Car Insurance - Black box has broken and insurance company wants me to pay?
Unless it is in the contract that you must replace it then this should be replaced by your insurance. They sent you a box that was defective, consumer grade electronics are designed for at least 85 deg C (185F) and unless they can prove your car was hotter than that they sent you a defective unit.  That being said, I do not think it would be worth suing them for that low amount, I would suggest you get a new insurance company. The current company clearly values your business less than 185 pounds(?) and this issue will happen multiple times since the company has no incentive to buy better products if customers keep footing the bill. "First read the fine print. If you have to pay it, pay it and switch company. If you don't have to pay it and there is no proof that you abused the component beyond normal usage, you don't have to sue them, just return the invoice with legal (not so layman) text like ""I hereby reject paying invoice number xxxx dated xxx because the black box was used under normal conditions and it stopped working"". In this case you wait for them and answer every other letter with the same text until the decide to either sue you, or drop the whole thing. If you choose this path, remember to save all invoice, copies of your rejections, all written/email/phone calls, picutres of the broken item, serial nubmers, contract etc. If they sue you and they loose (can't prove the item was destroied by you), they have to pay you up to one hour of legal advice cost and drop the invoice, if you loose, you do the same (100 pounds) plus the invoice amount according to Swedish law, don't know about your country. Before you follow any advice here, consult your local consumer protection agency, they usually comes up with smart options, they know a bad company with history and give you the right advice."
I haven't looked at that warranty in detail, but generally speaking this should help. What is GAP insurance? In the case of a total loss/write off gap insurance covers the outstanding finance after your regular insurance pay out. The two won't match up usually because of the depreciation right after you buy the car. For example, if you take out $20,000 finance and buy a car, then write it off after six months, your insurance company may only value it at $16,000 but it's unlikely you will have cleared $4,000 from your finance. Gap insurance will pay out the difference and settle the debt. Will Chrysler change the engine, if it comes to bhore? Yes, unless they identify misuse or deliberate damage. For instance, if you do 1000 miles and the engine explodes, it's a mechanical fault that the warranty would cover. If they open up the engine/look at diagnostics and find it's been thrashed to within an inch of it's life, they may claim it was your driving which has destroyed the engine and you would have to prove it was an underlying fault and would have blown either way. Will car dents be covered with this bumper to bumper insurance? Not likely, as I mentioned in the last point, if it's your fault it wouldn't be covered. I think you may be confusing the terms insurance and warranty at this point. Insurance would cover your dents but a warranty only covers the manufacturer's faults, even in the case of extended warranties. What does basic mean in terms of warranty? Sounds obvious, but whatever Chrysler want it to mean! There's no legal definition of 'basic' so you would need to check the documents thoroughly or ask them to explain exactly what is and isn't covered. If they're reluctant, it's probably because 'basic' covers very little... You're trading a fixed liability for an unknown liability. When I graduated from college, I bought a nice used car. Two days later, a deer came out of nowhere, and I hit it going 70 mph on a highway. The damage? $4,500. If I didn't have comprehensive insurance, that would have been a real hit to me financially. For me, I'd rather just pay the modest cost for the comprehensive. It's definitely broken window fallacy. The entire premise is that vehicle accidents cost money and productivity. If they can be avoided, we will be more productive. If we had technology that made car insurance obsolete, everyone in that industry could do another productive activity.  Textbook broken window fallacy. My dad runs an AV labor company (trade show setups etc) and his insurance company called him as they were finalizing his workers comp. They asked when he was submitting all of his employees drug screenings. My dad laughed at them and said he would not be submitting any. They told him his premium would be higher to which my dad replied that if he drug tested, he would have 4 people working for him and thus wouldn't even have a business - just send the bill. "On top of the given answers, the type of referral will also factor in. When you're up for renewal and go to a comparison site (in the UK: CompareTheMarket, MoneySupermarket, Confused, GoCompare, ... ) and struggle accurately through all their lists of questions, you see that some of the data differs (e.g., not all the same jobs can be entered; if you have had an accident, not all ask whose fault it was and/or don't leave the option ""not yet resolved"" --possibly forcing you to guess which way it will be adjudicated,-- and/or what the total repair cost was).  So as these referrers feed slightly different data to roughly the same set of insurance providers, you will get slightly different quotes on the same providers. And expect your own provider to offer a slightly better quote than you'll get in reality for renewing: The referrer's (one-time) cut has to be still taken off, but they count it as a new client so somebody gets a bonus for that --- you they disregard as a captive client and give what boils down to a loyalty penalty. [Case in point: I had an unresolved car accident, resolved months later in my favour. With all honest data including unresolved claim and its cost and putting my 'accident-free years' factor at 0 instead of 7, my old provider quoted about 8% more than the previous year on comparison sites; but my renewal papers quoted me 290% more, upon telephone enquiry the promised to refund the difference if court found in my favour though they refused to give this in writing. So: No thanks!] Then the other set of referrals they get is from you directly going to their website asking for a quote. They know what type of link you've followed (banner, or google result, etc), they may know some info from your browser's cookies (time spent where) or other tracking service, and from your data they may guess how tech-savvy and shop-wise you are, and scale your offer accordingly. [Comparison-site shoppers are lumped together at a relatively high savvy-level, of course!]. Companies breaking down your data and their own in a particular way can find advantages and hence offer you better terms, as said in the main answer (this is like Arbitration in stock exchanges, ensuring a certain amount of sanity: if there's something to exploit, somebody will, and everybody will follow). It may be that they find a certain group of people maybe more accident-prone but cheaper to deal with (more flexible in repair-times, or easy to bully in accepting shared-fault when they weren't at fault), or they want a certain client (for women, for civil servants, for sporty drivers, for homeowners --- often for cross-selling other insurance services). Or they claim to want pensioners because the company can offer them 'a familiar voice' (same account manager always contacting them) while they're easier to bamboozle and less likely to shop around when offered a rubbish deal. Also, 100% straight comparison of competing offers isn't possible as the fine details of the T&Cs (terms & conditions) would differ, as well as various little pinpricks in the claims handling process.  And depreciation of a car, and various ways of dealing with it: You insure it for the buying prices, but two years later it's worth about 40% less on paper --- so in case of total loss, replacing like-for-like will cost you still at least 80% of the value for which you've been insuring it while they'll probably offer you the 100-40= 60%. Mostly because instead of your trusted car you have something unknown that may have hidden defects, or been mistreated and about to die. [Case in point: My 3-y-old dealer-bought car's gearbox died just outside the 6month warranty period, notwithstanding its ""150-item inspection you can rely on"". In the end the national brand agreed to refund the parts (15% of what I paid for the car) but not the labour (a few hours).] And any car model's value differs (in descending order) from its ""forecourt price"", ""private selling price"", ""part exchange price"", and ""auction price"". Depending on your ompanies may happily insure you for forecourt price (=what you paid to dealer) but then point out that the value of that car is the theoretical P/X value, i.e., the car without anybody's profit, far less than you've been paying for. [Conversely, if you crash it after insuring below market value, they can pay you your stupidly low figure.]" Here's your problem: The debt is valid and it is your debt, regardless of your arrangement with the insurance company. The insurance company (possibly) owes you money, and you owe the Doctor money. You are stuck in the middle, and in the end it doesn't matter whether the insurance company pays as to whether you owe the money. Don't ignore them. Also, disputing the debt it pointless because the truth is that you do owe the debt. The insurance company may owe you money (which is in dispute), but the debt to your medical provider is your own. You are just stuck in the middle. It sucks, but is pretty common. I think the best you can do is keep working on the insurance company and responding to the bill collectors letting them know that you are working on it and will need to pay late. In theory they deal with this a lot and probably understand, not that it will make them lay off you in the meantime.  In the end it is possible you might have to sue the insurance company to get the money. One thing to be careful about: If the debt is fairly old (several years) you may want to avoid making partial payments because if this goes on your credit report, that payment may extend the period where the negative information can appear on your credit history. "One way to look at insurance is that it replaces an unpredictable expenses with a predictable fees. That is, you pay a set monthly amount (""premium"") instead of the sudden costs associated with a collision or other covered event. Insurance works as a business, which means they intend to make a substantial profit for providing that service. They put a lot of effort in to measuring probabilities, and carefully set the premiums to get make a steady profit*. The odds are in their favor. You have to ask yourself: if X happened tomorrow, how would I feel about the financial impact? Also, how much will it cost me to buy insurance to cover X? If you have a lot of savings, plenty of available credit, a bright financial future, and you take the bus to work anyway, then totaling your car may not be a big deal, money wise. Skip the insurance. If you have no savings, plenty of debt, little prospects for that improving, and you depend on your car to get to work just so you can pay what you already owe, then totaling your car would probably be a big problem for you. Stick with insurance. There is a middle ground. You can adjust your deductible. Raise it as high as you can comfortably handle. You cover the small stuff out of pocket, and save the insurance for the big ticket items. *Insurance companies also invest the money they take as premiums, until they pay out a claim. That's not relevant to this discussion, though." "I think at this point you and the other person who seems to ask this question in multiple permutations needs to talk to a local expert rather than continuing to ask the same questions with slight fact variations.  This all happened when you were 9.  If you think there was foul play involved, at the minimum it will be difficult to prove 16 years on. Somehow I doubt there are 2 people on Toronto whose parents bought them whole life insurance policies in 2000 asking the same questions at the same time. If you don't want the coverage or you think the whole thing was a mistake, cash the policy out.  According to the other question about this policy there's nearly $7,000 of cash value there.  Just take the money out and move on with your life.  Unless you're willing to sue your ""mentally ill"" mother over the $1,500 net loss ($530 premium times 16 years minus $7,000 cash value) I'm not sure what recourse or advice you're looking for.  And even that assumes she's paying the premium with your money. Separately, if your mother is the owner of the policy and paying with her money I'm not sure why this involves you at all.  Parents buy life insurance on their children all the time." "I decline politely.   The cost of the insurance policy has two components: The actual cost of a likely repair + profit. If I set aside the cost of a likely repair myself, then I get to keep the profit.   If the item doesn't break, I get to keep the ""repair"" money too :)" It's always hard to know the exact policy terms, but as a general rule there are two main contributions to insurance payouts. The first part covers expenses aimed at restoring the situation to its previous state pre-incident. This may include repair work and materials etcetera. The second part kicks in when it's not reasonably possible to repair the damage, or at least not in a financially efficient way. In this case, the insurer can decide to pay out the decrease in value. This is in fact very common in car accidents, where the car is a total loss.  In your case, it's quite possible that your roof, even with the two partial repairs is in a worse condition than it was before the storm. For instance, the new shingles may not match the old ones exactly. Thus the value of your home has decreased despite the reasonable repair attempt. And as mhoran_psprep points out, there can be hidden damage as well, which is a lurking liability. If you've accepted the cash payment in lieu of a full repair, you also accept the roof in its new condition. The hospital likely has a contract with your insurance company which makes them obligated to bill the insurance before billing you! I had a similar occurrence that was thrown out when my insurance company provided a copy of a contract with the hospital to the judge. So if there is an agreement they must file with the insurance in timely manner. "In the United States if the person insures an article and then claims a loss of that article, the insurance replaces the missing/destroyed article. If later on the item is found the original is owned by the insurance company. The person who purchased the policy doesn't get to keep both.  Of course if the item was so valuable to be priceless the insurance company would be open to an exchange of items or money.  But if they suspect fraud...then it becomes a legal matter. Even when a life isn't involved it can be a source of dispute: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/spencer/spencers-art-law-journal5-7-10.asp INSURED V. INSURER: WHEN STOLEN ART IS RECOVERED, WHO OWNS IT? Kenneth S. Levine  This essay is about the word ""subrogation,"" which frequently appears   in insurance policies. An insured painting is stolen and the insurance   company pays the owner’s claim for the value of the painting. Many   years later, when the painting is recovered, its value is many times   what it was when the insurance claim was paid. The insurance company   takes the position that it owns the painting, while the owner says I   own the painting, less the value of the insurance proceeds received.   The resolution of this dispute depends on the meaning of the word   ""subrogation"" in the insurance policy. When life insurance is involved, the item being replace is the lost stream of income. The question of returning money and how much would be a legal issue. They would also want to know if there was fraud, and who was involved." You're on the right track with buying clunkers, but letting your current cars get repossessed is a bad idea for the reasons you specified. First, find an insurance broker instead of an insurance agent. A broker works with dozens of companies, many of which you may not have heard of. He is in a better position to find you the best deal than you are because he is familiar with more insurance company products than you are. He doesn't charge you extra for this service. Second, ask your insurance broker if he can find any insurers offering discounts for persons who have passed a driver training course. Find an accredited course and determine pricing. If the savings exceed the cost of the course, take the course.  Third, if you have outstanding loans on your vehicles, pay them off and sell the cars. Replace them with vehicles you can purchase outright with cash. Make sure you have enough money to replace them again should another accident happen.   Once you have vehicles that are lein-free there is no longer a requirement by the lender for you to have insurance for the replacement value of the vehicle, which is what's killing your rates right now. Find out what the minimum legal requirement for auto insurance is in your state. In Canada, the minimum requirement is $100,000 liability. Anything else is either a sales job or a lender requirement. Getting your wife to insure her own vehicle may help, getting your insurance under her name may also be something to look into. Since you seem to have issues with people bumping into you and there have been no medical issues, $100,000 liability may be all you need. Note: Tactic #3 is not without risk. If you are in an at-fault accident, you will have to pay for any damages exceeding your insured limit out of your own pocket. Any damages to your own vehicle whether at-fault or not will have to be paid out of your own pocket. If you are sued for medical expenses incurred by other parties, you'll have to pay anything over and above your insured limit out of your own pocket.  If there is anything you are unclear about on your insurance policy, ask your agent/broker to explain until you do understand. Buying auto insurance without fully understanding what you are paying for is another risk. This depends on the jurisdiction, but such companies are typically subject to regulations (and audits) that require them to keep the customers' accumulated premiums very strictly separated from the company's own assets, liabilities and expenses. Additionally, they are typically only allowed to invest the capital in very safe things like government bonds. So, unless something truly catastrophic happens (like the US government defaulting on its bonds) or people in the company break the regulations (which would invovle all kinds of serious crimes and require complicity or complete failure of the auditors), your premiums and the contractual obligation to you would still be there, and would be absorbed by a different insurance company that takes over the defunct company's business.  Realistically, what all this means is that insurance companies never go bankrupt; if they do badly, they are typically bought up by a competitor long before things get that bad. "The lead story here is you owe $12,000 on a car worth $6000!!  That is an appalling situation and worth a lot to get out of it.  ($6000, or a great deal more if the car is out of warranty and you are at risk of a major repair too.)  I'm sorry if it feels like the payments you've made so far are wasted; often the numbers do work out like this, and you did get use of the car for that time period. Now comes an ""adversary"", who is threatening to snatch the car away from you.  I have to imagine they are emotionally motivated.  How convenient :) Let them take it.  But it's important to fully understand their motivations here.  Because financially speaking, the smart play is to manage the situation so they take the car. Preferably unbeknownst that the car is upside down.  Whatever their motivation is, give them enough of a fight; keep them wrapped up in emotions while your eye is on the numbers.  Let them win the battle; you win the war: make sure the legal details put you in the clear of it.  Ideally, do this with consent with the grandfather ""in response to his direct family's wishes"", but keep up the theater of being really mad about it.  Don't tell anyone for 7 years, until the statute of limitations has passed and you can't be sued for it. Eventually they'll figure out they took a $6000 loss taking the car from  you, and want to talk with you about that.  Stay with blind rage at how they took my car.  If they try to explain what ""upside down"" is, feign ignorance and get even madder, say they're lying and they won, why don't they let it go?  If they ask for money, say they're swindling. ""You forced me, I didn't have a choice"".  (which happens to be a good defense.  They wanted it so bad; they shoulda done their homework.  Since they were coercive it's not your job to disclose, nor your job to even know.)  If they want you to take the car back, say ""can't, you forced me to buy another and I have to make payments on that one now."""