Other than “what do I pay insurance for then?” What is another cringe phrase people use? Not sure if this question is allowed. I’m just starting a discussion.
I'm a former new hire trainer. Once I helped a newbie take a hail damage FNOL from an insured who was clearly reading a script and I could hear the roofer coaching them through the call in the background.
I had a roofer pull my insured aside once mid-inspection to tell him he was being too nice to me. His implication was that if the insured was more surly toward me that I would give him more money. To the insured's credit he fired the roofer right there and told him to leave the property.
Ugh. I did agency service and I really wish the DOI would fine/prosecute harder on business like roofers and even body shops who speak on insurance coverage language. The amount of times I had to tell clients, no your roofer is not licensed for public adjuster or property/casualty lines and because they’ve ’gotten it covered by insurance for someone else’ doesn’t mean it’s covered for you.
"there's chalk all over my roof, that means it's hail!" Sir, that "roofer" that's knocking on all the doors in your neighborhood is using you to try and get paid, then will disappear.
When in reality the survey is all that matters. They'd probably be shocked to know you can get dinged for paying what's NOT owed, but also NOT paying for what IS owed.
It is a classic. BUT if they wanted it covered that way they should’ve got a classic car insurance policy. Standard auto policies are not designed for that nonsense.
Wish there were more companies writing agreed value without mileage/use restrictions. The product most of these customers really want isn’t broadly available.
I will say I've never been through he total loss process, and this subreddit has helped me realize how state laws do NOT make you "whole" in the sense of being able to get a new car because ACV =/= RCV and there is essentially no way to bring those numbers together if a dealership process is involved.
I know its not up the ICOs but if I drive off the lot and am immediately hit by a 3rd party, its frustrating that the law will leave a few thousand dollars of fees/profit whatever you want to call it coming out of my pocket.
They do make you whole. Whole is not a replacement vehicle, it is reimbursing you for the value of the property you purchased. It's not the fault of insurance you overpaid for a vehicle. Perhaps states should have better consumer protection laws on interest rates than what is already in place. But what you're describing is wanting to change consumer preferences and the auto market itself. You drive it off the lot, it officially has an owner, its already depreciated in the eyes of a potential buyer.
Don't excuse vehicles being a notoriously horrible financial investment.
There is no practical way to not overpay, you're being intentionally obtuse. When you're in an accident and another party is at 100% fault you will still lose a minimum of $1500 - $2,500. Period.
That's real money that people have to pay its just part of the system we have in the US.
I'm currently in the middle of a total loss and I completely agree. Like, I just bought this car and some dumbass ran a red light and now I'm out a car and several thousand dollars?
It shouldn't be that way... they should payout the JD Power/NADA value for the car, period, end of story.
Instead they base it off a price that almost no normal person can actually get a car for and say we're the idiots for paying more than that.
It doesn't help that insurance companies have indeed been found to underpay and the nature by which they come to determine values is highly suspicious and the subject of many lawsuits.
and to be honest, I am far more angry at the process of purchasing a car in the United States and less about the insurance market. I think dealerships are an insane racket and should be regulated way harder than they are in terms of the overall lies and deceit.
they are 100% an insane racket focused on extracting as much money as possible from you. i wish they would just charge you retail and be done with it. yes this is a 2025 f150 xlt with v6 and it retails for 49,999 + tax. they sneak all kinds of bullshit fees in, charges and my fav protection plans and warranties. oh and dont forget about incentives and all that bs. why can they suddenly sell the car for less money with an incentive..make that the damn price all along!
((After I spend two full minutes carefully explaining the big difference between filing with the other party - you will have absolutely no control over the timeframe - versus filing under your own policy - you have all the control ))- I then get asked "Why should I have to pay my deductible if I am not at fault?"
Well....for all of the reasons that I just carefully explained to you
As an outsider, if I am not at fault and I pay the deductible, insurance can subrogate that cost back from the at fault party and refund the deductible at a later date, correct?
Yes. It’s just a faster way to get the car taken care of. There’s no timeframe or guarantee for recovery (just like there’s no guarantee the at fault party will be truthful and there will be coverage), but usually the first money recovered in subro goes to you for the deductible. Sometimes the other insurance can forward it to your shop too so you’re not out of pocket.
Correct, but it's not a guarantee and the time frame of when you get it back could vary wildly. I've seen it get refunded 3 days and other times I've seen it take 6 months to get refunded, and that's if it gets refunded.
Yes. It’s not a guarantee, but we want that money back as much as you do and will try with all our might to get it back. Part of it, too, is pride. If I think my insured is not at fault, I’ll argue all day with another adjuster over liability. I’m stubborn and want to defend my insured.
You understand insurance is highly concentrated, prices are skyrocketing, there is very little oversight over the insurance industry and people often have no other choice?
The insurance industry is the most highly regulated industry in the US. In what industry does every state have a special commissioner to look after citizens interests like the Insurance Commissioners?
Ok I apologize because my original reply was snarky and I don't necessarily disagree with you. I was really just talking about how much time I spend carefully explaining something just to have someone ask why they should do it my way. I don't tell people to do anything, I merely explain every option.
“Since you are seeking legal representation I am no longer able to speak with you. I will forward our fax and email for you to provide to your attorney and will be on the lookout for their letter of representation.”
“Okay, please provide me with their contact info once retained.”
I had a guy tell me once that it seemed like I wanted him to get a lawyer. Yes, I do, because that means I don’t have to deal with YOU (and my company isn’t paying lawyer fees for damages)!
little do they know you just want a 10/10 LTR survey response. So you would obviously give them every penny they ask for if that was feasible to get the score.
Believe it or not, I had a woman call, breathing fire, wanted to know where it said she had to return the rental car 5 days after her car was deemed a total loss, and her adjuster referred her to us to explain her coverages. I tracked it down in the policy booklet, emailed her a copy, called her and read off exactly where it was. She immediately turned calm and satisfied, because she now had paperwork showing it.
Most of our policies’ limits are high enough that we try to match size for the rental. I had a guy with a Prius once, so I reserved a smaller car as a rental for him. He called and said he was going on a ski trip and needed an SUV with 4WD. We aren’t funding a vacation!
The other one is more in general, it is whenever an insured mentions that they have been paying for months or years for insurance.
My response is to ask them if they paid just 1 month premium, would they expect the insurance to only pay out that same amount? It does not work like a savings account. It is the transfer of _risk_.
I always tell people if they have a question about their policy in general, they need to speak to their agent. If they have a question about coverage for this claim, I can answer that.
HO-4 Denial due to not being one of the 16-perils. Reading list of 16-named perils, Insured says, "Can I swap out volcanic eruption with flood?" - happened more than you'd think.
"I have full coverage"
"Why do you need to know who my passengers are"
"Why do you care when the accident happened"
"Why do you need to know who owns the car"
"The police took pictures, get them from them"
"If you don't pay my claim I'm calling "my" attorney"
"You aren't allowed to ask me for that"
"I pulled out and he hit me"
"He brake checked me"
"You can't deny my claim, that's bad faith"
"I want IDV for my loss of value (the car is a 2015 Audi)"
Not an adjuster but I get the complaints when they are not happy with the claim.
"I just bought new tires and did an oil change, my 2001 Toyota should be worth more"
The one that really makes my ass itch is when I get them over to the adjuster, they call me back and ask me "so can I go get a rental?" Or what's next?" Like you were just on a call with the person who can answer that lol. All I can do is give a general scope of how a claim proceeds
Lmao when they say that dumb ass phrase for liability only insurance. I’m so passive aggressive, I tell them that if they damage someone’s property or injure them, they won’t get sued for thousands of dollars and then I say “which I get to some people, getting sued for thousands is nothing, but I’d rather not lose that kind of money” and then they shut up
They had an insurance card at the accident scene what do you mean you don’t have coverage are you calling the police. “No baby we ain’t” direct quote that got one of my frustrated co-workers fired.
I had a party at my house and went to bed someone stole my car and wrecked it…Yes I do have both sets of keys.
Insurance is a contract signed between the company and a person. The specifics of that contract is applied to every claim that is made. Asking either party to deviate from the contract is unfair. People in general feel that they should be getting more than what was agreed to in the contract and get even more unhappy when they don’t.
Because no one is kicking anyone else down. We’re just applying the facts to whatever the situation is and some like to act as if they know more than the professionals working in the industry.
You can apply the facts and tell your client without airing them out on a public forum. And if you are going to go on a public forum, then it’s quite expected for someone like the OP comment to call it sleazy
No one's kicking anyone. I would never let the little frustrations of life out on an actual customer that needs help though a tough time.
Eta: these examples are really generic and could apply to pretty much anyone. They just serve to demonstrate a general lack of financial literacy which makes life harder not just for us, but for the customer. We WANT them to be protected and educated. It's annoying to be blamed for something you don't control.
I understand that it might not be your individual intention, but you cannot speak for everyone on this thread. There is an air of mean-spiritedness to most non-adjusters that post on this sub, and this thread only adds onto that energy. Even just posting an experience as a client will oftentimes get you downvoted in this sub. Don’t blame us.. blame your fellow adjusters who make the career indeed seem sleazy to folks such as OP commenter.
I don't really subscribe to the idea that we have to tolerate abuse and threats from customers daily, and yet we can't come here and have an open honest conversation about it. I agree, some people are more mean-spirited than others, but that's a two way street. You can call me whatever names you want on the clock, but we can be a little more blunt here.
Let’s do cringe things insurance companies tell people who have paid thousands of dollars for coverage.. I’ll go first. “Sorry we can’t cover your vehicle for lightning damage because there is no exit marks on the tires.”
This led to my truck being at a dealership for 4 months before they decided they would pay out. And you guys wonder why people say these things.
As a former damage adjuster I always hated lightning claims because there was not always obvious physical damage and without that you are just taking some mechanics word on what he thinks it could be
Yes I actually had 2 cars parked under the same tree that got hit.. both fried computers. My truck had multiple airbag sensors gone as well. The other car only had liability so we paid out of pocket on that one. It was an uphill battle the whole way through on my truck though. Unfortunately it took threatening to cancel the policy to finally get a check to the dealership to release my truck. The policy also pays them roughly $1200 a month with the current vehicles on it. The repair was around $3500.. guess they realized it was not a good business decision to have us find insurance elsewhere. This was 3 years ago.
Progressives online insurance quote system referred to getting state minimums as “cover with confidence!” because that was the most common level of insurance selected by customers in that area. (Portland IIRC, 20k property damage and 25/50 BI).
You're describing a very common form of fraud that people who do not purchase comp/collision coverages perpetrate against the insurance company.
Adjusters can be wrong, but they also have seen thousands and thousands of accidents and know when someone is trying to pass of prior damage and/or find coverage in another insuring agreement that they did purchase.
“You are entirely liable for the car accident because the damage is to the front of your vehicle” enter lawyer —> went from a $0 offer, to getting everything paid off;)
"I trust my roofer because insurance adjusters only care about insurance profit"
I trust my stealership I mean dealership and/or body shop because insurance companies only care about profit. I need OEM for my 2001 Toyota Camry.
And "I have full coverage"
I'm a former new hire trainer. Once I helped a newbie take a hail damage FNOL from an insured who was clearly reading a script and I could hear the roofer coaching them through the call in the background.
I had a roofer pull my insured aside once mid-inspection to tell him he was being too nice to me. His implication was that if the insured was more surly toward me that I would give him more money. To the insured's credit he fired the roofer right there and told him to leave the property.
Sweet Jesus. Was this a local roofer or a nationwide scam roofer?
It was an Aluminum Siding claim as well, so the roofer was already going to make a fortune replacing it with Vinyl and pocketing the difference.
Though I think that gravy train has run out a bit since I quit being an adjuster.
I don't recall which company did this - I was CAT team so I didn't really get to know the various local vs storm chasers unless it was one like ADHI.
Ugh. I did agency service and I really wish the DOI would fine/prosecute harder on business like roofers and even body shops who speak on insurance coverage language. The amount of times I had to tell clients, no your roofer is not licensed for public adjuster or property/casualty lines and because they’ve ’gotten it covered by insurance for someone else’ doesn’t mean it’s covered for you.
"there's chalk all over my roof, that means it's hail!" Sir, that "roofer" that's knocking on all the doors in your neighborhood is using you to try and get paid, then will disappear.
😂
They act like we get bonuses for paying as little as possible on claims.
When in reality the survey is all that matters. They'd probably be shocked to know you can get dinged for paying what's NOT owed, but also NOT paying for what IS owed.
"Lowball." I'm so sick of hearing it and seeing it on Reddit posts. Sorry sir, your 1992 Ranger is NOT a classic.
Or the highball complaints when they want it totaled instead of repaired.
It is a classic. BUT if they wanted it covered that way they should’ve got a classic car insurance policy. Standard auto policies are not designed for that nonsense.
Wish there were more companies writing agreed value without mileage/use restrictions. The product most of these customers really want isn’t broadly available.
Best products I am aware of: hagerty and Grundy
Those have severe mileage and use restrictions.
If they didn't, could you imagine the premium??
I will say I've never been through he total loss process, and this subreddit has helped me realize how state laws do NOT make you "whole" in the sense of being able to get a new car because ACV =/= RCV and there is essentially no way to bring those numbers together if a dealership process is involved.
I know its not up the ICOs but if I drive off the lot and am immediately hit by a 3rd party, its frustrating that the law will leave a few thousand dollars of fees/profit whatever you want to call it coming out of my pocket.
They do make you whole. Whole is not a replacement vehicle, it is reimbursing you for the value of the property you purchased. It's not the fault of insurance you overpaid for a vehicle. Perhaps states should have better consumer protection laws on interest rates than what is already in place. But what you're describing is wanting to change consumer preferences and the auto market itself. You drive it off the lot, it officially has an owner, its already depreciated in the eyes of a potential buyer.
Don't excuse vehicles being a notoriously horrible financial investment.
Adjusters can’t even agree on an actual definition of ACV. No, saying Actual Cash Value over and over again is not a definition.
There is no practical way to not overpay, you're being intentionally obtuse. When you're in an accident and another party is at 100% fault you will still lose a minimum of $1500 - $2,500. Period.
That's real money that people have to pay its just part of the system we have in the US.
I'm obtuse but you're the one who doesnt understand depreciation as an economic concept. Thats what you're complaining about.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/s/gZ97T4O2Dm
I'm currently in the middle of a total loss and I completely agree. Like, I just bought this car and some dumbass ran a red light and now I'm out a car and several thousand dollars?
It shouldn't be that way... they should payout the JD Power/NADA value for the car, period, end of story. Instead they base it off a price that almost no normal person can actually get a car for and say we're the idiots for paying more than that.
It doesn't help that insurance companies have indeed been found to underpay and the nature by which they come to determine values is highly suspicious and the subject of many lawsuits.
and to be honest, I am far more angry at the process of purchasing a car in the United States and less about the insurance market. I think dealerships are an insane racket and should be regulated way harder than they are in terms of the overall lies and deceit.
they are 100% an insane racket focused on extracting as much money as possible from you. i wish they would just charge you retail and be done with it. yes this is a 2025 f150 xlt with v6 and it retails for 49,999 + tax. they sneak all kinds of bullshit fees in, charges and my fav protection plans and warranties. oh and dont forget about incentives and all that bs. why can they suddenly sell the car for less money with an incentive..make that the damn price all along!
“You’re not a good neighbor”
“I guess I’m not in good hands”
((After I spend two full minutes carefully explaining the big difference between filing with the other party - you will have absolutely no control over the timeframe - versus filing under your own policy - you have all the control ))- I then get asked "Why should I have to pay my deductible if I am not at fault?"
Well....for all of the reasons that I just carefully explained to you
As an outsider, if I am not at fault and I pay the deductible, insurance can subrogate that cost back from the at fault party and refund the deductible at a later date, correct?
Yes. It’s just a faster way to get the car taken care of. There’s no timeframe or guarantee for recovery (just like there’s no guarantee the at fault party will be truthful and there will be coverage), but usually the first money recovered in subro goes to you for the deductible. Sometimes the other insurance can forward it to your shop too so you’re not out of pocket.
Correct, but it's not a guarantee and the time frame of when you get it back could vary wildly. I've seen it get refunded 3 days and other times I've seen it take 6 months to get refunded, and that's if it gets refunded.
Yes. It’s not a guarantee, but we want that money back as much as you do and will try with all our might to get it back. Part of it, too, is pride. If I think my insured is not at fault, I’ll argue all day with another adjuster over liability. I’m stubborn and want to defend my insured.
I'm sure your reasons were valid or whatever, but fundamentally you shouldn't need to pay anything if you aren't at fault
Absolutely! You can call the other insurance company and I will close your claim right now!!
Oh yes it appears I misread your post the first time. Understood
You understand you agreed to your deductible correct?
You understand insurance is highly concentrated, prices are skyrocketing, there is very little oversight over the insurance industry and people often have no other choice?
The insurance industry is the most highly regulated industry in the US. In what industry does every state have a special commissioner to look after citizens interests like the Insurance Commissioners?
Um many of them do....? https://www.nh.gov/government/state-government-agencies Using my state as an example
The fuck are you talking about.
None of things are true besides prices rising
Ok I apologize because my original reply was snarky and I don't necessarily disagree with you. I was really just talking about how much time I spend carefully explaining something just to have someone ask why they should do it my way. I don't tell people to do anything, I merely explain every option.
“They were speeding when I (insert obvious illegal traffic move here)”
“They admitted fault at the scene and told the police officer! You need to believe me!”
“I need a rental NOW!”
“Why are you totaling my car? It wasn’t even my fault!”
And lastly, my seven favorite words…
“This is ridiculous. I’m calling my lawyer.”
They didn't have their headlights on so I didn't see them. They came outta nowhere
I shouldn't have to pay my deductible because "reason"
“Since you are seeking legal representation I am no longer able to speak with you. I will forward our fax and email for you to provide to your attorney and will be on the lookout for their letter of representation.”
That would cause most to backpedal so hard.
I LOVE the last one.
“Okay, please provide me with their contact info once retained.”
I had a guy tell me once that it seemed like I wanted him to get a lawyer. Yes, I do, because that means I don’t have to deal with YOU (and my company isn’t paying lawyer fees for damages)!
“ you want to lowball Me because it makes your bonus bigger” Always makes me laugh.
If this was the case, ma'am. I would just deny every claim presented to me so I could retire early
little do they know you just want a 10/10 LTR survey response. So you would obviously give them every penny they ask for if that was feasible to get the score.
“The other car came out of no where”
“Why do I have to pay my deductible if I’m not at fault”. “Why do I have to return the rental in 3 days? I can’t buy a vehicle in that timeframe!”
Believe it or not, I had a woman call, breathing fire, wanted to know where it said she had to return the rental car 5 days after her car was deemed a total loss, and her adjuster referred her to us to explain her coverages. I tracked it down in the policy booklet, emailed her a copy, called her and read off exactly where it was. She immediately turned calm and satisfied, because she now had paperwork showing it.
"But I have FULL COVERAGE" (╬≖_≖)
All insurance is a scam! They try and trick you into not getting paid!
Seriously, I had someone say they think of insurance companies like the mob…
“I need a bigger rental, I have two kids” Lord what did anyone ever drive before SUVs were a thing?
Most of our policies’ limits are high enough that we try to match size for the rental. I had a guy with a Prius once, so I reserved a smaller car as a rental for him. He called and said he was going on a ski trip and needed an SUV with 4WD. We aren’t funding a vacation!
I like the responses better then the questions:
"You just want to pay as little as possible"
My response: Yes, exactly.
The other one is more in general, it is whenever an insured mentions that they have been paying for months or years for insurance.
My response is to ask them if they paid just 1 month premium, would they expect the insurance to only pay out that same amount? It does not work like a savings account. It is the transfer of _risk_.
I always tell people if they have a question about their policy in general, they need to speak to their agent. If they have a question about coverage for this claim, I can answer that.
“My vehicle was in MINT CONDITION!”
Yes that’s why you have all this old damage.
"I didn't hit the deer, the deer hit me."
Alright I’m going to hire a lawyer then
My favorite when I was in personal lines was referring to rental " I have full coverage that means I should have rental too."
HO-4 Denial due to not being one of the 16-perils. Reading list of 16-named perils, Insured says, "Can I swap out volcanic eruption with flood?" - happened more than you'd think.
Me on the p&c test lol
Evil test!
I told the agent I wanted “full” coverage!
"I have full coverage" "Why do you need to know who my passengers are" "Why do you care when the accident happened" "Why do you need to know who owns the car" "The police took pictures, get them from them" "If you don't pay my claim I'm calling "my" attorney" "You aren't allowed to ask me for that" "I pulled out and he hit me" "He brake checked me" "You can't deny my claim, that's bad faith" "I want IDV for my loss of value (the car is a 2015 Audi)"
Not an adjuster but I get the complaints when they are not happy with the claim.
"I just bought new tires and did an oil change, my 2001 Toyota should be worth more"
The one that really makes my ass itch is when I get them over to the adjuster, they call me back and ask me "so can I go get a rental?" Or what's next?" Like you were just on a call with the person who can answer that lol. All I can do is give a general scope of how a claim proceeds
Lmao when they say that dumb ass phrase for liability only insurance. I’m so passive aggressive, I tell them that if they damage someone’s property or injure them, they won’t get sued for thousands of dollars and then I say “which I get to some people, getting sued for thousands is nothing, but I’d rather not lose that kind of money” and then they shut up
They had an insurance card at the accident scene what do you mean you don’t have coverage are you calling the police. “No baby we ain’t” direct quote that got one of my frustrated co-workers fired.
I had a party at my house and went to bed someone stole my car and wrecked it…Yes I do have both sets of keys.
“I don’t want to pay my deductible because I’m not at fault” from third parties, and then they proceed to call for updates every other day.
Do you feel guilty working at such a sleazy job?
No and no. Nothing to feel guilty about. But then again if you haven't worked it you wouldn't know that.
“Nothing to feel guilty about” is pretty subjective when this whole thread is dedicated to kicking people down when they are already at their lowest..
Insurance is a contract signed between the company and a person. The specifics of that contract is applied to every claim that is made. Asking either party to deviate from the contract is unfair. People in general feel that they should be getting more than what was agreed to in the contract and get even more unhappy when they don’t.
Everything you said here is accurate but I don’t see how it negates my comment.
Because no one is kicking anyone else down. We’re just applying the facts to whatever the situation is and some like to act as if they know more than the professionals working in the industry.
You can apply the facts and tell your client without airing them out on a public forum. And if you are going to go on a public forum, then it’s quite expected for someone like the OP comment to call it sleazy
No one's kicking anyone. I would never let the little frustrations of life out on an actual customer that needs help though a tough time.
Eta: these examples are really generic and could apply to pretty much anyone. They just serve to demonstrate a general lack of financial literacy which makes life harder not just for us, but for the customer. We WANT them to be protected and educated. It's annoying to be blamed for something you don't control.
I understand that it might not be your individual intention, but you cannot speak for everyone on this thread. There is an air of mean-spiritedness to most non-adjusters that post on this sub, and this thread only adds onto that energy. Even just posting an experience as a client will oftentimes get you downvoted in this sub. Don’t blame us.. blame your fellow adjusters who make the career indeed seem sleazy to folks such as OP commenter.
I don't really subscribe to the idea that we have to tolerate abuse and threats from customers daily, and yet we can't come here and have an open honest conversation about it. I agree, some people are more mean-spirited than others, but that's a two way street. You can call me whatever names you want on the clock, but we can be a little more blunt here.
90% of the comments here are people complaining about their clients just not understanding policy. Not abuse or threats.
If there was a thread for adjusters to share unsafe moments, I would not be opposed to it at all.
No, most are responses to entitled people who think they got into an accident and should get anything they ask for.
Let’s do cringe things insurance companies tell people who have paid thousands of dollars for coverage.. I’ll go first. “Sorry we can’t cover your vehicle for lightning damage because there is no exit marks on the tires.”
This led to my truck being at a dealership for 4 months before they decided they would pay out. And you guys wonder why people say these things.
As a former damage adjuster I always hated lightning claims because there was not always obvious physical damage and without that you are just taking some mechanics word on what he thinks it could be
Yes I actually had 2 cars parked under the same tree that got hit.. both fried computers. My truck had multiple airbag sensors gone as well. The other car only had liability so we paid out of pocket on that one. It was an uphill battle the whole way through on my truck though. Unfortunately it took threatening to cancel the policy to finally get a check to the dealership to release my truck. The policy also pays them roughly $1200 a month with the current vehicles on it. The repair was around $3500.. guess they realized it was not a good business decision to have us find insurance elsewhere. This was 3 years ago.
Progressives online insurance quote system referred to getting state minimums as “cover with confidence!” because that was the most common level of insurance selected by customers in that area. (Portland IIRC, 20k property damage and 25/50 BI).
"even though your car was parked and you werent in it, we won't cover this because it looks like you hit someone"
Surprise surprise, the person was actually in it and did hit someone and they just want UMPD to pay for it.
And this is why people don't like insurance companies. How on earth am I supposed to prove I wasn't in my car.
You're describing a very common form of fraud that people who do not purchase comp/collision coverages perpetrate against the insurance company.
Adjusters can be wrong, but they also have seen thousands and thousands of accidents and know when someone is trying to pass of prior damage and/or find coverage in another insuring agreement that they did purchase.
Well in my case it was never fraud and I do pay for comprehensive..
“You are entirely liable for the car accident because the damage is to the front of your vehicle” enter lawyer —> went from a $0 offer, to getting everything paid off;)