Destroyed car right after auction

[B.M.F.]

Strange, why have the insurance?
.

Fire loss or theft?? Idk didn’t make a lot of sense. I bought another gt last October that had no insurance on it as he self insured.

 

[Sinovac]

No one knows the guy’s claim history. That wreck may have been the final straw…

 

[B.M.F.]

No one knows the guy’s claim history. That wreck may have been the final straw…

72 and never had a claim per him.

 

[Sinovac]

Whoa. That’s odd.

 

[2112]

He must be saving his insurance for a "big" claim.

.

 

[PeteK]

There’s something odd here.

 

[B.M.F.]

There’s something odd here.

Nothing odd at all.. It was the mans decision to not claim it on insurance, don’t see why that’s hard to comprehend for the few who doubt it. He literally took it to copart auto auction, had them list it and when it sold for what I bought it for he had to approve it in which he did.

 

[jammer]

Could be he only had liability coverage and self insured above that? Since evidently he's at fault, filing a claim on his insurance would get him bupkis or close to it. Getting $76k and no points on his insurance seems like a much better alternative under that scenario. B.M.F. seems to have a good handle on rebuilding cost, gets the car for $80k, repairs it and gets to resell it as low mileage excellent condition with rear accident record, not salvage or rebuilt title had the car gone the insurance claim way. Makes sense to me provided the first assumption is correct.

 

[extrap]

72 years old and he's so worried about higher insurance premiums he gave up $275k - $76k = ~$200k now to avoid higher premiums. He must be more optimistic about living long enough for that decision to pay off than I'd be

 

[extrap]

Could be he only had liability coverage and self insured above that? Since evidently he's at fault, filing a claim on his insurance would get him bupkis or close to it.

If he had liability only, what claim could he make for the car?

I'm learning about insurance in this thread. At least I think so.

 

[jammer]

If he had liability only, what claim could he make for the car?

I'm learning about insurance in this thread. At least I think so.

No claim. He's responsible for repairing it. So he probably didn't want to deal with paying for the repairs out of pocket then hoping to recover his costs reselling the car. Just took the loss as a write off.

Liability coverage pays for property damage and/or injuries to another person caused by an accident in which the insured is at fault. No coverage for damages to the insured's property caused by the insured.

 

[B.M.F.]

Could be he only had liability coverage and self insured above that? Since evidently he's at fault, filing a claim on his insurance would get him bupkis or close to it. Getting $76k and no points on his insurance seems like a much better alternative under that scenario. B.M.F. seems to have a good handle on rebuilding cost, gets the car for $80k, repairs it and gets to resell it as low mileage excellent condition with rear accident record, not salvage or rebuilt title had the car gone the insurance claim way. Makes sense to me provided the first assumption is correct.

He had full coverage. I had a long talk with him about it. I told him he had some serious balls to make the decision he made.

 

[B.M.F.]

72 years old and he's so worried about higher insurance premiums he gave up $275k - $76k = ~$200k now to avoid higher premiums. He must be more optimistic about living long enough for that decision to pay off than I'd be

As market is today car was worth 350+. Insurance would of paid him that or more based off what cars are selling for. Idk what he paid for the car but based of what it’s worth he took a 275+k hit.

 

[jammer]

He had full coverage. I had a long talk with him about it. I told him he had some serious balls to make the decision he made.

Could be the accident and personal state changed his mind about the car and whole thing. Still $275k write off doesn't make sense if he had full coverage.

 

[Sinovac]

Man, we all love to speculate don’t we? Maybe his insurance lapsed and he was embarrassed to admit it. I’m defending a half a dozen or so clients in various lawsuits who had insurance coverage that lapsed. Some of them are very expensive administrative errors.

 

[B.M.F.]

Man, we all love to speculate don’t we? Maybe his insurance lapsed and he was embarrassed to admit it. I’m defending a half a dozen or so clients in various lawsuits who had insurance coverage that lapsed. Some of them are very expensive administrative errors.

Yeah but if you read what I’ve written. I bought the car from him and conversed about how this went down. I’ve posted all that and everyone has had their own conclusion as to why but I’ve explained it several times. I don’t feel there was any reason for him to lie to me. Super nice guy and he offered me all the books with original window sticker/purchase paper work and such for the car. This was just the decision he came to.

Again he literally told me he felt this was a at fault accident for him and did not want his insurance going up do to the claim. Even tho he’d never been in an accident before. That was his reason. Right, wrong or assumed lying this is what I was told.

The end.

 

[extrap]

B.M.F. - I believe what you're saying. I've just been trying to understand the situation and thinking that brings somebody to make a decision like that.