Re: Re: insurance?

From: Ron (menoldre@adelphia.net)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 20:53:52 EDT


Actually it is the reverse. If it is your fault then they have to pay for
the car you hit too and if the car you are driving does more damage, then
the total claim is higher. But then you do make a point in that it should
come out in the wash if all they have to do is repaint your bumper.

-RJ
95 Dakota Sport 3.9L

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Fitchett" <fitchett@chem.utah.edu>
To: <dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:42 PM
Subject: DML: Re: insurance?

>
> That seems like some weird logic to me... If trucks DO more damage, then
do
> they sustain as much damage as cars do? If trucks GET more damaged in
> accidents than maybe the rate increase _might_ make a little more sense,
> however if truck can take more of a beating then maybe the insurance
> companies should be giving us a $50 credit (c:
>
> Brian
>
> ""Josh Battles"" <jbattles@bankfinancial.com> wrote in message
> news:bb048j$suf$1@bent.twistedbits.net...
> >
> > Hey, I got my renewal for insurance on my Dak last week and noticed that
> my
> > premium went up by like $50/year due to some bogus "truck rate increase"
> > because "trucks do more damage in accidents than cars" according to my
> > agent. Did anyone else experience anything like this??? I just want to
> > make sure they're not jackin' my rates unjustly.
> >
> > --
> > - Josh
> > Lowered 2000 Dakota CC 3.9L
> >
> >
> >
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:46:22 EST