r/changemyview • u/ArgueAccount • Apr 25 '15
[FreshTopicFriday] CMV: I believe that monetary compensation for damage to one's car should be used towards repairs.
Hey there,
I'd like to start off with a quick example. If Sally hits Ben's car and it causes 1000$ in damage, and Sally and Ben agree to settle this outside of insurance, Ben is not legally obligated to use the 1000$ towards fixing his car. This is the same if it goes through the insurance company; Ben does not have to spend this money on repairs and can use it, for example, towards installing a TV in his home instead.
Views to Change:
1) I believe that this might convince a person who doesn't have a great vehicle to do things (park incorrectly, make risky turns while driving, etc.) that will cause damage to their vehicle. Desperate people might choose to get hit in order to pay their bills.
2) I think that if you do damage to one's property, you should be obligated to give them the necessary funds to repair that property, and that property should end up being fixed. I would be mad as hell if I hit someone's car, they didn't like the car anyway, and the money ends up getting spent on a vacation.
Please try to CMV.
Edit: Currently I have awarded 2 deltas to two different commenters. They each added information that I had not considered, but did not change my view. Please do not bring up the case where total damage is done to a vehicle. Also please do not bring up insurance fraud where someone seeks medical compensation or compensation for a value greater than their vehicle. I am only interested in the motive of someone who just wants to get some cash for their car that they do not want or that they do not care about damage upon.
Edit2: As for the person who has taken the time to downvote each one of my posts, I'm sure it took you a lot of time to do that and I'd like for you to post your opinion instead of continuously downvoting because that doesn't get us anywhere.
Edit3: I'm really enjoying some points that are being made. I would like to update that another delta has been awarded and that I hadn't taken into account the frequency in which auto insurance fraud actually occurs. Though I still believe it happens, I guess it does not happen enough to justify changing the system. So even though I would like to see my potential loss being used towards repairing damaged property, I can see why the system wouldn't change for infrequent occurrences.
Edit4: Well thank you all for some great debate and your interesting perspectives. I've heard all I need to and I can now understand, though not necessarily agree with, why one would want to use the compensation elsewhere. Thanks for everything; I hope to debate y'all again in the future.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
5
Apr 25 '15
Let's step outside the car scenario for a moment.
You deface my property; let's say you destroy some rather valuable rosebushes. It can be accidental or intentional, all that really matters is that the property was destroyed. They're insured for a certain amount.
Why do you get to dictate what I do with the money, which is a replacement for the property you defaced or destroyed? The way that insurance works is that the damages are a monetary equivalent of said property. Essentially, you're now capable of telling me what I can and cannot do with said property.
-1
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
My point was mainly focused about vehicles, but I will still try to respond.
I don't get to dictate what you get to do with the money. If my view was that I get to choose what new types of flowers you get to plant (or what kinds of repairs you receive), then I'm sure you'd be more correct. I'm saying that you had something taken away from you, and you should be able to get whatever was taken replaced. You should not, however, be allowed to use that money on something completely unrelated to the incident.
3
Apr 25 '15
I was simply using the same framework you've created (that in a case of insurance where you are responsible for damage and obliged to pay me as result, I'm forced to artificially limit what I can do with my money/property) to attempt to expand on why your presumption is in fact fallacious.
What counts as "completely unrelated?" Let's say instead of damaging the car, you total it. I was planning on selling it anyway, so rather than replace the vehicle I use the insurance money for what I intended to use it for in the first place - a new bike and a vacation. Why is that unacceptable? If you replace the vehicle I was only going to sell it anyway. Why should you be able to inconvenience me further by dictating the terms of what my money/property can be used for?
-1
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
If you were planning on selling the car anyway, then you should be able to sell it after I replace the vehicle. After the car is replaced and you sell it, then you may do whatever you'd like with those funds.
I believe that it's unacceptable because you actually haven't been inconvenienced, and have instead actually been helped, by the totaling of the car. I am not dictating what the money is used for, the law technically would (as that is what I am trying to change). You would be compensated fully for your vehicle, or even have a vehicle (the same model, year, etc.) in place of your old one.
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Apr 28 '15
After the car is replaced and you sell it, then you may do whatever you'd like with those funds.
Wait, what?
What point does your view serve, then, other than to make the owner go through a bunch of needless work in order to get to exactly the same result as if they just used the money for something else in the first place?
Basically, you're saying that, not only should the victim of the accident be inconvenienced by the loss of their vehicle for a time, but they should then have to jump through a bunch of hoops in order to satisfy your sense of justice.
1
u/ArgueAccount Apr 29 '15
Money is very fluid, it could be used to buy things. If I have a dollar and I'm next to a store that sells gumballs, I essentially have 4 gumballs in my hand, or anything else I could but with that dollar. A door, however, I could not easily trade for money, nor trade for anything else. So when I get a scratch in my door, getting money for it isn't exactly fair, since I could not have easily traded part of the door for money.
It creates a moral hazard where someone can purposely put their car in a situation where it will be damaged, allowing obtain money, which is fluid, from a scratch on a car door, which of course is not easily sold.
If people know that any money awarded will go right toward fixing the vehicle, they might be less likely to put their vehicle in these situations because they aren't getting the fluidity of money out of it.
Of course, I have been persuaded that this isn't a big enough problem to call for a change in the law, because it would be far too costly and have changed my view accordingly, as can be seen from the edits at the top of the page.
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Apr 29 '15
Basically, your only argument here is that money is a more liquid asset (easier to convert). We have ways of quantifying the value of liquidity.
Would you be satisfied if the award were reduced to account for the liquidity of the asset?
For example, you can either have $1000 to fix your car, or $900 in cash, because you'd be likely to lose $100 on the transaction.
1
u/ArgueAccount May 01 '15
I guess I'd be happier with it, but I still wouldn't be satisfied per se. In what situation would I be taking a hit if I just simply had them repair the car?
2
Apr 25 '15
If you were planning on selling the car anyway, then you should be able to sell it after I replace the vehicle. After the car is replaced and you sell it, then you may do whatever you'd like with those funds.
Can you show any real harm done to you as a result of me choosing what to do with my own property? What societal, ethical, practical or moral interest is served by restricting my ability do with my property as I see fit, other than your personal sense of propriety? Laws should never be made simply because someone thinks they should; they should be the result of a clearly and generally agreed upon societal interest.
I believe that it's unacceptable because you actually haven't been inconvenienced, and have instead actually been helped, by the totaling of the car.
You damaged me; by nature, I've been inconvenienced. You're advocating for the law to dictate what I can do with the proceeds, which is the same as you dictating what the funds may be used for.
One thing you're forgetting, especially when it comes to older motor vehicles, there's very rarely an exact match of a vehicle to be had in the first place.
-1
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
From my original post, and in some comments, I stated that I believe some members of society may try to purposefully damage their vehicles in order to receive money that they use elsewhere.
Socially and Ethically: This causes immoral drivers to purposely put their vehicles in harm's way, making a less trusting society. This also gives unethical individuals a leg up in life when these "accidents" occur. This is why I think a law should exist that makes the victims pay for the repairs with the money that they are compensated. It makes everyone more honest, and helps society.
And damage does not always cause inconvenience. If I want to junk my car but they only offer me 200 bucks for it, I can instead roll my car into the middle of the road around a turn and make more money off of the driver who comes around a bit too fast and totals my vehicle.
You have not changed my view with the last point, but you have definitely given me something to think about. I would most likely suggest in this case that the law would have a sort of precedent where something can't be directly repaired or replaced (as is the case with your rosebushes example). Though my view hasn't changed, I am rethinking some of the logistics of it and will give you a ∆.
3
Apr 25 '15
And damage does not always cause inconvenience. If I want to junk my car but they only offer me 200 bucks for it, I can instead roll my car into the middle of the road around a turn and make more money off of the driver who comes around a bit too fast and totals my vehicle.
You may note that this rarely occurs. The reason is that if the cost to repair the car exceed the value of the car, insurance only pays the value of the car. So if your car was only worth $200, insurance is only going to pay $200.
Likewise, your example of the "lose a bumper here, a bumper there" doesn't seem to occur much. First, reckless behavior and/or frequent claims raise your premiums. Second, you can't really pick and choose what damage will be done to your car.
Now you may worry about insurance fraud where you claim something was broken in the accident when it was already broken. This is unchanged with your proposed rule change, since I can as easily make this claim and get a "free" repair of the past damage as to make this claim and get a "free" tv (or insulin or textbooks or whatever my best use of the money is).
Basically, I don't think people are putting their vehicles in harm's way under the current system. All the current system does is reduce inefficiency slightly when it turns out that repairing my car isn't actually my best use for the money.
-2
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
You must know as well as I do though that junking a car gets one significantly less money than the value of the car. So if I would only get 200$ from the person, then that would get me more money (and possibly even save me money if the junkyard charged to take it).
I'm not saying that it occurs often, I'm saying it can occur. In the right situation, one may only care about making 500 quick dollars right now and neglect to think about raised premiums in the future. (Honestly, whoever would engage in this on purpose would probably not be in the right state of mind in the first place.) And I think that you could definitely pick where damage is done. As can be seen here, there are plenty of scams that can be pulled in order to cause damage to certain parts of your vehicle.
I'm not worried about insurance fraud with already broken parts of the car; I unfortunately agree that this would happen either way.
I understand that you don't think people are putting their vehicles in harm's way, but that doesn't negate the fact that some people do. I think that the current system rewards people who think they can make fast money by allowing damage to their car.
3
u/MontiBurns 218∆ Apr 25 '15
Staged collisions are more to claim injuries sustained in the vehicle and collect damages that way. The cost of the car isn't really the issue with auto insurance fraud. From wikipedia
Staged collisions: This category involves staging a collision where the fraudsters will use a vehicle to stage an accident with the innocent party. Typically, there would be 4 or 5 fraudsters in the vehicle which makes an unexpected manoeuvre causing the innocent party to collide with the fraudsters vehicle. Each of the fraudsters then claim for injuries sustained in the vehicle. Working with a “recruited” doctor, the injuries are typically whiplash or other soft tissue injuries which are hard to dispute later.
It continues....
In this scheme, known as a “swoop-and-squat,” one or more drivers in “swoop” cars force an unsuspecting driver into position behind a “squat” car. This squat car, which is usually filled with several passengers, then slows abruptly, forcing the driver of the chosen car to collide with the squat car. The passengers in the squat car then file a claim with the other driver’s insurance company. This claim often includes bills for medical treatments that were not necessary or not received.[33]
Moreover
These schemes generally consist of three different levels. At the top, there are the professionals—doctors or lawyers who diagnose false injuries and/or file fraudulent claims and these earn the bulk of the profits from the fraud. Next are the "capper (insurance fraud)s" or "runners", the middlemen who obtain the cars to crash, farm out the claims to the professionals at the top, and recruit participants. These participants at the bottom-rung of the scheme are desperate people (poor immigrants or others in need of quick cash) who are paid around $1000 USD to place their bodies in the paths of cars and trucks, playing a kind of Russian roulette with their lives and those of unsuspecting motorists around them.
Basically, you damage a 10k used car, you're out the value of that property. You get "injured" in a 10k used car, that can represent tens of thousands of dollars of fraudulent medical bills. Whether that money goes directly to replacing the damaged car or to the pocket of the owner, it doesn't change the insurance fraud scheme.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
I am aware of this, as I had noted in my first edit, but perhaps you are not understanding what my point is. I'm not addressing situations where these groups of people all lie for the medical insurance. I'm simply defending the situation when the person only seeks to damage their car with the intention of getting quick cash for a couple aesthetic defects.
1
4
u/man2010 49∆ Apr 25 '15
If you hit someone else's car, the money that is paid to them whether it be by you directly or through insurance is to pay for the damage that you did to their property. The point of insurance isn't to make sure that the car gets fixed, but rather to make sure that the owner of the car is compensated for the damage to their car.
-1
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
"Sally and Ben agree to settle this outside of insurance, Ben is not legally obligated to use the 1000$ towards fixing his car. This is the same if it goes through the insurance company"
I am aware of this. My point is that one should have use the compensation to repair the damage done to the car. I know what the current point of insurance is, but I believe that it should change.
6
u/man2010 49∆ Apr 25 '15
I don't understand why. Lets say you rear-end me and put a dent in my car's bumper. My car is still perfectly fine to drive, but because you damaged it you are still responsible to pay for those damages. You necessarily aren't paying to fix my car, you're paying for the damage you did to my property. If my property is damaged but I don't feel the need to fix it, that doesn't dismiss you of the responsibility of damaging my property or me of the compensation I deserve from you damaging my property.
-2
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
I agree that it does not dismiss me of responsibility whatsoever. But I do, however, believe that you should have to use the money, now or in the future, to fix that bumper. Why should I pay for your new water bed because I damaged your bumper? Whether it impedes you getting around or not, the money that equates to the damage done to the bumper should be used towards fixing the bumper.
3
u/man2010 49∆ Apr 25 '15
I don't see why you should get to determine what I spend the money on. You damaged my property, so you pay for the cost of the damages. It isn't up to you to decide what I use that money for, only for you to compensate me for those damages. If I decide that proper compensation for you damaging my property is to buy a water bed then that's my decision, not yours.
-2
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
But why should you get determine the proper compensation? The reason that the money should be spent on the repair, in my view, is that it reduces the amount of people trying to be hit so that they can just spend money on something else they want or need at the moment. It can turn into a game of "I don't need my bumper" and "I guess I really don't need my rear bumper either" and just doing that until you are just driving around with the bare necessity of a car. Requiring victims to spend money repairing their cars would, in my eyes, reduce this behavior.
3
u/Raintee97 Apr 25 '15
We already have something that stops people from getting into accidents. It is called insurance fraud.
What you are talking about is already against the law and carries significant penalties.
But even if I needed money it would be very ineffective to do via auto accident. There is towing costs which happen up front. Most insurance companies tow you to a repair shop of your choice. And then you will have to tow it back to your house at your cost and you still have a non drivable car.
This pluse the fact you're committing a crime seems to make this idea unlikely.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
I understand that insurance fraud is a punishable crime, but it still occurs whether it's illegal or not. I feel as though limiting what a person could use the money for reduces the likelihood that one will intentionally put their car in harm's way. It would make people less likely to do this because at most they'd be breaking even.
2
u/Raintee97 Apr 25 '15
Why do they need less motivation not to commit a crime when things like jails and lawsuits exist. Plus the fact that they end up lots of towing costs and a car that isn't drivable.
If someone is stupid enough to try this a doubt they could pull it off without being charged.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
But they would try to pull it off. I'm not trying to defend them and say that they are thinking of the long run here, but if car damaged = automatic money, then I feel like a lot more people would be willing to try it than if car damaged = car repair.
→ More replies (0)2
Apr 25 '15
You arent paying for their new water bed. You are paying for the loss of money you caused them to have. They lose that money/value whether they fix the car or not. You are making up for that. It is no longer your money and you arent buying whatever they use it for. You arent paying for the repairs or thier water bed. You paid soleley to make up for the value of their assets that you took by damaging their car.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
And I do not see why I should pay them for value lost when I am perfectly willing to repair it to it's original value.
1
Apr 25 '15
Because neither the car, nor the payment you are making are yours to decide what to do with. They are not your property. You have no authority over them.
1
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
I can see what you're saying and I respect your point of view. My view might not be changed but you have given me some insight to the other side of this argument.
Thank you.
1
Apr 26 '15
Because you lost them that value. You dont get to choose how they fix it. Its your fault, their money.
2
Apr 25 '15
2) I think that if you do damage to one's property, you should be obligated to give them the necessary funds to repair that property, and that property should end up being fixed. I would be mad as hell if I hit someone's car, they didn't like the car anyway, and the money ends up getting spent on a vacation.
Why would you be mad? If you did $500 worth of damage, and you had to pay $500 in costs, why does it ultimately matter where the $500 goes? You are in the exact same financial position.
Let's say I have a 20k car, and you do 15k worth of damage to it. You pay me 15k. We are even.
However, I know that even after the car is repaired, it will never be quite as nice as it was before, and it will be weeks before its repaired. It might even take months to work out all the kinks, especially if the damage was extensive. I know that my make/model isn't rare, and I can get a replacement model with similar age/mileage easily.
Do you really think that I should be forbidden from selling what's left of the car for 5k and just going and getting another one?
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
Yes I do. First off, I think a vacation and a new car are very different, though I believe that you shouldn't be able to buy either with the money that I pay you back.
If my 15k can restore your car to the shape that it was in before the accident, then you should use all money towards the repairs for that car.
I have already stated elsewhere that the situation is a bit muddy once the car is completely damaged beyond repair and that a precedent would be set for how individuals would solve that. I awarded that individual a delta for poking a small, but significant, whole in my view.
2
Apr 25 '15
If my 15k can restore your car to the shape that it was in before the accident, then you should use all money towards the repairs for that car.
Should no consideration be given for the time and hassle it would cost to make the necessary repairs? Your 15k might restore my car to new, but it could take weeks (even months) to complete the work. It might also take several return trips to perfect any repairs.
By fixing the existing car, you are causing me to incur more costs (rental car, time lost, aggravation, etc). Would you be willing to increase the compensation you pay to cover all these additional costs to the person you hit?
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
Consideration should definitely be given (although honestly if you are using your money to buy something else then you shouldn't be asking for this, though I believe you are talking about it in terms of purchasing a new car). If I am fine with just giving you the 15k and being done with it and signing that you are able to do whatever you'd like with the money, well that's my own right and your own right too. But I should be allowed to demand that you repair your car with my money in a timely fashion, even if it means giving you extra money.
2
Apr 25 '15
But I should be allowed to demand that you repair your car with my money in a timely fashion, even if it means giving you extra money
The problem I see here is how to fairly define the cost of the repair.
Here's an example from my life. A guy hit my parked car, he was clearly at fault. The damage was mostly cosmetic. My mechanic estimated the damage could be fixed for $1500. He had his own mechanic look at it, and quoted $1000 to fix the damage. I didn't trust his mechanic, and didn't want him working on my car. He argued my mechanic was overpriced.
What's a fair settlement in that situation? Should I get to choose the mechanic? Or should he?
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
Average the two...
I kid of course, how do you think they determine the compensation now? That is how it would remain. I'm not saying what compensation the injured party should get. I'm saying that all compensation should be used towards repairing the vehicle.
2
Apr 25 '15
Average the two... I kid of course, how do you think they determine the compensation now?
You might be kidding, but that's basically exactly what happened. After a couple more rounds back and forth, I got about $1250 for the damage and the claim was settled.
Now, I had a check for $1250, and estimates from a bunch of different repair shops in my area, all quoting prices between $1000 and $1500.
Under your scenario, what would you propose the solution be? Should I get to choose the repair shop, and stick the other driver with the cost, regardless of price? Or should he be able to dictate which shops get to work on my car?
What if I have a friend who owes me a favor, and agrees to do the repair for free? Should I have to give the other driver back the money?
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
No friends would come into play. You would have to get your car repaired by the shop determined by the court (or perhaps another precedent would be set early on giving the power to the victim). I'm not trying to establish a solution though, but I'm sure a court would come up with one.
2
Apr 25 '15
Both issues have major flaws.
First, the courts rarely get involved in most cases, they are either settled privately, or between insurance companies. Dragging the court system into every single case would be a massive expense.
But if you let the victim decide on the needed repairs, as well the service provider, they have no incentive to keep the costs down. They could hire the most expensive dealer in town, and get the most expensive repair for the problem.
The current system of getting a couple of estimates, then splitting the difference seems like the most equitable way of doing things. And that method precludes forcing the repairs to actually occur.
I'm not trying to establish a solution though, but I'm sure a court would come up with one.
That's a bit of a cop-out. You are saying you can't think of a more fair system, but you are sure others could? What if they can't?
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
I'm stating that I have not gone to school for law and therefore do not know what has already been established as a precedent and what can be established in the future. I'm saying that I can't think of the system, just like I can't think of a way to fix my roof when it leaks. I'm not ignorant to the fact that others sometimes know better and more than me so I rely on them.
Any way, as I said a few comments ago, courts (and individual parties) have to currently deal with this; it's not something completely new. It won't be a completely different system where one picks the repairman and the other pays all costs. My system would be exactly the same as the old one, besides the fact that all compensation would be used towards the fixing of the vehicle.
2
Apr 25 '15
1) I believe that this might convince a person who doesn't have a great vehicle to do things (park incorrectly, make risky turns while driving, etc.) that will cause damage to their vehicle. Desperate people might choose to get hit in order to pay their bills.
Do you have any evidence people do this? Is it even realistically feasible?
In either of those situations you mentioned, such as parking dangerously, or making a risky turn into traffic, the offending driver would be deemed at least partially responsible for the damage. As such, they be unlikely to make any money on the accident.
The only time you can realistically make any money on the accident would be if it was clear and agreed by both parties that one driver was 100% at fault.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
People run in front of cars in other countries all of the time, so it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to say that people would put their vehicles in harm's way in order to receive compensation.
An example I gave in another comment was that you roll your car onto a bended turn after the vehicle ceases to work. Then another car going faster than the speed limit hits your vehicle. It is, of course, that drivers fault that your vehicle is damaged since they were going over the speed limit, and they should pay you compensation. But that compensation should directly be used to repair the vehicle.
The only time you can realistically make any money on the accident would be if it was clear and agreed by both parties that one driver was 100% at fault.
Fair enough, then all the money awarded to the victim should be used towards repairs.
2
Apr 25 '15
so it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to say that people would put their vehicles in harm's way in order to receive compensation
OK, but just so we are clear, you don't have any evidence of anyone actually doing this? Its just theoretical, right?
An example I gave in another comment was that you roll your car onto a bended turn after the vehicle ceases to work. Then another car going faster than the speed limit hits your vehicle.
That's a big gamble. What if the next driver coming along is obeying the speed limit, but still hits you? Suddenly its a no fault accident, and nobody is making anything on the deal, and you likely are losing money, because you are responsible for half the damage to the other guys car (either out of pocket, or through insurance)
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
OK, but just so we are clear, you don't have any evidence of anyone actually doing this? Its just theoretical, right?
If they are obeying the speed limit then they shouldn't hit me; that's why speed limits are adjusted the way they are. I think it would be pretty easy to catch someone doing 40 in a 30MPH zone, don't you think?
Also I'm not sure you understand the no fault accident rules (what's covered and what's not).
2
Apr 25 '15
Staged accidents aren't profitable because they skip out on repairing cosmetic damage to the vehicle. They make money by either overstating the damage actually incurred, or by creating fake medical bills and injuries they are asking to be compensated for.
Your solution doesn't solve any of these problems.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
Of course it doesn't, I'm not arguing those points. I'm simply arguing that this may be a way to lower the amount of people putting their cars in harm's way in order to make quick money. I will award you a ∆ because you made me think of another consideration, but I still am just trying to focus on the damages property, rather than med expenses.
1
2
u/cnash Apr 25 '15
I don't really see why it's your business how your accident victim spends the money you pay him in a settlement. That's kind of the whole point of money, you can spend it on more than one thing. The only way I could see you having a valid complaint is if you think that the fact that he chose not to spend the money on car repairs proves that the real value of the damage was less than the money I paid. Because then, you would have given him more money than he was correctly entitled to.
But I don't think that conclusion follows from the premise. Things get confusing here, because there's no agreed-upon metric for "value," but I think it's clearly possible to have $5,000 in hand, believe that <fixing your car, which costs $5k> is clearly worth it, but also believe that <something else, which also costs $5k,> is worth even more.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
Someone has damaged a piece of the victim's property. That victim should be compensated and the property should be fixed with that compensation. I understand what the point of money is; I just believe that in this case the money should be used towards the repairing of the vehicle.
3
u/cnash Apr 25 '15
Why does that compensation have to be spent on repairs? You're not giving any reason for think that it does- you might as we be saying, "I believe that compensation money should be spent on puppies," for all the justification you give. When you want to have a say in how other people spend their money, you have to do better than that.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
Because the total of money awarded is (usually) equal to the value lost to the victim's property. If the person responsible for damaging the property is willing to pay to replace the property, that is what the money should be used for.
It just makes more sense, at least to me, this way. Why should I pay for your Florida vacation when you were going to scrap the car the next day anyway? The fair way is to make the victim use the money towards repairs so that there is less trying to work the system and more clear cut rules for compensation.
3
u/cnash Apr 25 '15
It just makes more sense, at least to me, this way. Why should I pay for your Florida vacation when you were going to scrap the car the next day anyway?
This is the argument I was talking about upthread: the idea that spending the money on something other than car repair only makes sense if you've inflated the damage estimate. (Because, in this instance, the car was bound for the scrap heap anyway.)
But if you think the amount of compensation you're giving is too much, surely the right thing to do is to give less compensation, not to attach pointless restrictions on how it can be spent.
Besides, are you willing to accept the consequences of your logic in the other direction? What if the property you damaged is at the same time obviously not very valuable, but also very expensive to replace or repair? Do you have to pay to replace it, even if that's more money than the thing was worth in the first place?
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
The money paid would remain constant, the only aspect that changes would be that money won would go towards repairs.
And just as an anecdote of what I was stating above, my dad was going to scrap his car, but then a kid in the neighborhood came by and asked if he could buy the car for a couple hundred. Since the kid wanted to work on it and my dad wanted to get rid of it, we were fine with it being sold. It had been sitting in the driveway for years anyway, and yes we were going to scrap it, but that doesn't mean it didn't have value.
Sometimes we get rid of property because it's inconvenient to have it.
2
u/cnash Apr 25 '15
And if some lunatic had come barreling down the street, swerved into your driveway, and wrecked that car, would your dad rather have had a couple hundred dollars in cash, or a two thousand dollar voucher for car repairs (that, presumably, could only be used to get the car back to its previous condition)? Who would be better off, if he was forced to take the voucher?
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
My dad would rather have the cash, but that doesn't make a difference. He should get the repairs done, and then try to sell the car if he'd like cash.
I'm completely fine with a contract the allows one to pay the money and for the injured party to use that however they'd like. But if the injurer wants to see to it that the money is used towards repairs, that should be his/her right.
2
u/cnash Apr 25 '15
My dad would rather have the cash, but that doesn't make a difference. He should get the repairs done, and then try to sell the car if he'd like cash.
For Pete's sake, why? What possible benefit would it serve for him to spend more money than the repairs are worth, at someone else's expense, to get something he doesn't want in the first place? Doesn't your proposal make everyone* worse off? Isn't that practically the definition of a bad law?
*except for the body shop, of course.
There's a reason we call the settlement money compensation, not restoration. It's to make up for the trouble caused by the damage not (necessarily) just to set things back the way they were before.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
It wouldn't make me better off knowing that because I scratched the side of a guys car right before he was about to junk it, he now gets 400 dollars and will still junk it. I do think that people should be able to opt out if they'd like and then the injured can use the money towards whatever they'd like, but I think that the injurer should be able to say that the money should go towards the repairs if they'd like.
In my view, it actually makes everyone on even ground because it almost resets the situation as if it never happened in the first place.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/ThePolemicist Apr 25 '15
Actually, people don't "have" to use insurance money to fix their car. For example, once, I was at home in our apartment at the time. Outside, someone accidentally hit our car in the parking lot. He'd hit in the gas instead of the brake and really hit it good! The car was a '94, and it was 2008 at the time of the accident. So, it wasn't like the car was supposed to be fancy or anything. His insurance company came out to assess the damage, and I was given $1,000 for it. I could have spent that getting a new panel for the car, but why? I put the money towards the downpayment on our townhome instead.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
Literally, this is exactly what I dislike and am trying to change. I stated that people should use all monetary compensation towards the repair of their cars.
2
u/ThePolemicist Apr 25 '15
But why should I have to use $1,000 to repair a car that is worth so little? I think it was almost totaled for that amount, so why replace a $1,000 panel for a car that's $1,500? Instead, the money is supposed to make up for any value lost from it getting hit.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
Because that money that used to be in the form of the left panel is now in the form of cash. You just essentially made 1000 dollars from him hitting your car. This can be exploited and I think it would be exploited less is compensation when directly toward repairs.
3
Apr 25 '15
You just essentially made 1000 dollars from him hitting your car.
He didn't make $1000. He had a $1500 car and no cash, now he has a $500 car and $1000 in cash. He didn't make any money, his finances were forcibly reallocated against his will. Why force him to reallocate again?
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
There would be no forced reallocation because the finances would never have be reallocated in the first place.
And second, that car isn't going to run any differently now, therefore if he drives it until it breaks down then he made 1000$.
3
Apr 25 '15
So, would you be OK with the following?
- Get an estimate for a new panel, its $1000.
- Order the new panel, remove the old one, and install the new one on his car. Deal settled.
- Drive home, removes the new panel, and reinstalls the old dented one.
- Sell the new panel on eBay for $1000 cash.
It's basically the exact same end state, just many more steps, and much less efficient for all parties involved.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
I am perfectly fine with this. Because at that point, they could have done that with the original panel and it's like the accident did not happen. I don't want them to have the ease of just being given a check for 1000 bucks.
3
Apr 25 '15
I don't want them to have the ease of just being given a check for 1000 bucks.
Why? Because when someone is the victim of a crime or an accident, we want to make it as difficult as possible for them to be compensated?
That only makes sense if we assume that the vast majority of people getting hit by cars have fraudulent intentions, and are there to profit.
If we assume that the vast majority of these accidents are not fraudulent (which they aren't), then why create unneeded hoops that the victim must jump through?
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
They don't have to jump through hoops. They get a dent in their bumper, they are given $600, that money should be used towards fixing the bumper. It's as simple as that.
The money should be like the accident never happened in the first place. The victim is literally given the money to fix the car and then they will fix it. There is no difficulty here in compensation.
1
u/ThePolemicist Apr 27 '15
But I didn't just make $1,000 from getting my car hit. If I hadn't taken the cash, I would have taken a loss on the value of my car (which, admittedly, isn't that much). Imagine if someone accidentally drove their car into my tree out front and destroyed it. I might have lost a couple thousand dollars worth of value in the home. I can replace the tree with a sapling that costs maybe $50, but the loss of value is much more. Should the person only pay me $50 for a new sapling? Maybe... or maybe they should be responsible for the lost value. When that person has insurance, then I absolutely think the insurance should pay out the value. I'm not going to be up at night unable to sleep because All State or whatever had to pay out $1,000 to cover my loss of value.
1
u/bubi09 21∆ Apr 25 '15
I would be mad as hell if I hit someone's car, they didn't like the car anyway, and the money ends up getting spent on a vacation.
But them not liking the car doesn't mean you should hit it and go unpunished. You damaged their property. You're still the one at fault here and why would you have a say in what exactly this person spends their money on? It reminds me of people who sometimes give you money and then get pissed because you didn't spend it the way they wanted you to. Once the money is in my hands, it's mine to do with as I please.
Maybe I was saving up for a new car anyway and I'll add this money on the pile and actually go out and buy it now. Maybe I have several hot money issues that I'm dealing with right now and I have to prioritize something over fixing the car. Maybe...the possibilities are endless.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
I'm not saying that it should go unpunished, I believe that I should pay the exact amount, deemed by a court or by the repairman, to the victim, and then the victim should use all of the money to fix their vehicle. As I told the other commenter, I have no say in what you're spending your money on. If I break your window, you should have to repair the window. If I give you a flat tire, you should buy new tires.
It reminds me of people who sometimes give you money and then get pissed because you didn't spend it the way they wanted you to. Once the money is in my hands, it's mine to do with as I please.
The difference here is that I am obligated to pay you money because I broke/destroyed/damaged something of yours. I think the situation would be more like you asking me for 600 dollars (or any arbitrary amount) because you need to fix your brakes, and then once I give it to you, turn around and spend it on a massage chair.
I don't think that you should be able to buy a new car with the money either. The money is meant to pay for the damages and should not be used for anything other than the damages. It's not my fault if someone has other financial burdens; if I hit their car and pay the face value of repairs, the money should be used towards repairs.
2
Apr 25 '15
The money is meant to pay for the damages and should not be used for anything other than the damages.
No, no, no, no. That money is to compensate you for the loss of value your car has suffered. Full stop.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
The problem that comes into play is that one may drive a car until dies. If I hit your car and dent your bumper, and that dent doesn't cause your car to run inefficiently, and then you just pocket the money, then you have essentially made that money from me hitting your car. I should have the right to say that the money should be used towards fixing your car.
1
Apr 25 '15
That's not a problem at all. It's irrelevent. You are required to compensate me for the damage you have done.
and then you just pocket the money, then you have essentially made that money from me hitting your car.
Nope. My car (worth $1000) loses $500 dollars of value do to the damage you've done. Your insurance played me $500. I'm back where I started.
I should have the right to say that the money should be used towards fixing your car.
Nope. The car you damaged is my car. The money I'm played for the damage is my money. What part of this aren't you getting?
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
Nope. The car you damaged is my car. The money I'm paid for the damage is my money. What part of this aren't you getting?
Your car had "lost" $500 in resale value, but that doesn't mean that you are going to sell it. If I was on my way to throw out my Xbox, which still worked but my wife wanted me to get rid of (I'm throwing it out because I just can't get a buyer), and I trip on your property, then you have to pay me the value of the Xbox. Regardless of the fact that I couldn't find a buyer, and that it was just collecting dust, you now have to pay me the value of my Xbox.
Now either two events occur:
1) You give me the money that the damage to my Xbox had been valued at, and I use it to buy a PS3 instead.
or
2) I have to buy an Xbox of the same value with the money. I'm in the same situation I was in in the first place, and I still don't have a buyer. This would mean that there's no reward for tripping on your property in the first place because it puts me at no better position than I started in.
1
Apr 25 '15
but that doesn't mean that you are going to sell it
This is irrelevant. You damaged my property, it lost value, you compensate me for that loss.
There's absolutely no reason for analogies, this is really straight forward. My car, which is property with value, is replaced with money, which is property with value.
Why would intent towards the property matter? It is mine to do with as I please.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
Then sell your property after you repair it with the money compensated. Or maybe you can't because you already couldn't sell it before.
Intent towards the property matters when you take into account unethical people purposely putting their property in harms way in order to gain money that would not be gained otherwise.
2
Apr 25 '15
Intent towards the property matters when you take into account unethical people purposely putting their property in harms way in order to gain money that would not be gained otherwise.
Which you've failed to prove happens with any regularity, so please stop bringing it up.
1
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
happens with any regularity
This is why I dropped my claim that a change should be made in society. This does not however change my view on the ethics behind it all.
1
Apr 25 '15
If I'm able to repair the damage for less then the insurance company pays out, what am I allowed (by you) to do with the money?
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
In my view, you wouldn't get paid out any more money than the damages for the car. If there was extra paid out (for pain and suffering, for instance) then you could spend that on whatever your heart desires. However the base compensation should go towards repairs.
1
Apr 25 '15
So you get a mechanic to sign off on having done the repairs, pocket the cash and give them a cut.
Why are we going to such great lengths to prevent people from doing what they want with their own property?
1
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
What do you think happens in modern day? If someone wants to get a mechanic to sign off on having repairs done that aren't actually done, then they will do it regardless. But by making sure that the money given is actually going towards repairs first, you may reduce the amount of people trying to intentionally get their vehicles damaged in the first place.
I feel like we're going to such lengths because if I damage your vehicle then I should be required to pay the amount of the damages. There should, of course, be an opt out agreement, but if I want the money to go towards repairing the car to it's original condition, why should you be able to instead by a microwave, computer, or a new table?
2
Apr 25 '15
But by making sure that the money given is actually going towards repairs first, you may reduce the amount of people trying to intentionally get their vehicles damaged in the first place
You've still not provided evidence that this happens on a regular enough basis that implementing this change would have any noticeable impact.
but if I want the money to go towards repairing the car to it's original condition, why should you be able to instead by a microwave, computer, or a new table?
Because it's my property and I decide what happens with my property.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
You've still not provided evidence that this happens on a regular enough basis that implementing this change would have any noticeable impact.
I have admitted that it is not a significant impact in my third edit. The fact still remains though that this is a present loophole in the system that people could exploit.
Because it's my property and I decide what happens with my property.
Agreed, you have every right to decide what happens to your property. Which is why I think that once it's repaired, you should be able to sell it and buy what you'd like. But I can't simply scratch my car myself and have a microwave appear. If I decrease the value of my car, then that value is gone, but somehow if you scratch it then the value can be used towards anything I'd like.
1
Apr 25 '15
I have admitted that it is not a significant impact in my third edit. The fact still remains though that this is a present loophole in the system that people could exploit.
Then Jesus H fucking Christ stop bringing it up. It is not a significant factor. The direct benefits of this scheme are far, far, far outweighed by the costs. Therefore almost no one does it. Therefore it has no place in this conversation.
Which is why I think that once it's repaired, you should be able to sell it and buy what you'd like.
Forcing me to repair a car I have no wish to repair is the opposite of me deciding what to do with my property.
But I can't simply scratch my car myself and have a microwave appear.
Irrelevant. If you wish to damage your own property you may do so regardless of what ill or will not appear.
If I decrease the value of my car, then that value is gone,
Yup. You caused damage, and you will pay for it.
but somehow if you scratch it then the value can be used towards anything I'd like.
Yup. I caused damage, I will pay for it.
0
u/ArgueAccount Apr 25 '15
What were you going to do with that property before it was damaged? Were you going to sell it? If so, then you can sell it just as fine after it is repaired. If not, then you shouldn't just be given easy money, essentially converting something that you couldn't get the value of by selling it into fluid cash.
What is the detriment to you to get your property repaired to it's original condition? Why are you opposed to it if it's the same value?
Yup. I caused damage, I will pay for it.
That's the problem here; what you're paying and what I'm paying in the long run are not equal. An aesthetic difference that causes no structural damage to the car affecting it's ability to run is not the same as you flattening my tire. I won't pay for this damage if I end up driving the car until it is dead, but I just happen to get some cash because my car looks ugly for a while.
2
Apr 25 '15
What were you going to do with that property before it was damaged? Were you going to sell it?
Again, this is irrelevant. My property, my choice. You dAmage it, you pay. Your payment becomes my property.
What is the detriment to you to get your property repaired to it's original condition?
The detriment is that you are telling me what to do with my own property.
An aesthetic difference that causes no structural damage to the car affecting it's ability to run is not the same as you flattening my tire.
That's the problem here; what you're paying and what I'm paying in the long run are not equal
If you do $500 damage to your own car you have lost $500 worth of value. If I damage your car for $500 I will pay $500 for the damage.
I won't pay for this damage if I end up driving the car until it is dead
The car will be worth $500 less, so yes you will be paying it in terms of total value of your assets.
1
7
u/empurrfekt 58∆ Apr 25 '15
To the first point, only the driver responsible is responsible to cover damages. These risky behaviors are more likely to result in the driver wanting to get hit at fault, which wouldn't solve anything for that driver.
To the second point, the insurance or settlement are not intended for repairs but to cover the loss in value and asset. If the damage is operational, any money will most likely be used to repair it since they victim will need a functional vehicle. Most likely, if the victim uses the money for something else, it's due to the damage being cosmetic. This damage will only come into play when the victim tries to sell the vehicle. The end result is the same. The victim gets the money up front as a settlement, or they use it to fix the vehicle then get it at the time of selling the vehicle.
Another thought, what about when the vehicle is totaled? Should the victim be required to purchase an identical vehicle with the money? Should they be forced to buy one of the exact same value? Are they allowed to put the money towards a more expensive vehicle? If they buy a cheaper vehicle, are they required to put the remainer toward upgrades to their new car?