Hi Scott,
I used to go through this all the time when my daily driver was a 1970
Cadillac. I also have Geico and I wound up doing the NADA value thing. In
the unlikely event of a total loss you might have to fight with an adjuster
but those fights can be won by producing evidence as to the actual value of
the car. I've heard several first hand stories of insurance companies trying
to give insureds with totaled classic cars WAY less than the real world
value of the car. Remember, you don't have to take the first offer they try
to settle you with. If you can find a few similar cars selling for what you
would consider a fair value you can fight for that value and probably win.
This would only happend in the event of damage to the car however, so it's
not like you'd have to worry about initially. With Geico all I had to do to
qualify for the policy was go to a local, Geico approved inspector - which
was basically some mechanic who looked at the car for about 2 minutes to
make sure it wasn't a total piece of junk. It might be worth your while
since it is going to be your daily driver, to have a quick, cheap bondo and
paint job before they look at it. Like I said, my inspector didn't really
inspect a damn thing except that it looked okay.
The only other option is Hagerty's agreed value insurance. The thing that's
great about them is that they expect you to drive the car unlike some
companies that expect you to lock it in the garage in a giant zip-lock bag.
It's worth looking into.
Good luck,
~Mike Brooks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Tilton" <sdtilton@yahoo.com>
To: <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: insurance !@#$%@#$%
> Man am I irritated.
>
> I'm trying to add my Triumph TR4 to my regular auto insurance policy
through
> Geico.
>
> The insurance company can't or won't tell me what they consider the car to
be
> worth.
>
> The mention two different ways of calculating value that don't agree with
each
> other.
>
> One is the absurd: Take the original sales price of your car and then
> calculate the depreciation over the years since its manufacture.
>
> Well . ..lets see . . . $3000 in 1963 . . . 40 years later . .That would
make
> it worth $3 I suppose. Maybe less.
>
> If that's the case .. then of course I'm not going to add any sort of
collision
> or comprehensive coverage. After all . . . a bug splat on the window
could be
> a total loss.
>
>
> The other method they mention is the NADA value . . .from www.nada.org
>
> Which would be fine with me . . . low value something like $5000, high
value
> $16000
>
> My car is mechanically excellent . . . but the body sucks eggs.
>
> If I had a total loss and they wanted to give me the low value .. that'd
be
> acceptable in my case.
>
> What I fear is that an adjuster comes out and says: your car was only
worth
> $1000. You have a $500 deductible . . so here is your check for $500.
>
> Why the heck can't they tell me what I'm purchasing before I have a
claim??
>
>
> ARRRGH.
>
>
> NO I don't want classic car insurance . . I want to drive the car to work
> everyday.
>
>
> I can't say as I've paid attention to the "agreed value" policy discussion
that
> have gone on here . . . but my general recollection is that they aren't
all
> that great.
>
>
> What's a guy to do?
>
>
> Scott Tilton
> Trying to have a '63 TR-4 everyday
> In Leesburg, VA
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|