My baby returned home - the long soap opera

Why wouldn't the guilty party's insurance company argue that the 458 could have been damaged earlier? Or could have been damaged thereafter?

Is there a "discovery" process? (i.e. all parties are present for disassembly of the car)

For 46K, I would imagine an insurance company would want to be present during dismantling to protect their financial interests.

 

Giallo
Has it completely in control.I'm glad

 

I would think they had very low policy limits most insured keep a minimum policy I know for me I have 250k/500k with a 4m rider umbrella

 

People who have a lot to protect carry heavy insurance and can afford to. People who don't have a lot to protect don't.

 

When I owned an M5, the car was hit on the rear passenger door by someone who went through a stop sign. The guy was in a beater, and wanted to settle by paying me on the spot. The damage was probably more than his car was worth.

When I called the insurance co., and the agent heard of what cars were involved, he immediately put the blame on the other driver (without me giving proof yet, although I had photos), and pushed a specific body shop that specializes in high end vehicles, but is not the one the dealer uses. The estimate at this body shop doubled when they found more damage, which the insurance company paid out.

To make a long story short, I always suspected that the insurance agent that I talked to was on the lookout for high end vehicles that needed repair, and that this body shop was recommended because he was getting something out of it personally.

The repair was fine, by the way.

 

I have a 1m/1m policy and I would never bring my car to a shop recommended buy the insurance company.

Also, there are too many uninsured/underinsured drivers out there and I would URGE you all to buy the maximum coverage you can afford. Nothing worse then ending up in the hospital and the liable party has a 30k policy and your underinsured policy is not enough to cover your expenses.

Thank you for the extremely valuable information in this post.

 

Agree and I keep the same liability plus also a umbrella policy for 2.5m just as added peace of mind.

 

Completely agree with the limits and if the insurance says go to this body shop thats a signal to go some where else.Personally I would not take the car back and move to total loss

 

He may have come out better getting the car back if he was paid enough deminished value.
The gamble is what is it worth resale with a story?

 

It sounds like he has done well by the posts and PM's.I would want to walk away and start over on full replacement 85 days to bend them is to much time to work through at least for me.The moment you take it back your stuck with your decision.These car when hit creates other problems such as carfax as well disclosure issues.Carfax doesn't state what the cost was or what damage took place.Ferrari dealers won't buy it for a retail sale.The wholesaler will discount that carfax big time

 

A very interesting thread. As far as I know in the UK it would very difficult or indeed impossible to get $2k+ a day for the car being in the body shop as well as getting literally anything for diminution in value for such a minor knock. Anyone on the forum from the UK have any comment on this as it makes a frightening read for a non fault accident? An effective write off for this nudge?

 

Does make for an interesting, yet frightening read...Seems to me insurance companies are running a little bit of a riot there? $46k bill for that is a bit extreme, then the effective write off...scary. I do wonder what happened to that lady that crashed into the F car. Granted she should be on her mobile, but to be losing potentially her home/assets over this? Nuts.

 

There is a big difference between carelessness and recklessness, and while she shouldn't have been on her cell phone (which is what was speculated), it's more carelessness than recklessness and to think that a 5mph bumper tap could cause THIS kind of damage is staggering. And, frankly, I agree with one of the earlier posts ... these cars would be uninsurable if this was the norm. There's got to be more to this, and I'm stunned that neither insurance company seemed to do much of an investigation. Not in any way doubting Giallo's story, but none of this passes the sniff test.

 

You are right. An Fcar would be totally uninsurable unless there is more to it. A 5MPH nudge leads to an effective write off? I cannot comment on the US as a gereralisation but there is no way such an accident would ever lead to a write off in the UK.

 

+1

 

Yes. It's a lot of money. The alternative would be to fix the cosmetic damages and nothing else. This results in compromised structural integrity. I believe that nothing but a full repair is warranted.

 

There is an even more intriguing aspect to this whole thing.

Say, for example, the car WAS written off, as it sounds like it almost came close to being (I think the OP said somewhere way back that it came close [as if he were almost given the option] but realizing that he would lose so much in sales tax on his planned trade that he forewent the possibility). IF the car did get written off and the insurance company took possession of it, the next step would be to send the car to auction for said ins. company to try and recover some of its loss. IF someone knew about the car before that even happened (i.e., before it went to auction), said person may have an opportunity to make another party aware of said car being available for purchase, said party then buys the car at a discount, fixes the relatively minor repair, and sells a very much in-demand vehicle, possibly at a significant profit.

In post #16 the OP said he started getting calls from other parties wanting to buy the car not long after the appraiser got involved. Maybe I think too much but I started connecting some dots not long after reading this, probably in part because I had a 2001 MV Agusta F4S that I wrecked 2 years ago, but the 'wreck' was only significant because the fairing panels were expensive -- the frame was fine. As I recall, the bike cost me $8500 to buy that same year. The check I got from State Farm was for over $9k (including sales tax) as a total loss. I asked the adjuster who was assigned my claim if I could buy the bike directly from State Farm (after I got my check) with a salvage certificate. They said I could and they would work up a value/offer, which I negotiated and got very inexpensively (like less than $2k as I recall). The bike never left my garage. After this, I sourced used parts, fixed everything, located a mechanic that had a special license to inspect 'wrecked-but-repaired' motorcycles in PA to apply for a new title (but with a Salvage branding), applied for said title, got said title, sold said bike (for $7500 as I recall). It wasn't too much work at all, was legal, and led to a nice profit for me. Had the whole story been replaced with a 458, the profits could have been much greater. If the owner didn't want to keep the 458 but the appraiser knew someone who wanted to buy it, the appraiser could give that person the inside track (which it sounds like is exactly what happened) to buy it and try to flip it.

 

another +1

madness, I feel sorry for the woman ! I bet she becomes petrified when she can see a ferrari on the road!

 

Just clarify - are we being told ?

- that the insurance company paid -

"Loss of use at $2000/day for 85 days is $170,000 and IDV at 40% was about $125,000. The repair was $46,000"

for a total of - $341,000 on this claim ?

and yet the insurance company did not keep the car to offset any of the loss either ?

what am I missing?

A couple fender benders a year would give a nice income on LOU payments alone !

 

Defies common sense, doesn't it?

 

Reading this post makes me ill. A 5 mph hit ended up costing this much? I just can't stop thinking that someone is making a lot of money from this. For reference, his past winter a Range Rover pulled out and hit my Cayenne. Crushed the door and frame. Total cost was around 6K. Granted it's no Ferrari, but I was hit pretty hard and the damage was pretty substantial.

Poor girl and poor car.

However, I'm glad that everything worked out for the OP.

 

actually, i kinda doubt her exposure really was that great. even in the case of 100% liability, the exposure is probably just the property damage plus any claims for pain/suffering/medical expenses.

most insurance policies explicitly exclude policy holders from making claims of alleged IDV and Loss of Use as well. while either or both may be true/plausible to some extent, insurance companies are generally well protected from ever paying out on either and if they did in your case, it would be the exception, not the rule, or so i've heard. some of this indemnity probably applies to the other party as well.

like the hundreds of others reading this thread, I'd love to know what they really agreed to pay you, but I respect your privacy and won't ask outright -- though you DID start this whole thread of your own volition

i have to say though, the loss of use claim is pretty laughable to me. I'm not saying the accident or anything about your ordeal was funny -- i'm just saying that 'anyone' claiming a financial burden associated with a loss of use on a ferrari while it is being repaired is pretty crazy. i can see if someone had just one car and needed the car to work and someone wrecked that car and that person would now need to rent a replacement and thus had a new expense in renting the replacement (during the repair) to continue to work, but on a ferrari the car is likely a pleasure vehicle so there is no such reasoning or hardship. in fact, one could almost argue the 'loss of use' for 85 days meant that you had 85 fewer days to be putting miles on the car (while driving it), so if anything it could have avoided some depreciation ordinarily associated with the 'use' of the car during the 85 days.