Car Insurance Adjusters & Payout

[manning]

So, I am a old poster and sometimes lurker and stumbled on this thread. I was in a 4 car accident at a stop light, the first car in a chain reaction, 4th car hit 3rd ect. I honestly didnt even know we were hit. My daughter felt it, no injuries but a crack in bumper. Now my car has 140,000 miles the crack doesnt impede the car at all. Its strictly cosmetic. I want to take the money as loss on the value of the car. My husband insists we have to get it fixed. Do we? How do I phrase it without saying " just write me a check and we'll call it a day". I'll get it fixed if that is what Im supposed to do. I just think it seems kind of senseless. Thanks so much!!!

Get it FIXED. Visual does not mean anything. In old cars the bumper had liquid to absorb impact. Today it is foam and you cannot see the damage. I had that happen to me. Damage appearance minimal. Replacing/ repairing was over $ 2,000 dollars. Not fixing it defeats the purpose of a bumper.

 

[SL6827]

Lawyered up? To settle a collision damage claim?

And medical bills. Been there done this once already, without a lawyer. Learned our lesson then. Not to repeat!

 

[Klayfish]

Get it FIXED. Visual does not mean anything. In old cars the bumper had liquid to absorb impact. Today it is foam and you cannot see the damage. I had that happen to me. Damage appearance minimal. Replacing/ repairing was over $ 2,000 dollars. Not fixing it defeats the purpose of a bumper.

Huh? Cars did not use liquid in their bumpers. Older cars typically used steel for their bumpers...back in the day when you had those "chrome bumpers". Then they hid the metal behind the plastic bumper covers you see today (and there were shock absorbers sometimes). Now, most use some kind of plastic or perhaps Styrofoam. But this change has actually made it less likely that there will be damage hidden behind the bumper, not more likely.

Having said that, yes, despite the advancements, a rear end impact is the one that's most likely to have hidden damage regardless of bumper construction. That's simply because the structure behind the bumper can't easily be seen.

 

[manning]

Huh? Cars did not use liquid in their bumpers. Older cars typically used steel for their bumpers...back in the day when you had those "chrome bumpers". Then they hid the metal behind the plastic bumper covers you see today (and there were shock absorbers sometimes). Now, most use some kind of plastic or perhaps Styrofoam. But this change has actually made it less likely that there will be damage hidden behind the bumper, not more likely.

Having said that, yes, despite the advancements, a rear end impact is the one that's most likely to have hidden damage regardless of bumper construction. That's simply because the structure behind the bumper can't easily be seen.

That is what I'm referring to, shock absorber as part of the construction.There are people who think that is how they are still constructed. They don't see fluid and think everything is ok.

The old construction was changed to save weight and cost.

 

[Klayfish]

Sorry, but that still doesn't make a lot of sense. Not all cars used the shock absorbers in their bumpers, only some did. And the ones that did used absorbers that were quite similar to the shock absorber you see in your cars' suspension. There's no fluid to "see". The fluid is contained within the absorber, and it normally wouldn't leak after an impact...just like your shocks won't leak when you hit a normal pothole. So there's no fluid to look for...and if the car was hit hard enough to destroy the absorber, other damage to the car would be blatantly obvious.

Weight and cost were a factor in their replacement, but so was the fact that they aren't as effective as what's being used today.