their insurer does not apply to you.

As a (former?) adjuster, you might be too close to see the larger picture- that many adjusters try to slide when the parties do not fully understand their rights. I agree with your advice, that a firm, not aggressive stance, with a well articulated and documented position, will do wonders. As in any negotiation, the unprepared party will get screwed. Add to that the argument that adjusters just want to closes cases, they will recognize a looming conflict and try to avoid it by coming in on the high side- but ONLY if the paper trail can support that number.

A

[C-Kwik]

Not sure I follow you....

Just because the State of CA requires tax be included does NOT mean that insurance adjusters (other than you and your company, of course) will include it. As long as both parties know the tax gets added in AFTER the 'market value' of 'financial loss' is detedrmined.

Well, in California, the Department on Insurance comes into our office to audit files. They are usually around for about a month. They look for these kind of things to make sure insurance companies are handling files correctly. At one time, my employer was handling certain types of total losses wrong and excluded tax. I believe it was on owner retained salvage. But we had to go back and pull every file up to 3 years from thaty point and calculate the tax and send the people the money for it. While mistakes can occur in the industry, they usually get corrected.

Quote »Do all states in the US refund pro-rated registration, title and license fees? If so, then you are correct- you just get the money back and pay for your new car. Truth is, not all states do, and many have fixed fees that do no get refunded.[/quote]

Can't say if all states do, but if it is to be paid, it should still be only for the unused portion.

Quote »There is also the legal issue of 'insurance as a contract' protecting the policy holder from their OWN loss (collision)' and 'LIABILITY'. It is true that for a Collision claim, you have a contract with the insurance company to compensate you, to whatever extent, for your financial loss. However, when someone hits you, your THEY are liable- the issue is with that person...NOT with their insurance policy. Sure, everyone deals with their 'at fault parties' insurance company, but they are just acting for the at fault driver. The contract between the at fault party and their insurer does not apply to you.[/quote]

Yes, a third party is not bound by the contract(policy), but there are some limits and exclusions that could void coverage. It's probably not relevant here, but it is more of an issue of what the insurance company can cover on behalf of the insured. The 3rd party can still look for recovery of damages from the responsible party directly should the policy not provide coverage for the loss. In any case, any settlements are going to be based on the laws of indemnification. And to indemnify is basically to put a person back to their pre-loss state. No more, no less.

Quote »As a (former?) adjuster, you might be too close to see the larger picture- that many adjusters try to slide when the parties do not fully understand their rights. I agree with your advice, that a firm, not aggressive stance, with a well articulated and documented position, will do wonders. As in any negotiation, the unprepared party will get screwed. Add to that the argument that adjusters just want to closes cases, they will recognize a looming conflict and try to avoid it by coming in on the high side- but ONLY if the paper trail can support that number.

A [/quote]

I disagree. I used to have a small picture view of insurance before I became an adjuster. As far as your suggestion that adjuster's low-ball, I'd say there may be some instances where it happens, but I'd doubt it's a regular occurence. Not to mention if it was, the department of insurance would have our heads. And in the case of a total loss, an insurance company will need to gather documentation to prove to some reasonable extent, the value of a vehicle. Most companies have a valuation report run through a 3rd party vendor such as CCC or ADP. These companies keep a running database of cars that are for sale across the nation on dealer lots and in classifieds. They try to get as much info as possible so they can try to come up with a base value for a particular vehicle. When a report is requested, they make adjustments for condition, mileage, options, etc. The report actually comes back with a figure and this is typically what the insurance company will offer. I've looked at thousands of these reports. They do not have a range. Just an estimated value. So there is no low-side or high side in this type of a loss. These reports can certainly be wrong though and that's where the consumer needs to be aware and do the research to ensure his settlement is fair. Your argument that adjuster's only want to close claims contradicts your entire argument. If adjuster's just wanted to close claims, settling losses would be as simple as throwing money at the claimant. I doubt a decent adjuster will be start with a higher offer. Chances are if the claimant seems the type that will be confrontational, any value you throw at them will arise in conflict. And in a situation that is poptentially confrontational, it is that much more important to make sure an evaluation is good and that the adjuster leaves himself some wiggle room.

I think if you really want to make an argument about the big picture, you really need to be educated in all facets of the topic. I am both a consumer and I work in the industry. As an adjuster, I try to see both sides of any argument as it makes me thatr much more effective in both knowing what arguments exists for both sides and to try and understand a what the claimant really wants. To be good at handling claims you have to look at the big picture.

[ardvarkus]

Well I guess I am wrong, and the insurance industry is totally well regulated, and never pays insured less than their actual losses, and everything is just fine with doing what the adjusters and the industry recommend... right.

I won't parse your posting to quibble - you've clearly bought into the belief that insurance companies can do no wrong.

We are off topic, so I'll stop now.

[greg_atlanta]

I just bought a 1994 Q45!

Welcome to the club! Great color combo.......

I'm not here much since my '92 Q is in low-maintenance mode, tired of spending money. But runs like a dream!

[AlabamaDan]

Welcome to the club! Great color combo.......

I'm not here much since my '92 Q is in low-maintenance mode, tired of spending money. But runs like a dream!

Greg,

Good to hear from you. I remember you from the old Yahoo! Group, infiniti owners club, a few years ago. Thanks for welcoming me back!

[AlabamaDan]

I post this in case anyone could use this info to help if they have an accident. I settled with the ins company on the J yesterday for $9000.

I just provided him with lots of examples of local (within 100 miles) cars of the same year, make, and model in that price range. It was a drastic difference from his initial offer of $6000.

I'm not bragging, I just wanted to let you guys know that your advice works and hope someone else can use profit from this thread.

I was able to salvage a few small things from the J and if I don't buy another one I'll be letting them go.