maxepr1
New member
Scott, want borrow some kids....lol!!
Can't buff my car out v. drunk driver
- Thread starter Scottwax
- Start date
Good news about the drunk who hit me. Since he was charged with DWI-felony repetition, he is looking at a minimum of 2 years in jail and hopefully closer to the maximum of 10.
I know a lawyer who can pull this guy's information and let us know if his case goes to trial (which it probably will since he is looking at jail time) because both my son and I want to be there and make sure the judge or jury understands how reckless he was and that he got back in his truck and would have driven away if I hadn't yanked his door open. That pile of crap needs to be off the street for a long time. Seriously, a BAC of .216?
I know a lawyer who can pull this guy's information and let us know if his case goes to trial (which it probably will since he is looking at jail time) because both my son and I want to be there and make sure the judge or jury understands how reckless he was and that he got back in his truck and would have driven away if I hadn't yanked his door open. That pile of crap needs to be off the street for a long time. Seriously, a BAC of .216?
Paul Sparks
New member
The sad thing about this clown is that he will have a chance of a plea deal and if and when he gets out and is still up to his old habits , not having a liscense or insurance won't keep him from doing the same thing over again.
hotrod66paul said:
Over the last few years, there have been several highly publicized incidents involving repeat DWI offenders causing deaths here in the Dallas area, including one last Easter where a drunk, who was on probation for DWI and required to only drive a vehicle with an interlock system (where you have to blow to start the car) took his wife's car and plowed into the back of another car while going 134 mph, killing a mother and daughter. The outrage that followed probably had a lot to do with the guy getting sentenced to life in prison and a promise by the DA's offices around here to crack down hard on repeat offenders.
WAS
Driven
Scottwax said:
And absolutely as it should be. This guy's third DWI conviction ? Loss of license for LIFE, IMO.
maxepr1
New member
Scott, remember that guy who got life after killing that lady at the railroad crossing in I think Denton County that was his 9th DWI!! Pretty said when you can afford a good lawyer!
imported_Yal
New member
Even if you ban a person from driving, unfortunately its very hard to enforce. I mean cars aren't keyed to one user. Take the guy who took his wife's car, you can't prevent something like that, I mean what if he borrowed his friends car? I don't know what you can do short of stiffer sentences and liability.
Dan
Well-known member
WAS said:
I think you should get one chance (and that is being nice). Second time you are caught, no more driving EVER. Not sure about you guys, but if I was dumb enough to get 1 DWI, I for sure wouldn't ever even come close to chancing it again. I also think you should be charged with murder if you drink and drive and kill someone. That person isn't any less dead to their family than if you shot them dead.
Yal said:
Life in jail is going easy on someone like that. And if drunks aren't bad enough, there are tons of prescription and illegal drug users driving all around too. Do what you want to your body, just stay home and off the roads.
Yal said:
They say (experts, I guess) that the average person has driven drunk maybe 100 times before they get caught once. I guess they think they are okay if they play the odds. I don't know why they can't seem to think beyond simply getting caught and maybe killing someone.
My son and I were very lucky, just this past week, a drunk in a Tacoma blew through a light and killed one of the two people in a Mustang. If I had been slower in the brakes, no telling how far that F-250 would have gone into the passenger compartment of my car where my son was sitting.
yakky said:
absolutely agreed. the person drinking & driving knows what they are doing and there's no excuse for it. another thing.. i still see people talking/texting while driving and they should receive a first offense fine of $250 AND a point on their driving record just as if they got a ticket for speeding and if they want it off, they go to traffic school. next offense, double or triple the amount. enough is enough already!
Finding out there are not a whole lot of 5.5 gen (2002-3) Maximas for sale. I think there are 12-14 for sale in the entire Dallas area. Found one in Austin I really like, had a friend down there check it out for me. Part of the problem is I still don't have a check for my car (had to go through my insurance to get around his insurance company's low ball offer on my car) and the horrible weather last week made taking any test drives impossible.
WAS
Driven
yakky said:
It depends. If you're at 0.083, and the limit is 0.080, then I can agree with giving someone a second chance. But when you're at 0.216 (like the idiot that ran into Scott), you should lose your license for life, period. It's like speeding, if you're caught going 60 km/h over the speed limit in Canada, it's automatic suspension and an indictable charge that you actually have to go to court for. There's a difference between going 70 km/h in a 60 km/h zone and going 150 km/h in that same zone. I think the same ideal should apply to driving impaired.
Agreed completely on getting charged with murder.
imported_Yal
New member
Yeah the charge should be murder plain and simple. These people are coming out of jail in less than 10 years for these drunk driving murders. Its insane.
David Fermani
Forza Auto Salon
WAS said:
WAS said:
You’ve mentioned this being the “LAW” twice now. Please provide me the law that says this? So if the Corp breaks this so called law to secure the financial interest of their Stockholders, what legal ramifications are they subject to?
Every business has a different corporate responsibility based on its own unique core values which aren’t just held accountable by government, but by the public too. Again, it’s pretty common sense that almost all(except non-profit) businesses (corp/sole pro/partnerships) focus their responsibility to not just earning a profit, but no business can run successfully by stepping all over their customers by not fulfilling their contractual obligations with them and not having service-centric orientations. That especially goes for Insurance companies as pretty much all of them market themselves as “helping” and protecting which they do several thousand times each day when they pay out a claim in good faith. If not, we wouldn’t keep doing business with them and we’d all be self-insured. Claiming that they don’t help people and they are just in it for their own selfish gain is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. I've never met anyone in the industry to have this interpretation on how the business is focused. We're trained to pay a claim based on the policy and our Best Practices and when in doubt we give the benefit of the doubt to the customer. I've done this countless times w/o question based on prior management instruction. I totally agree why Insurance companies in particular follow the philosopy that if you treat someone unfairly and they decide to take their business elsewhere, chances are that you will never capture that lost business ever again. If you make the 1 time concession, you stand a greater chance at recapturing this added expense with continued premiums.
maxepr1 said:
Don’t know nor am I trained to adjust for property claims such as yours but that seems quite interesting seeing that even after seeking legal help you still are well short of your expected settlement? Almost sounds as if your agent didn’t provide you with sound coverage, but just speculating at this point.
Scott – How much is Farmer’s offering you and what makes you think they are “low balling” you? What are you basing your judgment on other than what your company is offering you? Your company could be overpaying you in error as this can and does happen? Did you ever review the Evaluation Summary where it lists all your vehicle’s options, the conditioning rating each section of your car was given and for what comparable vehicles sold for in your area? Like I said the determination of your value is based on the interpretation of the Appraiser and is very subjective and negotiable. I remember helping Barry Theal get over $4000 more for his truck by just reviewing and coaching him on these interpretations. NADA on your car is about $7000 (02 SE / Stick / Leather / 194K). Looking on AutoTrader.com in your area the highest 02 Maxima within 75 miles of Arlington, TX is just under $8000 and with 90,000 less miles than your car had and with an automatic(which adds value). There’s even another one going for $6000 that is pretty loaded too. Just wondering where your figures come in at?
WAS
Driven
David Fermani said:
Ummmm, it's the basis of any corporate law, and any basic corporation's articles of incorporation. Google around, you'll find lots of information regarding it:
In most jurisdictions, companies are bound by law to maximise value for their shareholders, meaning they can only consider other stakeholders if doing so would create value for their shareholders, or if their shareholders vote to accept reduced profits to pursue some wider objective. In practice, major listed corporations are controlled by investment banks who, in turn, are under an obligation to maximise value for their investors, and listed corporations are obliged to maximise their profits at the expense of other stakeholders. This aspect of the company form has been widely criticised for forcing companies to put profits before people.
See what you're trying to say is that corporations (insurance companies in particular) have to have some "moral sense". That's wrong. There are 2 fundemental purposes for incorporating a business entity, that's to limit personal liability, and to completely eliminate moral obligation. This is exactly why there are government regulations concerning the insurance industry, because as far as the insurance corporations are concerned, they would refuse to pay any claim if they could find any sort of loophole. Insurance companies care about one thing and one thing only, and that's making profit. In Scott's case, they are low-balling his vehicle payout. If he accepts, then great, the insurance company has saved money. Is that morally correct ? Nope. But that's the whole point of a corporation, it doesn't care about morality.
I can understand that as a basic employee at an insurance company (sales agent, CSR, claims processing agent, etc), you wouldn't ever be exposed to anything other than what you're trained to do. But if you started working at the senior management or exec levels, you'd probably understand where I'm coming from. Also understand that it's ONLY because of that government regulation that claims processing is as quick as it is. Look in parts of South America where you get insurance companies (quite a few controlled by Citi Group actually) that have an average claims processing of 240+ DAYS. That's because they're not regulated, so their employee workforce is probably something like 1000 sales agents to 1 claims agent. Don't kid yourself, if the industry wasn't regulated here in Canada / the USA, it would be the exact same thing.
One thing I find interesting, you said you helped Barry once get $4000 MORE for his truck than what was being offered by an insurance company ? It's incredibly surprising to me that with all the experience you have, you still think that insurance companies exist to "help us out in our time of need" ?
David-I did review the evaluation summary. Pretty much everything was considered "dealer ready" and they still took deductions. Farmers offered me $4743 plus tax, title and license, which comes out to $5072.
I looked around the DFW to find the value of my car, even looked at several of them. Nothing close to the mileage on mine was even remotely as nice-most had some interior issues, minor dents, scratches through the clear coat, collision damage with cheap repaints, etc. I asked the person I talked to if they had personally seen the vehicles to be able to fairly compare them to mine. Of course she hadn't. Mine has cloth seats and the base stereo, so that's about a $500 deduction off the NADA price.
On the plus side, I did find a 6 speed '02 Maxima that is hard loaded (no nav but that's about it). Drives great, interior needs some cleaning and the leather needs conditioning. Hope I can find someone good in Dallas to take care of that if I end up buying the car.
I looked around the DFW to find the value of my car, even looked at several of them. Nothing close to the mileage on mine was even remotely as nice-most had some interior issues, minor dents, scratches through the clear coat, collision damage with cheap repaints, etc. I asked the person I talked to if they had personally seen the vehicles to be able to fairly compare them to mine. Of course she hadn't. Mine has cloth seats and the base stereo, so that's about a $500 deduction off the NADA price.
On the plus side, I did find a 6 speed '02 Maxima that is hard loaded (no nav but that's about it). Drives great, interior needs some cleaning and the leather needs conditioning. Hope I can find someone good in Dallas to take care of that if I end up buying the car.
maxepr1
New member
YOUR QUOTE:Every business has a different corporate responsibility based on its own unique core values which aren’t just held accountable by government, but by the public too. Again, it’s pretty common sense that almost all(except non-profit) businesses (corp/sole pro/partnerships) focus their responsibility to not just earning a profit, but no business can run successfully by stepping all over their customers by not fulfilling their contractual obligations with them and not having service-centric orientations. That especially goes for Insurance companies as pretty much all of them market themselves as “helping” and protecting which they do several thousand times each day when they pay out a claim in good faith. If not, we wouldn’t keep doing business with them and we’d all be self-insured. Claiming that they don’t help people and they are just in it for their own selfish gain is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. I've never met anyone in the industry to have this interpretation on how the business is focused. We're trained to pay a claim based on the policy and our Best Practices and when in doubt we give the benefit of the doubt to the customer. I've done this countless times w/o question based on prior management instruction. I totally agree why Insurance companies in particular follow the philosopy that if you treat someone unfairly and they decide to take their business elsewhere, chances are that you will never capture that lost business ever again. If you make the 1 time concession, you stand a greater chance at recapturing this added expense with continued premiums
Well Dave, if it is insurance companies philosopy to fairly treat clients, why doesn't Scott have a check! Or at least a partial payment? So I guess your 1 time "concession" doesn't apply in his case? Probably because Scott is a "difficult customer", wanting top dollar for his car? I would venture to say if Scott was say 3 weeks late (or about the time he's been Stroked along by the insurance companies)with his payment he would have been dropped as a customer, right? It's funny how when the insurance companies have to pay out on a claim how long the process can take them! Thank God Scott and his son weren't injuried and in need of hospitalization! The phone would be ringing off the hook from the bill collectors tp pay the bills! As for the coment on my property claim, you were right you know nothing!! You've never have delt with hurricane claims before with a coment like that! Like I said at the in the first pages of this thread, INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE NOT OUT TO HELP YOU!!! You came right back to defend your profession but it looks like I was right HUH!! With all due respect Dave you should stick to what your good at Detailing, not defending insurance companies! Your not looking so good! Oh, by the way with the Superbowl just passing through town, Farmers Insurance announced they will be sponsuring a football team in LA. They put up $750 million too! Business must be good!!!
Well Dave, if it is insurance companies philosopy to fairly treat clients, why doesn't Scott have a check! Or at least a partial payment? So I guess your 1 time "concession" doesn't apply in his case? Probably because Scott is a "difficult customer", wanting top dollar for his car? I would venture to say if Scott was say 3 weeks late (or about the time he's been Stroked along by the insurance companies)with his payment he would have been dropped as a customer, right? It's funny how when the insurance companies have to pay out on a claim how long the process can take them! Thank God Scott and his son weren't injuried and in need of hospitalization! The phone would be ringing off the hook from the bill collectors tp pay the bills! As for the coment on my property claim, you were right you know nothing!! You've never have delt with hurricane claims before with a coment like that! Like I said at the in the first pages of this thread, INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE NOT OUT TO HELP YOU!!! You came right back to defend your profession but it looks like I was right HUH!! With all due respect Dave you should stick to what your good at Detailing, not defending insurance companies! Your not looking so good! Oh, by the way with the Superbowl just passing through town, Farmers Insurance announced they will be sponsuring a football team in LA. They put up $750 million too! Business must be good!!!
<"//><
New member
maxepr1 said:
What a jerkoff comment to make to someone who is only trying to help. Why don't you get off your high horse instead making stupid personal attacks over an insurance claim you're not even a part of. I as well as most of my family and tons of friends have Farmers Insurance and have had ZERO PROBLEMS when we've made claims. And have also gotten paid extra quick. There's always 2 sides to the story and you obviously don't know either.