Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessal
Noted.
However, let's put it this way. You buy a Camaro and it gets stolen. You decided to replace your Camaro with a Civic. Now does the insurance company say, "Well you are replacing your Camaro with a Civic so we are only going to cut you the check for the price of the Civic and not the Camaro."?
No, you had a initial loss on the Camaro not the Civic. You are paying your premium on a Camaro, not a Civic. It's the same principle. If what you say is the case, then why don't I just tell the insurance agent to lower my premium because if I total my car, I would only be replacing it with a cheaper car. What's the point of me paying a higher premium to cover something that has more value?
|
Sorry bud but your example is so stupid and so far off in left field from comparing to the scenario you posted it's not even in the same ball park.
Now lets say instead of giving you the $20k to repair your house, the insurance company decided to kick you out of your home and made you move into a single wide trailer. You see how stupid this scenario is? This is exactly how stupid the scenario is that you posted.
An insurance companies job is to cover your loses and to return you whole again. By your own admission, you sustained $19k in damage, not $20k, so they only have to cover the $19k. Anything over this you will be required to give back if they request it. The money is not yours. It is theft and if they seek legal action they will win. Period. No discussion. No debate. No what-ifs.