Yea, sounds like we agree more than disagree. Sorry if I seemed argumentative before - I just want to make sure I don't get taken to the cleaners on this. Mercury has historically been very good to us in the past, but it only takes on idiot adjuster to turn it into an unpleasant experience and ruin everything as far as their reputation.

Hey now... out of respect for Jeff's pain I wasn't going to start picking the car apart yet...

But will the swaybars off a 951 fit a 1984 944? ;)

I think the Fuchs are fine although the front right one had the tire blow because of proximity to the fire. I suspect the wheel itself is okay but haven't been able to get down to look at it up close. The other three are fine. If they're okay and I can end up buying the car back, I may or may not keep them for my other car.

At this point I'm seriously considering getting out of 944s altogether and into something else, but I'm weighing that.

Any update here, Jeff? Mercury has my cars and home. Curious to see how they treat you.

To their credit Mercury has been relatively professional about this, although I'm less-than-thrilled with the overall outcome thus far. They are predictably looking to screw me out of "fair market value" for the car (which would be in the $8.5k-$10k range, and I have the documentation to back that).

Since the final resolution to this is still pending, I can't really comment on specifics, but in general I will say to EVERYONE here - CHECK YOUR POLICIES. The insurance companies are now "slipping" older vehicles into a "stated value" category (whether you know it or not) to avoid "fair market value" assessments to determine any payout amount.

Look for something on your policy called an "exclusion" (I think it's a "U-137 exclusion"). This is causing me a bit of consternation at the moment (since the value stated is considerably less than the vehicle's actual value), but there are some "work-arounds" that I'm discussing with Mercury that might allow me to walk away from this reasonably satisfied.

In general, make sure you check your policy to see if there's a "dollar value" assigned to your vehicle on it. Mine had one and let's just say it's a good 50 cents on the dollar less than the fair market value of the car. Needless to say, I'm less than thrilled about this, but there is also a little "wiggle room" to make sure I don't get (what in my mind would be getting) screwed up the ass with a rusty steak knife. The outcome of this "creative solution" is still pending, but they're going to get back to me on it - more later.

There will definitely be a detailed story on this whole fiasco when the dust clears from this - I promise you all that. . . Just right now isn't the time, since I can't control who reads this.

Wise to not discuss something still in negotiation. Remember that you can refuse a settlement and take it to small claims. The max now is $7500. Sounds like that's tailor made for you. At least a summons would let them know where you stand. They might come up a bit just to make you go away.

BTW, if they cancel you, good riddance. Lots of ins cos out there. None are much better than the next these days. I've even heard of some people going into the assigned risk pool voluntarily and saving money.

One more thing: a 50K bond only costs a few hundred dollars a year. They only have to pay out if you default, they are not an insurance company. Of course, you couldn't have any serious assets if you went this route. I wouldn't buy insurance if I wasn't AAA+++ preferred. I'd find another way.

Hmm, so you signed a stated value policy that had exclusions and a dollar value assigned to your car that you now believe is less than the fair market value of the car?

But you signed a contract agreeing to that low value, and paid lower premiums based on that value. That was the deal you agreed to.

And now that you have a claim, you are trying to "redo" the deal and are claiming to get "screwed" because they want to pay you the stated value you agreed to in your contract?!?! I.e., the top value YOU agreed to when you signed the contract?

I think I like this (see below) Jeff better:

and

As we agreed in that other thread, accountability is such a quaint notion.

Actually I didn't sign anything - that's the rub. But I really can't discuss that right now. They simply sent me a policy with a number on it.

They sent you a policy, you took it, you paid the premiums on it, it had a number on it (or they later sent you additional riders or exclusions, which you accepted, you could have canceled your policy and gotten another one from another company if you didn't like them), but now that it's time to collect, you don't like the number.

Anyways, good luck trying to "wriggle out" of the terms of your agreement.

"Wriggle out"? Who said anything about "wriggling out" of anything? Are you f*cking blind and unable to read the above posts or just a presumptuous ********* by nature?

Much as you love the mental masturbation exercise of trying to paint someone in a disparaging light, you don't have a leg to stand on here. All I'm asking is that (1) the insurance company PROVE (by pointing me to the appropriate place in the insurance code) that the stated value was agreed upon by me (in which case I'll accept it) and (2) to independently verify the claims of their adjuster. This is simple prudence. The adjuster does not represent me. It's like having a salesperson (with an obvious ulterior motive) claim "this is the best widget in the world!" Would you believe that, coming from them? I'd hope not. Same here. I just want independent verification - that's all. Any talk of lawyers, lawsuits, courts and what-not is just rubbish. They're not doing anything improper that would lead me to go that route - at least I'm not aware of it. . . It seems like they're operating by the book, but I just want some independent verification of it before I roll over and take their offer.

The negotiation I'm having with them is for some of the higher-value items in the car, such as my RSA seats, the stereo, the MAP kit and the Fuchs. If I'm able to recover those, then I'll consider their payment, plus the value of those pieces pretty close to fair, based on the resale market value of the parts (or I suppose I could keep them and use on my other car, haven't decided yet). Alternatively I can accept their amount with a provision to buy back the remains afterwards. I'm just waiting to hear.

I don't really fault Mercury on this at all. I'm merely stating to everyone here (if you'd bothered to read my post) that they should READ THEIR POLICIES. Apparently here's how it works now in CA: You get "fair market value" for "newer" vehicles. I'm still waiting for them to clarify what exactly is meant by "newer" (whether it's a year, a certain number of miles, or whether it's determined by individual make/model). For "older" vehicles, they apparently just assign a value to it and that's that. Supposedly you can negotiate this, but I wasn't aware of that and didn't do so, so that one's on me - that's why I'm telling everyone else to check their policies so if their "number" isn't representative of their vehicle's value, they can check into getting it updated/changed before they end up getting burned (no pun) by it.

So that's the deal - my options as I see it are either (1) just take the check, (2) take the check, but recover some of the stuff off the car first (to the extent permitted), or (3) take the check and buy back the remains, part it or keep some stuff and scrap/part the rest.

Obviously the question I'm trying to get answered here is "what am I REQUIRED" to provide the insurance company with in exchange for their check? Heck, if I could hand them the VIN plate and a key, I'd do that, part everything else and maximize my return, but I'm not certain I can do that. At the very least I'm looking for the items listed above, which would put me close to the "fair market value" of the car if I add their check amount to the value of those bits.

Christ man, who pissed in your Cheerios this morning?

Nice surliness!

I try. :)

Nice manners babe!

Nice rescue. After all, this is a family show.

Well, except for the random pic thread. :p

Glad I can't see the's posts (ignore list). Sounds like he's on another roll.

Hang in there, Jeff. You've got positive support here from the rest of us.

Boo!

FWIW, I had a similar run-in with the insurance bozos when I totalled my 911 (freshly rebuilt transmission, complete suspension rebuild, the works -- definitely not an average condition car). I showed market value based on finding a collection of similar cars for sale at various dealers within 50 miles of the zip code. I also showed market value based on the condition of the car, detailed by a maintenance log and photographs. The insurance company quoted book value for an "average condition" car and refused to budget.

So I wrote to the insurance commissioner for the State of Washington, who asked the insurance company what was going on and requested that he intervene. They said I was being ornery, and that I wasn't happy taking book value for my car which was not in "average" condition, and he wrote back and said, "Here's what the insurance company says about your claim," as if I hadn't already contacted the insurance company.

Lesson learned: if your car is in better-than-average condition, or you'd like better-than-average return in the event of a total loss, get it in writing with your insurance company. An appraisal seems like the right way to get that done, but I'm not banking on it. If it isn't in writing, it didn't happen.

I just got my renewal from Mercury today. For the first time they provided a separate sheet with a stated amount for my 1986 Buick Grand National at $10,268. Before they verbally assured me that NADA values would be used. The NADA value on this car in average condition is $13,000 and it is about average or a little better.

The $10,268 is the stated amount they "won't exceed". Evidently lowballing me is okay, just not higher. They never discussed this with me, so I guess I'm on the phone Monday just to find out why my car isn't average and how much extra it will cost me to get the additional coverage if I decide I want it.

Total bs...if anyone tries to consistently "wriggle out" of their agreements, it's the insurance "racket". You cast a pretty wide net with your assumptions about people and insurance laws from state to state. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read every single line of my policy (who has :)?), but when I insured my 911, I explicitly asked my agent about "fair market" replacement coverage, and he explained that "in NC", replacement value was a "given". Do I trust my ins. agent, trust my interpretation of the policy's "fine print", or potentially get screwed when it really matters? I've got a question for ya...do you think many of the Katrina victims (some totally insured to the max), are getting a "fair shake" in their settlements?