| Message |
point out exactly how I "misrepresent the value of the car until you lost it"? I never claimed I was trying to get 10K + $$$ from upgrades. I only did what anyone else in my situation would do, and that is to be treated FAIRLY and get the amount of money out of the car as if I was to go out and buy another one and NOT get screwed over and be "in the hole". In other words.. car is totaled, here's your 10K, I can go out and buy another car for 10K with similar miles, condition, etc. The fact that I got paid out 8K after all is said and done, when there are STOCK Z's out there w/ similar mile going for 9-12K suggests a flaw in the system. Now I'm, in the hole because I need to fork out an extra 2-3K to buy another Z. It can be argued that due to the buyback which I didn't have to do, i could have gotten another Z for the 10K. On the flip side of that coin is that as these cars get older, OEM parts are getting MORE expensive than aftermarket. OEM deck & bose take a dump and instead of spending $1000 to replace/fix w/ OEM, I spend $800 and go aftermarket. Am I to be punished because I want to keep it for the next car? Instead I have to now buy TWICE because insurance didn't replace like for like. The arguments can go back and forth. As stated before, my local office was FULLY aware of aftermarket items on the car. The owner of the office upgrades his Porsche and tracked it and I have a 10yr relationship with them. I never attempted to hide anything from insurance so I still don't understand how it's "insurance fraud". Wouldn't insurance fraud imply the INTENT of defrauding?

|
 |