Geico refusing to pay out Loss of Use claim

[Pkmmte]

Related to this thread.

Has anyone here had any luck getting Geico to pay for a loss of use claim when the other party was 100% at fault? At first, they wanted to give me a $20 rental, which I refused as that was not an equivalent. Closest I found was a lower-trim Model 3 going for $130 per day (+fees) on Turo. Halfway through the repair process, I kept calling and they said they *might* get me into an equivalent rental. They would see if it'd be covered after I provided a receipt. Maybe.

Now I got my vehicle back half-repaired and used my wife's Fiat 500e during the time my Model 3 was in the shop. I no longer need a rental vehicle therefore I'm trying to claim the loss of use as cash. A person that hit me before had AAA and they handed me cash from the beginning with no problem. I've been reading about this for California and it should be doable:

You may recover loss of use damages even if you do not actually rent a substitute vehicle. Tremeroli v. Austin Trailer Equipment Co. (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 464, 482.

I just don't know how to explain this to the insurance company. Anyone have any advice on this?

 

[Joshan]

get a lawyer would be my advice. You will end up much farther ahead in what you get than what you pay the lawyer.

 

[run-the-joules]

 

[run-the-joules]

Joking aside this is one of the reasons I'm firing Geico as my carrier (the other being a hilariously high rate hike for no reason): I have never, ever heard a Tesla owner say anything positive about getting them to pay out regarding a claim, either as a claimant or as the covered party.

 

[Pkmmte]

@Joshan @run-the-joules Would that be worth it for such a small claim, though? Geico estimated 4 repair days but it was more like 7, including the weekend. Assuming the $130 per day, the total payout would be either $520 (4 days) or $910 (full 7 days). Aren't lawyer costs usually greater than this?

 

[run-the-joules]

@Joshan @run-the-joules Would that be worth it for such a small claim, though? Geico estimated 4 repair days but it was more like 7, including the weekend. Assuming the $130 per day, the total payout would be either $520 (4 days) or $910 (full 7 days). Aren't lawyer costs usually greater than this?

Honestly, not sure in that situation. They're probably counting on you thinking it's not worth the effort, though. Might be worth looking at small claims court if you want to do the research on the matter.

 

[ksb467]

This is probably just me but I would suck it up and take the cheap rental if the car was being repaired properly In a reasonable amount of time for a Tesla. Life’s too short ...

 

[drj3]

Send the owner of the other vehicle a demand letter for the amount you want with a copy to their insurance company. If they don't pay file suit in small claims court including your costs of filing the suit and your time. Or - just let it go.

 

[run-the-joules]

Life’s too short ...

...to commute without autopilot.

 

[Whitehawk]

I think people forget that the insurance provided by the at fault driver does not prevent a claimant from pursuing the at fault driver directly. In the past I have reached out to the at fault driver and asked them to intervene with their carrier - if they want to avoid a lawsuit. Insurance is just one method of payment- not the only one.

 

[mobilesuit818]

Not sure why people think they are entitled to a ferrari if their ferrari was wrecked.

Sounds like you need to read the fine print from the declaration page of your insurance and what the coverage is.

 

[focher]

It's unclear from the OP. Is GEICO your insurance provider or the at-fault's provider? Your insurance provider will never pay you a Loss of Use claim. I've never heard of them paying a Diminished Value, either. In fact, your policy probably explicitly precludes it.

Now, if GEICO is the insurance provider for the at-fault party then absolutely send them a demand letter with the Loss of Use claim. Include your citation of court precedent for good measure. Give them a deadline, with a clear message that a small claims action will be filed if they don't pay. Send this to the at-fault driver, and copy their insurance company. You are correct that a LOU claim does not require you to actually rent a vehicle. It's purely for the loss of use of your vehicle, and the cost should be based on an equivalent. Turo is an excellent place to gather data for comparatives.

If they ignore or stonewall, just file the small claims action. They're easy, and you'll win. Their insurance company will pay it.

 

[thewishmaster]

Not sure why people think they are entitled to a ferrari if their ferrari was wrecked.

Sounds like you need to read the fine print from the declaration page of your insurance and what the coverage is.

Yeah basically this, the most I’ve gotten was around $20-30/day for either my 3 or my prior M3. You typically get a $XX/day rate based on the car size. Now how to get them to pay, I’m not sure, especially if they are the insurer of the at-fault party. Yours wouldn’t pay unless you went through your own insurance to repair.

 

[run-the-joules]

Not sure why people think they are entitled to a ferrari if their ferrari was wrecked.

Because it appears that california law errs on the side of making sure that the substitute vehicle is a reasonable substitute. I would absolutely lawyer up in the case of an extended repair and argue that some random rental car that I suddenly need to buy fuel for, and without ADAS, is not a reasonable substitute. If his insurance company doesn't like it, they better be able to win in court.

Sounds like you need to read the fine print from the declaration page of your insurance and what the coverage is.

Er… that's not how it works. If Joe Crashalot doesn't carry rental insurance and hits *you*, that doesn't mean you're not getting coverage for your rental car, unless the cost of that exceeds Joe's maximum property damage liability coverage, in which case your insurance company is going to own his ass unless you want to handle it yourself.

If you're both insured by the same company it'll probably get weird though and you're probably hosed.

 

[focher]

Not sure why people think they are entitled to a ferrari if their ferrari was wrecked.

If the Ferrari driver wasn't at-fault, then they absolutely are entitled to a Ferrari (or equivalent) from the at-fault driver during the repair period. That's common law in most jurisdictions. You don't get to stick someone with a Ford Festiva, because if they were interested in a Ford Festiva then they have bought one. If you burn someone's 5000 sq ft house down, you think you get to host them in a 2 bedroom apartment?

Now, if it's the Ferrari driver's fault then their insurance policy probably has a term in it that caps a daily rental reimbursement amount and explicitly excludes a loss of use reimbursement.

What people often confuse are the two different things. Loss of Use is not rental reimbursement. They are not the same.

 

[rickdogg82]

If $20 gets you a mid-size sedan, I think it is equivalent.

 

[run-the-joules]

If $20 gets you a mid-size sedan, I think it is equivalent.

That's the dumbest thing I've read today, and I had to look over some policy documents from HR so we're not talking about a single-entrant competition.

The at-fault driver carries insurance to make others whole in the event of an accident. If someone deprives me of the use of something that I am still paying for, I should be given something of equal characteristics until my usage is restored. I bought my car for autopilot, and anything that doesn't have autopilot is not equivalent.

If *I* screw up and crash my car, then yes, my insurance company has every right to say "Nope. Your policy says $50/day, that's all you get". It's like how it is perfectly ok for me to throw my laptop into the pool if I am in a bad mood, but it's not ok for you to throw my laptop in the pool.

 

[focher]

I just read the linked original post. As GEICO is the insurer of both parties, it gets trickier but my advice above still stands. Your claim isn't with their insurer (who happens to be yours). Your claim is with the other driver. If the other driver's insurance refuses to pay for a valid claim, then they expose themselves in California to a claim for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing by their insured. You can sue the individual in small claims and let them fight it out with GEICO.

 

[Bill Foster]

Loss of use for 7 days. common man......

 

[afadeev]

The at-fault driver carries insurance to make others whole in the event of an accident.

That is not actually true.
There is no concept of "made whole" in the insurance contract. It's just a legal agreement to pay certain amount to the policy holder once certain conditions are met.

If you don't believe me, go ahead and download your policy (many are online), read / Control-F through the PDF - you will not fine "made whole" anywhere in the policy declaration, the rating supplement, or coverage restriction documents.

If someone deprives me of the use of something that I am still paying for, I should be given something of equal characteristics until my usage is restored. I bought my car for autopilot, and anything that doesn't have autopilot is not equivalent.

Unfortunately for you and the OP, that's a standard that you just made up.
This would be similar to arguing that your orange convertible car with air suspension has to be replaced by another orange rental convertible with air suspension. It doesn't.
And if your cousin has just such a car and will rent it to your for $1000/day, you still can't claim "loss of use" damage of $1K * 7 days.

Search for "substitute" or "replacement" in the policy declaration document, and you will find out exactly what the contract stipulates. Most likely, it will refer to a vehicle of "similar" or "same class", or to a fixed daily rental allowance.

If *I* screw up and crash my car, then yes, my insurance company has every right to say "Nope. Your policy says $50/day, that's all you get". It's like how it is perfectly ok for me to throw my laptop into the pool if I am in a bad mood, but it's not ok for you to throw my laptop in the pool.

No, not really.
Sorry.

OP - good luck!