:( Not even one week of owning the car!

JARblue

You argument makes absolutely zero sense

He got into an accident that damaged tires on one side. Since new tires are needed on that side, that makes the old tires on the other side of the car unsafe to continue to use. This is a direct result of the accident. Absofuckinlutely the insurance company should cover four new tires. Only a $hitty insurance company would argue otherwise.

__________________

37zeroZ

....

37zeroZ

I'm not buying your argument. The non-replaced tires would be labeled unsafe if they already had unsafe tire tread. That's the owner's responsibility, not the insurance company.

You keep mentioning a "$hitty insurance company," but this rarely has anything to do with the insurance company but who is your agent and/or adjuster. You can have a similar situation, with different a agent and/or adjuster, and have different results. You can have a 5-star rating from one person and have a 1-star rating from a different person for the same insurance company. I know there are better rated companies, but even they have disappointed customers.

In the end, we'll see if he'll get all four tires. I hope he does, but I'm willing to side that he won't.

JARblue

No. You do not understand. If the tires are 5/32" tread when the accident occurs, they are not unsafe (unsafe being <3/32" tread). When new tires being somewhere in the neighborhood of 10/32" tread are paired with tires on the opposite side that have 5/32" tread, an unsafe condition is created due to the difference in tread. Seeing as how the new tires creating the unsafe condition are a direct result of the accident, the insurance company should not be putting a consumer in this predicament (why is this on the consumer? they had four perfectly safe tires prior to the accident). A good insurance company understands this and covers all four tires. I have seen it happen

When I refer to $hitty insurance companies, I'm really referring to the ones like Fred Loya and The General and all those that fight tooth and nail against every single claim regardless of how obvious it is that their client is at fault. Its these jacka$$es that cause the rates of other insurers to rise because they have to commit resources to getting their money. I won't call an insurance company honest, but the reasonable ones actually pay when they should pay.

Decent insurance companies (the big ones like All State, Nationwide, State Farm) still have $hitty adjusters and agents like you say. But you can always request another adjuster. My buddy's uncle had five different adjusters come look at damage on his vintage Mercedes before he finally got what he wanted - an older adjuster that enjoyed classic cars and was sympathetic to his situation. We use the same agent and both think he's a joke.

__________________

37zeroZ

So, did you personally measure the tire thread to support your point.

Looks the insurance company is not paying. You may find it wrong, but I agree they shouldn't. Stop drinking the kool aid in Austin.

JARblue

I might have since we're in the same town. Or I could have just read his earlier post where he actually stated what the treads were. But I was just posting an example anyway. So it really doesn't matter. I'm just arguing the principle.

Are you an insurance agent or adjuster or something? I've actually seen insurance pay out for four tires in a claim exactly like this. In Austin. If you were my adjuster I would have been requesting another

__________________