Rivian dropped my truck!

[Ralph]

My home owner's insurance, obviously a bit difference than car insurance, has a "frequent" claim penalty clause. Our area had a hailstorm that damage a lot of roofs. Erie Insurance came to me unsolicited (I didn't see any damage), wanting to inspect my roof for damage. THEY decided they wanted to replace it due to a few hail dimples, to avoid future water infiltration claim possibilities. $13,000 later I had a new roof, fully paid by them.

About 3 weeks later, I got a letter from them saying if I filed another claim for anything within 2 years, my rate would go up 30%. a second claim - up 50%, 3 or more claims up 100%.

So yeah, you can be penalized for using your insurance even if it is an "act of God".

As pointed out by @SwampNut you can choose to take a discount to avoid any claim whatsoever. Each event would have to be evaluated against that discount to determine whether claiming that event is financially sound.

But....as you point out, in your homeowners example, the other party is "god", who cannot/will not be re-imbursing a claim. Not at all the same as the OP.

Sponsored

 

[Riviot]

the other party is "god", who cannot/will not be re-imbursing a claim.

Praise be to *****

 

[SwampNut]

the other party is "god", who cannot/will not be re-imbursing a claim.

Pray harder?

 

[Dark-Fx]

Pray harder?

I only pray to the deer god.

 

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Maybe it’s just me being jaded from a long career in sales and customer service but I sniffed this whole thing out in the very first post. I’d like to say it’s a generational thing but the entitled customer who thinks they are owed something way beyond and above being made whole is a species that while rare, has been in existence probably since the Stone Age.

Every time I see this kind of discussion come up, I am reminded from this thread on a computer forum way back in 2014:

 

[jrmbadger]

Every time I see this kind of discussion come up, I am reminded from this thread on a computer forum way back in 2014:

For this very reason, I think everyone should work, at least for awhile, in a customer service position. You see up close and personal just how entitled a lot of customers are.

Moreover, it's my understanding that "the customer is always right" is misquoted. Seems that the original version was "Assume that the customer is right until it is plain beyond all question that he is not. " Wiki I'm satisfied by this thread and others that in this case, that it is plain beyond all question that the OP is wrong for assuming he would be given a windfall of a new truck, rather than the value of his used truck as a result of Rivian's negligence.

 

[SwampNut]

The etymology of that phrase is highly debated, but everyone does agree that it does NOT mean what all of the entitled people think it does.

I am a partner in the company I work for. We generally have fantastic customers because the sales process weeds out bad ones, usually. We've had a few, and when I tell them they are being fired, and they ask for "my supervisor," I get a huge smile.

 

[VandalSibs]

I was always under the impression that the full saying was "The customer is always right, only in matters of taste". Which really narrows things down!

 

[SwampNut]

I was always under the impression that the full saying was "The customer is always right, only in matters of taste". Which really narrows things down!

That's a common claim these days, but seems to have started on social media somewhat recently. Because I'm a nerd, I decided to try to find evidence on this one day and couldn't trace it back to anything from the past.

 

[MountainBikeDude]

Every time I see this kind of discussion come up, I am reminded from this thread on a computer forum way back in 2014:

100000000%

Ok, I'm in OP's situation.. my truck falls off the lift while in Rivians care. Someone initially offers me a new vehicle to replace it. No matter who communicated it, I'd be a bit like WTF?! but then very happily go along with it, while also waiting for reality, and the weed they smoked to ware off.

Later, when they tell me that, either they made an error in that initial comment, or whatever, and their insurance would cover the value of the depreciated vehicle, I'd then want to know what that value was, and then contact the provider of my GAP insurance to see if it could be applied to their insurance pay out to cover the full replacement cost. If OP does not have full replacement insurance on their own vehicle, why would they expect a 3rd party to?

Sure it would suck, but lets be real OP.

 

[Jeff B.]

I'm amazed at how long these threads can run on and on....

Insurance is there for reason and ultimately the attorneys and the insurance companies will sort this out. It sucks for the OP, but Sh!t happens, ask this guy.

 

[derekmw]

100000000%

Ok, I'm in OP's situation.. my truck falls off the lift while in Rivians care. Someone initially offers me a new vehicle to replace it. No matter who communicated it, I'd be a bit like WTF?! but then very happily go along with it, while also waiting for reality, and the weed they smoked to ware off.

Later, when they tell me that, either they made an error in that initial comment, or whatever, and their insurance would cover the value of the depreciated vehicle, I'd then want to know what that value was, and then contact the provider of my GAP insurance to see if it could be applied to their insurance pay out to cover the full replacement cost. If OP does not have full replacement insurance on their own vehicle, why would they expect a 3rd party to?

Sure it would suck, but lets be real OP.

Right? And from the letter that he himself wrote, it seems maybe it was just a confusion of wording, since they said new vehicle, but probably meant replace with a new-to-you vehicle...as in, not fixing the damaged truck.

But I agree with you that most of us would be utterly shocked but be excited that they would do that, if we confused and thought they were going to give us a new truck. And EVEN if they outright said that by mistake, I would also be waiting for the clarification - because WHY in the world would any company pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket to replace a damaged vehicle.

What is so incredible about this guy is that he is trying to capitalize on this and acting as if he's been harmed so much by not being given this new truck, when in some posts he even acknowledges that he knows a new truck isn't a fair compensation for replacing his old truck and the inconveniences it caused. But he's saying that Rivian is required to stick to what they said, and he absolutely will not accept anything less than a brand new truck, in higher spec than what he currently had....on top of all the accessories he had owned for 2 years that Rivian paid out a check to him for.

This is like those people who get in a fender bender in a parking lot, and see opportunity to make big $$$ and start suing, claiming body and mental anguish that require no less than $100k to compensate for the small scuff left on the bumper.

 

[freshpow]

Right? And from the letter that he himself wrote, it seems maybe it was just a confusion of wording, since they said new vehicle, but probably meant replace with a new-to-you vehicle...as in, not fixing the damaged truck.

But I agree with you that most of us would be utterly shocked but be excited that they would do that, if we confused and thought they were going to give us a new truck. And EVEN if they outright said that by mistake, I would also be waiting for the clarification - because WHY in the world would any company pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket to replace a damaged vehicle.

What is so incredible about this guy is that he is trying to capitalize on this and acting as if he's been harmed so much by not being given this new truck, when in some posts he even acknowledges that he knows a new truck isn't a fair compensation for replacing his old truck and the inconveniences it caused. But he's saying that Rivian is required to stick to what they said, and he absolutely will not accept anything less than a brand new truck, in higher spec than what he currently had....on top of all the accessories he had owned for 2 years that Rivian paid out a check to him for.

This is like those people who get in a fender bender in a parking lot, and see opportunity to make big $$$ and start suing, claiming body and mental anguish that require no less than $100k to compensate for the small scuff left on the bumper.

They never even said “new” vehicle. By his own words (from his letter) they told him a replacement vehicle “for his betterment, not detriment” then got sick of him trying to take advantage of their goodwill after he kept sending new, max pack configs to replace his used large pack, since he and his wife “like to buy new” and wouldn’t accept a used replacement.

 

[s4wrxttcs]

The etymology of that phrase is highly debated, but everyone does agree that it does NOT mean what all of the entitled people think it does.

I am a partner in the company I work for. We generally have fantastic customers because the sales process weeds out bad ones, usually. We've had a few, and when I tell them they are being fired, and they ask for "my supervisor," I get a huge smile.

I'm a huge advocate for firing the customer as a few bad ones ruin it for everyone else. My understanding is that it ends up saving a company more money long term than the short term loss.

 

[s4wrxttcs]

What’s that Rolling Stones song?
Hmmm
What I’d say is tough shit and you get what you get and you’ll like it

If I was the OP I would have taken the used replacement as there was no proof of negligence. The used replacement was really the best case scenario one could expect.

But, that's not what my post was about.

Our reality on what we consider an accident is one is of make believe.

Road raging = Accident
Rally driving off road into a ditch = Accident
Drink and Driving = Accident
Texting and crashing= Accident

People have gotten so bad with their reckless behavior that I seriously question why we even bother having nice things.

There is big difference between entitlement and just rolling over and accepting the pummeling of the dumbest of all realities.

Sponsored