Ronald Chavez79 said:It's because they simply refuse to pay out—especially those smaller claims ranging from $1,000 up to $667... they deal with an endless mountain of disputes involving companies like Eurohertz, Adriatic, and NFIB
Honestly, things are even more pathetic when you look at the situation with Rocky Mountains/Sava Insurance ... And yet, these guys act like they're the gold standard.... America Generali Allianz Allstate Vienna ...
Sent from my SM-G930F
Not NFIB, I think you meant Sun. As far as I know, NFIB operates independently, though I've heard they follow a pretty similar business model to Izvor.
I honestly think their exchange rates are just pathetic, or maybe they’re just hitting people with some insane commission fees. I don't know what kind of fancy terminology they use to hide it, but I personally know folks who sent over roughly $200 and ended up losing anywhere from $100 to $67 in fees alone.
So, it’s been about six years since I last checked in—let’s mark this down as September 3rd, 2010, just so I don't forget my own history—and here I am, getting back into the fitness grind again.
I mean, who knows if this is actually going to lead anywhere or if it'll just be another failed attempt, but I figured I should at least document my starting point for myself.
My starting weight is sitting somewhere around 240-245 lbs. For now, I guess I'm just trying to cut back on food as much as I can manage and stay active—maybe doing some walks 6.2 miles two or three times a week, or hopefully more, especially since I'm moving soon to a place where I'll have better access to local pools, which might get me more active, though eventually, I might try running or cycling if things go well. I'm not really going to set any rigid, specific goals, like saying "I'll lose X pounds by Y date," because I think that's a bit much; I just want to see some real, tangible progress that I can actually feel.
So, you've got companies like GEICO, Allstate, UnitedHealthcare, maybe even Progressive or Liberty Mutual, but I guess I'm just not entirely certain about the specific fine print regarding all their coverage terms (though I'd say I'm about 99% sure on the ones I mentioned, unless there are a few others I'm overlooking).
I mean, some people are still stuck dealing with those old three-year statutes of limitations, I guess. Then you’ve got others who have five or seven years to work with, and honestly, there are some folks out there who don't have any expiration date at all—you could probably claim a pension from the old era if you could actually prove you’re entitled to it and show all the right paperwork. 😁
I’m assuming that since they belong to the same parent corporation, the whole process should be identical. I guess I actually had to give them a bit of a nudge regarding the paperwork side of things—it was involving Walmart at the time—but honestly, the payout itself turned out exactly how they promised, both in terms of the amount and the timing. I don't usually like these guys and I could easily just sit here and tear them apart, but if I’m being fair, everyone was absolutely slammed back then dealing with all that flood damage from the spring of 2014, so it makes sense that the paperwork got backed up.
The real issue only arises if they start denying your claim or playing games; but if they’ve already officially acknowledged the damage and you’ve handed over every single document they asked for, I think you shouldn't have anything to worry about.
Look, I'm telling you, it all really comes down to what kind of car we're talking about here. 😁 Having worked over at an Enterprise Rent-A-Car, I’ve seen firsthand how much the price can swing; even if you're looking at the exact same power output—say, around 110 horsepower—you might see one quote for maybe $150, but then another jump up to well over $220 just because of how the fleet is priced 😁 for certain insurance tiers or whatever. It's all based on driver profiles and mileage, though honestly, most of us just defaulted everything to under 10,000 miles anyway.
In my experience, the absolute cheapest option I dealt with was an old Mercedes 190 with an 80kW engine, whereas the highest tier I ever calculated for someone on a message board ended up being a Chevy Lacetti.
It all comes down to what kind of car you're looking at, and honestly, even the model year and body style can swing things quite a bit—it might be $100 cheaper than the competition one day, but then suddenly jump $300 higher 😁 the next.
But, assuming nothing has changed since I was last there, the 24 to 30 age bracket is actually pretty decent because most other places set that young driver threshold at 31.
Wait, hold on, there are actually a few ways this could play out—you might end up in a formal confrontation or having to take photos of the cars exactly how they sat right after the impact. If the insurance adjuster finds anything even slightly fishy or unclear, they’re definitely going to ask questions. I mean, I once dealt with a situation where the damage heights just didn't line up at all, mostly because the other driver was coming off a sloped side street and hit us at an angle. To be totally honest, I used to work in that field for a bit, and I never actually heard anyone complaining about the process, though I guess back then they hadn't even been operating in America for six months yet.
Geico coverage should show up directly in the system, so I mean, there really shouldn't be any out-of-pocket costs at all, even in situations that are supposedly covered under the terms. Personally, I have Coca-Cola, and honestly, I haven't even bothered reading through the fine print, but a colleague of mine who was hunting for a cheap policy mentioned that MRI scans aren't actually covered—or rather, they're only covered up to the amount of the premium itself, which seems a bit much. Also, I really think the agents over at State Farm need to get their act together and step it up a bit 😁 Everything could have easily been laid out in a single post
Charles Wright14 said:I was looking at this through the lens of being part of the European Union, assuming we all operate under the same regulatory framework. I honestly expected there to be someone actually handling this who knows the ropes. It isn't rocket science: if you cause damage, insurance covers it. It’s supposed to be a unified, level playing field, blah blah blah. For instance, travelers in Canada get some pretty decent discounts on annual highway vignettes.
The principle might be the same everywhere—insurance pays for the mess their policyholder makes—but once you move past that basic idea, all the similarities pretty much vanish.
Just a thought: Who is actually footing the bill for damages in Germany versus who does it here in the States? Why would the exact same policy cost $50 in Canada, $200 here, and then jump to $1,000 in Germany?😁
A former coworker of mine actually tried applying for those government grants meant to clear out liens and mortgages on orchard lands. He didn't get a dime, mostly because he's already under a garnishment order—which, I mean, what kind of logic is that? If the whole point of the money is to settle your debts, it’s kind of obvious you’d be underwater to begin with 😁 I guess it just goes to show that even the big predatory lenders and local sharks are only looking out for their own bottom line.
I’ve got my doubts about this. I mean, whose laws would you actually be playing by—Canadian regulations or our own American ones? If there’s a discrepancy in the rules, what happens when an insurer is legally required to pay out under US law, but then claims they don't cover it based on some specific policy terms you signed overseas?
I’m not sure if you’re just asking out of curiosity or if you’re actually planning to sign a contract abroad, but honestly, if you end up moving and someone gifts you a foreign policy, the tiny bit of money you might save—maybe a few hundred bucks at most—just isn't worth the headache it could cause you later on.😁
As far as comprehensive auto insurance goes, I suppose you can pretty much take out a policy anywhere you want.
Michelle Sanchez84 said:Here’s a link detailing my own nightmare experience with Allstate. Things aren't going to improve anytime soon unless we actually force insurance companies to pay out legitimate claims. Right now, they just bulldoze through everything, ignoring the law whenever it suits them. I guess Congress needs to step in and pass some real legislation regarding this. For instance, if you sue an insurer and win because they were clearly in the wrong, they should be hit with punitive damages—maybe even 100 times the original claim. Business ethics in the American insurance industry are basically non-existent; most of these companies are just predatory.
But what would actually happen then? Say you have a $200 claim, and the insurer just refuses to ever pay you because, I guess, it's financially smarter for them to just lose a customer than to actually cover the damage. 😁 (And if 25 out of 30 major providers follow that same playbook, you can't even rely on bad publicity working, since people won't exactly go out and pay 50% more for premiums just to find a "good" company.)
I suspect that idea of forcing increased payouts wouldn't even get passed, mostly because companies would suddenly start being incredibly careful about how they handle claims and what they say when they deny them. Or rather, whether their statements align with the law, because then you could still end up...🙂
William Cox73 said:We need independent assessments!
That sounds good in theory, but it's a double-edged sword, I suppose, because adjusters have their own agendas and try to cut deals. So, the actual damage doesn't even matter as much as the adjuster's specific assessment, which is driven by their own subjective interests. Of course, most of them don't really care, so they might overvalue small claims, but for big ones, they stay realistic—though I've heard stories from larger clients about adjusters openly asking for bribes in exchange for a favorable report.
Does a taxi driver downplay an accident just to dodge liability, or maybe they're just trying to cover their own tracks? I mean, why on earth would anyone think nobody would sue if there was actual damage from $667? Honestly, you should probably just go see a lawyer, because that $2,000 settlement will likely jump up to $5,000 or even more once you start accounting for all those little details that most people wouldn't even think to claim from 😁
So, I went ahead and installed uBlock based on a recommendation from one of the ladies on here. It's basically an AdBlock setup that manages to kill both the ads and the music too 😁
I feel like I heard that whole story about working for a single dollar as soon as the immigrant wave first started hitting. The author is basically asking if Americans would be willing to head north and work for maybe a buck or two plus food. Honestly, they wouldn't, mostly because people aren't even accepting those kinds of low wages here; instead, they just quit their jobs making $30k or $40k a year and head up north—though, I guess, that’s actually what happens in quite a few cases. As for the folks who actually do work for minimum wage, in many instances, they have some kind of side hustle going, or at the very least, they've managed to slash their living costs, like growing their own produce in a garden or having their housing situation already sorted out.
When it comes to dealing with ads, I guess using AdBlock really does help out. It’s just that lately, these things feel more like some weird song playing, or sometimes they're just like a recorded conversation drifting in from the background 😕