Complaint Review: Esurance - Los Angeles California

I agree that this photo doesn't help your cause at all.

As I look at the "damage line" across the grill and the LACK of damage to the bumper (this is a crumple bumber-energy absorbing) it looks to me as though someone rear-ended a trailer (as in tractor-trailer rig).  The damage line appears to be at the correct height for the rear trailer guard.  Also, I notice that the driver's side headlamp assembly is gone but the connector and cable are there.  Further, there is no evidence of DEBRIS anywhere in the photo.  Such a "hit and run" while parked should have debris all over the place.  I also note that no mention of any transfered paint is mentioned in the report.  Seems to me that there should be some paint on this wreck if it was indeed hit by another car (which I don't believe.  A trailer yes, car no.)  I would expect such a crash to make a LOT of NOISE and seeing as it's a residential area, someone should have HEARD something and possibly looked out their window.  I know that if such a "hit and run" occured in front of my home, I would have summoned the police immediately in part to help the owner of the vehicle and to remove the wreck and debris from the road (we have children who pay around here.)

It looks to me as;

1.  The vehicle WAS NOT damaged where it is parked in the photo.  The car has been MOVED since the accident.

2.  The damage shown is consistent with impacting a barrier that is high off the ground (higher than the bumper.)  Perhaps a trailer guard, highway guard rail, etc.

3. It is unlikely (IMO) that this was caused by another vehicle BACKING into this car because of the velocity needed to cause such damage.

It is plausible that the vehicle was in a moving accident with another vehicle or stationary barrier.  I have to wonder why you don't post a photo of the damage on the driver's side of the vehicle.

I suspect, as the insurance company does, that it is possible the vehicle was in an accident (likely driven off the road or into a barrier) and was then driven/towed to the location where it was photographed.  It is also likely that the owner didn't have insurance at the time of the accident, so the owner purchased insurance, waited a few days and made a claim of "hit and run."  This type of scam goes on all the time.

I'm not accusing the author but this is HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS and I don't blame the insurance company for taking some time to thoroughly investigate the matter before paying out.

It would appear LESS suspicious if there had NOT BEEN A LAPSE in insurance.  If what the author wrote is truthful, I think the author should get her SON to pay for the damages because, quite frankly, something doesn't smell right.

I almost forgot.  Another possibility is that this car was DRIVEN into a parked vehicle and somewhere out there in CA someone is honestly trying to find out WHO HIT THEIR PARKED VEHICLE.  I have to wonder if there are any other claims of "hit and run" of a parked vehicle (trailer) anywhere in CA.

Sorry, but I'm not buying this fish tale and I don't think the insurance company is either.  If you son truly had your car I think you should tell him to get a second job and start making payments.

It appears that your "RipOff" is that they are questioning you, not that they have actually denied the claim...Yet.  Based on what you wrote here, it can be seen why they are questioning you, and these same questions probably would have come up even if you had the policy for more than 30 days.  As there are a few inconsistencies in your story.

You said the car was parked in San Jose.  Where in San Jose did your son "find" the car?  I can't imagine that it was just some random street.

The car has what could be considered major front end damage, yet in the picture the car is "perfectly" parked.  A car with that much damage at that angle would have had to been hit with enough force to either been pushed back into the street or onto the sidewalk.  So either the car was "found" and re-parked by your son, or it was moved to that location.  As if it was in the middle of the street or sidewalk and the owner could not be found the police would have towed it.

You say you primarily live in LA, yet you brought the car up to the SF Bay area where you work.  So you live and work about 500 miles apart?  It could be seen where you were not actually the primary driver, and if that is the case and didn't list the primary location as San Jose that could be a problem.

There just seems to be some information you are leaving out to give a complete picture.

Insurance companies have a duty to their customers, employees and shareholders to ensure a proper investigation occurs.  If I were to guess, and that's all I'm doing, here is what I think is going on:

Based on your comments, part of their investigation revolves around who owns the vehicle and who operates it.  Contrary to what you said, they give a .... who uses the car.  If someone is not an authorized driver on the policy, and it is involved in an accident while that person is operating it, they will not pay for it.  It will be the responsibility of the operator's insurance company.

As to the hit-and-run, they are probably investigating to verify that it was involved in a hit-and-run in the location that it was discovered.  If a person, who was not an authorized user, was driving the card and it was in an accident....they might tow it back to its original location and report it as a hit-and-run.  I am not implying that happened here, just saying how esurance is probably looking at it.  Looking at the picture of the damage, I can see where they might be concerned.  It appears that the vehicle was involved in a head on collision.  Someone would have had to be in front of it going pretty quick in reverse or drive to have caused that damage.

As for the new customer investigation, again its due diligence on their part.  Many people insure cars and then torch them/wreck them/etc...

Good luck with getting this resolved.

Many try to defraud the insurance companies by applying for insurance and not telling them about a previous accident and then reporting it after getting new insurance and waiting a couple of weeks.

But I know, you are honest and would never do that.

Stardutchess :

The damages to the front of your car looks like the car rear-ended someone else.

For someone to have hit the front end of your car, and damaged it the way your photo's indicate, would have ment that he either hit your car head on (which would have resulted in front end damage to the other car... unmovable), or he backed into  you going very fast...... (which I doubt).

I think your son ran into someone, and then had the car towed home, and now  you are trying to claim hit and run.

I dont think you should have included the pictures of the car, it disproved your case!!!

What did the police report say about the accident?  What did the insurance company have to say about the police report?