Also, why didn’t they have the car properly insured? If you can’t afford to replace the car, it needs proper full collision coverage. Especially if being driven by people other than the owner so that the owner can be made whole in case of an incident. Cheaper to keep full collision coverage than replace a car. Was Alana even a driver on the policy?
Edits for terminology
Thinking more- it honestly sounds like maybe they only had basic PIP and the lowest collision insurance possible maybe even no UM depending on the laws of where they are. Risky choices for anyone
It sounds like they saved up to pay cash, prob no gap insurance option
Auto insurance claims adjuster here, that is an incorrect interpretation of comprehensive coverage. Comprehensive covers losses from things that are not collisions with other vehicles or fixed objects such as walls.
Examples of comprehensive losses are animal hits, fires, and floods. Having comprehensive coverage does not provide any difference in the value of a vehicle.
Personally, I have full coverage, and even then, I had to fight tooth and nail to get the insurance to actually cover repairs when I got rear ended.
They wanted to total it and give me a payout. They offered 3 different payouts. What they wanted to payout would have never gotten me anywhere near as nice of a car as what I have.
It’s possible OP was presented with this scenario but took the initial payout, in which case even having full coverage would not guarantee Casey getting a car that she deemed to be of equal value to the original car.
Collision is when you hit something. Comprehensive is when something hits you. At least, that's the simplest way it was explained to me in P&C teaining.
8.3k
u/Agitated-Egg2389 5d ago
That would explain her anger.