2002 Grand Caravan - Any Issues???

Sorry to report that, due to a 16 year old idiot with a "learners"
permit, my perfectly maintained 1994 Grand Caravan has been "totaled".


Worse, the insurance company does not seem to give a flying fig about
the $10,000 I put into it over the years. I am getting about $200 over
"book value" for it (even though we are ZERO percent at fault). What a
pi$$off.

We had a rental late model Caravan for a while, and I must say I liked
the older body style much better. The newer style has some NASTY blind
spots! And I liked being up higher - better visiblility. And I also
see that by turning the thing into a "bubble van" they have also (by
eye-ball) apparently cut the cargo space capacity when comparing Grand
Caravan (94) to Grand Caravan (late model).

Be that as it may, I am now looking for a replacement vehicle. Since
we still have kids, and love camping, looks like a mini-van is still
the order of the day!

I would have loved to get a 94/95 and fix it up, but since I could do
that and wind up screwed again through no fault of my own, it just
makes no financial sense. Looks like I will have to go newer to
protect my financial investment.

I am going to look at a 2002 Grand Caravan. It only has 92000 km on
it. If I like it, then I am going to have a body shop look at it, and
then a full mechanical inspection.

But I wanted to check in hear before that and see if there are any
known issues that are associated with this model year.

The word on the tranmissions is that the problems were corrected with
the 2000 model year, and that the newer ones are good - but it is
still a little early to tell. No problem, I have a good shop on-tap
that can rebuild these in their sleep for only $1495 + tax. Although
at 92000 km, I expect to get at least another 50000 km out of it
before having to do so!

So if anyone knows of problems, let's hear it!

Thanks

 

Hi Newman...

I have nothing at all worthwhile to contribute, but given that
I am now the proud grandfather of a youngster with a learners
permit I can't help asking, if I may?

How in the world can it be both a "16 year old idiot", AND
"we are ZERO percent at fault" ?

Take care, and good lucking finding another van.

Ken

 

With respect Ken,

Insurance rates for single males under the age of 21 are about as high
as it gets. The reason for this is that they tend to have the highest
rate of accidents. Raging hormones, no fear, and no concept of how
their actions could affect others are some of the reasons.

In an attempt to address this in our locality, we now have a
"graduated" licensing system. At the age of 16, you can write a test,
and get your "L" learners permit. You must have this for a minimum of
1 year. After one year, there is both a written and a road test. If
you pass these, then you get a restricted license - the "N". You must
keep the "N" designation for a minimum of 2 years. At the end of the 2
years, there is another wirten test and another driving test. If you
pass all these tests over time, then you get an unrestricted "Class 5"
license.

Until you have your unrestricted license, there is ZERO TOLLERANCE for
alcohol. And while you have your "L" there is zero tolerance for
moving violations. Any violation will result in your license being
revoked. There is an associated driving ban after which you can
re-apply at the "L" level and start all over again.

Any driver with an "L" designation MUST be accompanied by a fully
licensed driver who is a minimum of 25 years old. This is by statute
and is NOT a guideline.

With that background in mind...

This 16 year old had only had his "L" for 2 weeks. He went out for a
drive with his girlfriend who is not only under the age of 25, but her
license is an "N". SO he had already broken 2 of the stautory
requirements of operating the vehicle. He then was so busy chatting up
his girlfriend and looking at her that he not only failed to stop at a
stop sign, he also made an illegal left hand turn in the process and
hit my vehicle when it was clearly 1/2 way through the intersection.
Because of his irresponsible acitons, there was no possible way to
avoid the accident. And to top it off, he tried to move the vehcile
after the accident to conceal the fact that he was at fault. A move
that was noticed by the police - and he has been so charged as it is
an offense to do so. HIS parents insurance company has declared him
100% at fault. The poilce have laid at least 3 charges against him.
And he is likely facing a 5 year driving ban. He is, IMHO, completely
irresponsible. His lack of care and concern, and his deference to the
hardship that he has caused - to me at least - make him an idiot.

So I will be out of pocket the $10,000 I put into my van, plus the
fact that I will now have to have a car loan - likely for the next 5
years or so. I have had to cancel our vacation, and my wife will
likely be off work for MONTHS and is in pain while we are trying to
move into our new appartment.

And to add insult to injury, his mothers car was new enough that it is
being fixed! So the little puke did not get injured, has suffered no
loss, and has no bloody clue of the pain and suffering he has caused -
and likely would not care even if he DID know. Mommy will get her car
back, and mommy will likely drive him everywhere - so not having a
license will not even be an inconveinience to him.

All of this, in my view, makes him a "16 year old idiot". The accident
was completely avoidable - presuming he had not been driving with his
prick. And, as you can see, we had absolutely no fault in this
particular situation. It is VERY RARE that an insurance company will
rule fault at "100% - 0%" because it is not in their best interests to
do so - and even THEY have made this assesment.

Around these parts, you can't drink until you are 19, you cannot vote
until you are 18, and (IIRC) you cannot own a gun until you are 21. So
the question is, why the hell do we allow anyone as young as 16 to get
behind the wheel of a potentially leathal machine???? If I had my way,
you would not even be able to get your learners until the age of 19,
maybe even 21. And, just so you know, even though these restrictions
did not exist when I was a teen, I did not get my learners permit
until I was 19, and I did not get my full license until I was almost
21. This was NEVER an inconveinience to me at all. I am sick of these
cocky kids that feel entitled to things. Driving is a priviledge, not
a right. His violation of that priviledge has turned the life of my
family upside down.

 

The cost of replacement as new insurance would have been much more, but
you should get at least current retail value. You could challenge them
with current prices for a similar vehicle in your area.

Much sooner than that, by the mid 90s.

 

That is the problem. The maintenance over time is more than the
existing retail market. And the problem is if you go and look at one
of the 94/95 vans that is currently for sale, most are in need of
extensive repairs - unlike my van where everything was in PERFECT
working order. To the insurance company, the van is worth no more than
what the market will bear in resale, period. My $10,000 in maintneance
translated into about $300 extra value in the car. Hell, I just spent
$250 having the entire van "detailed" including total engine shampoo,
interior clean, A/C duct cleaning, Scothguard, vinyl preservative, and
a HAD wax.

The whole thing is a heartbreaker. I just cannot believe that keeping
your car in good working order does not add value to it. Heck the
tires on it are worth $700! <sigh>

I do understand that writting it off is the correct thing to do. The
entire front end has been bent to the drivers side by about 2 inches.
The initial repair estimate was $5100, and was projected to reach
$6500 on a "book value" of about $3300. Even if you did spring for the
cash, then there still could be other issues, so it is gone for sure.

Excellent!

 

Reminds me of something that happened to me over 30 years ago with a new
driver. We were newlyweds, and our only car was a Mercury Capri that we
had bouight brand new ($2700). Had to get a hood and front bumper
repaired (another car had pulled out in front of me and stopped dead in
the road when I blew the horn).

Anyway - the body shop did not do a good job of blending the hood to the
driver's side fender, so I had them re-do it. When they finally got it
finished the second time. there was one trim piece that was late coming
into the dealer about 30 miles away - everything else on the repair was
finished, and the dealer called the body shop and said the part had just
come in. So I talked the body shop into letting me drive it to the
dealer to pick up the part. Well - on the way to the dealer to pick up
the part, a girl who had just gotten her license changed lanes right
into me, damaging the same fender that the body shop had just had to
paint twice. I didn't go to the dealer. I turned around and went back
to the body shop. As I pulled into their parking lot, the owner comes
out of his office with his hands up in the air and a genuine look of
anguish on his red face and yelled "YOU DIDN'T!!!!".

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Yep. I was in the middle of fixing up a Mazda one time when someone
rear-ended it at a stop light, knocking it into the car in front. I had
gotten perfect chrome trim strips out of a junk yard to replace the
original black painted ones that were peeling, and had taken the
original strips off - had both old and "new" strips sitting in my garage
waiting for the next weekend to put them on when the accident happened,
totalling the car.

The insurance company's appraiser deducted the value of all the chrome
strips from the value of the car for valuation purposes - deducted the
full brand new cost of the strips from the Mazda dealer (which if you've
ever owned a Mazda you know their parts prices are beyond ridiculous).
This took place in our driveway - 20 feet from my garage where both sets
of trim stips were laying. I protested and said I could show him the
strips. He said he didn't need to see them - he was only allowed to
include in the value of the vehicle what was on it at the time of the
accident. I persisted but he absolutely refused to add the deductions
back into the value of the car.

I called the insurance co. and told them that I would not work with that
appraiser - that unless they wanted to go to small claims court, they'd
better send another appraiser. They did.

Also, as Some O said, you need to assert yourself and insist on them
giving you fair market *retail* value of the car. What I found works is
using Kelly Blue Book value (don't let them use fraudulent NADA
wholesale value), several comps out of Auto Trader deducting resonable
amounts for typical difference between asking and actual, and got three
dealers to write their appraisal of the retail value of the car. Though
it took a lot of time to pull all that info. together (and they know
that it takes tiome and that most people eventually give up) with that
ammunition they paid me full retial value (this was a different car -
not the Mazda).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Wow, 10 grand "YOU" put in the minivan. What did you do dip it in 24 karat
gold?

 

I had a similar incident where I considered my exceptional care and
maintenance to a vehicle worth more than the insurance company offer. I
insisted they find me the same car in the same condition...... well they
found two and they turned out to be in even better condition than mine and
where on dealer lots for less money. So I shut up and took the amount they
offered.


Kevin

 

Hi Newman...

I owe you an apology, and hope that you will accept it.

Somehow in my getting on in years and a stroke damaged mind
I had you in the position of car owner, as well as the "owner/teacher"
of the 16 year old. Sorry.

I suspect that you're right - today's young people are a little
irresponsible. But I suspect that my generation was too, we just
couldn't see it any more clearly than today's youngster do

I'm in Manitoba, Canada, fwiw, and I suspect that our graduated
licenses are much like yours. Get a learner's at 16 (15.5, but ONLY
to drive with a professional instructor or a parent). One year
of driving with anyone who has held a full license for (not sure)
2 or 3 years. No passengers (other than the teacher) other than
immediate family. During this time strict zero tolerance for any
infractions (even so far as to the "teacher" not wearing a seat belt

Interesting side thought. The government says they can go with
anyone who's held a license, etc., but one of my grandkids is
only a couple of doors from me. Her Mother has a list of who she
may go with, too, and her list is very very very short!

Great for me, I get taken out for hot chocolate and donuts
often

Another insteresting thought, and perhaps worth taking note of
for others who may be in my position. Amazes me how easily
she can be distracted. If I so much as speak to her, she
happily looks at me, and keeps looking until I stop speaking!
Maybe we taught her that, pay attention when you're being spoken
to? Yikes, we have to work on that

And if you're interested, our youngsters can drink at 18; vote
at 18; and you're never old enough to own a gun

We have government insurance, and it's no-fault (civilly).

Now the perhaps helpful part. Here, at least, we can
buy back written off cars. (if it's written off, it's just
going to a junk yard anyway, right?) So you might consider
asking your insurance company if you can buy back your old one,
reclaiming your well maintained engine, transmission, interior,
etc., and put them into a less desirable one that you might
find for the dollars they allow you. Just a thought.

Sorry again for the misunderstanding, and take care.

Ken

 

No problem Ken. I am in BC.

I have thought about it, and given that the entire front end has gone
from square to a "trapizoid" with an offset of 2 inches to the left, I
just don't think it is worth the risk to try and rebuild the car. Even
swapping parts to another chassis would take a fair amount of work,
and may not yield the desired results. Worse, I would have to pay
someone else to do it, and it would take time that I am running out
of.

Thanks for the thought though!

 

Well there was the head gasket, the tranmission, the rear springs, two
A/C repairs, new tires, a major tune-up, a 2 inch receiving hitch,
half-shafts, rear hatch solenoid, full detailing, A/C duct cleaning,
cruise control switch, new battery, complete brake job, new stearing
rack and tie rod ends, sway bar bushings, belt tensioner, motor
mounts.....

Yup. I had just gotten rid of the last creaks and groans. It was good
as new. <sigh>

 

From their perspective (and a judge/jury if it came to that), I don't
see a thing in your list that isn't routine maintenance to keep it from
falling apart - nothing to enhance it's value. Now you and I know that
most people don't replace things until a whel falls off or it quits
running, and so on a typical older vehicle, there will be *lots* of
marginal partrs and nuisance problems (squeak in the dash, gas gage
mysteriously drops to zero occasionally, lights flicker, have to charge
the a.c. once or twice a year, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc...

Real world is that the value you get out of regularly maintaining it is
your satisfaction in using a vehicle with reliablility and without
nuisance problems while you have it. It's unrealisitc to expect an
insurance company to throw that into the equation - *EXCEPT* it could
help you in getting true fair market value *IF* you can clearly
demonstrate to them that it is in "EXCELLENT* condition rather than
*FAIR* or *POOR* condition - that's where the honest blue book values
(www.kbb.com) come into play - if you can get them talking honestly and
fairly about price (my experience is that you have to threaten to sue
their at-fault client to get their attention to that point though - and
when you do that, you have to make it clear that you aren't bluffing -
you mean business - then they start listening and offering somewaht fair
value. Also be aware that, unless it's your ins. co. you're dealing
with, it's their at fault client - not the ins. co. itself - that you
are threatening to sue for your loss - that seems to get everybody's
attention).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Newman a few things that may help:

1) you can try getting some of the money you put in. Start by presenting
the
receipts for the service work. A coworker of mine was in a similar
situation as you 2 years ago, he had a chevy geo that he had put a
factory rebuilt engine in that he rear-ended someone with. (rainy
weather) His insurance company did total out his car - but after he
gave them copies of the receipts for the work that was done, he
got the blue book plus all the extra money he had put into the car.

Blue book value ASSUMES that no SIGNIFICANT work has
been done to the vehicle.

Hopefully you have comprehensive, and if you do then claim it against
your own policy, and let your agent fight with the other company for
the money. If you don't and your arguing with the other company
directly, then you may want to get a car appraisal done immediately,
before the car is scrapped. You may have to file a civil lawsuit
to get the real market value of the vehicle. Don't hesitate and do file
one. Insurance companies are used to people threatening to sue, or
paying lawyers to send letters threatening to sue, so they generally
don't pay attention to that. But the second you file, they will respond
because they do not want you to find out how easy it is to sue
them. Here, a lawsuit like that if fought by the Insurance company
would end up in front of a jury and there's not a person under the
sun who doesen't think Insurance companies are greedy bastards, and
it's damn near impossible not to get a jury ruling in your favor, against
the insurance company, and the companies know it. You don't even
have to bother with retaining a lawyer, just file the paperwork with
the court yourself is enough.

2) Consider a buy back. It would cost you very little to buy it from
the insurance company. They sell these for scrap value, sometimes as
little as $50 will do it. You could have it towed to your driveway,
list it on someplace like craigslist, and within a week some local
person who rebuilds vehicles in their garage for extra money would
be by with a flatbed trailer and $500 and be very happy to get it.

3) I would strongly suggest that you write a letter to the DA (I don't
know if they have DA's where you live) and put everything in it that
your saying here. If this happened in the state I live in, the DA would
plea bargain it down with the 16 year old's lawyer in order to save
the expense of a trial. But, the DA will take into consideration anything
that you tell them. If you tell them nothing, they will assume that nobody
got injured, it didn't hurt anyone, etc. If you explain that you probably
won't get a complete payout from the insurance, that your wife did
get hurt, etc. the DA may even order the kid to pay restitution.

4) I would also try to setup a meeting with the kids parents and the
kid. That is if you could stomach it. If I was in your situation I would
try it. If the kids parents accomodated me I would try to be as kind
as I could to the kid, but firm, and explain how his actions impacted me
and my family and the results. Something like that is extremely hard
for the victim to do, but you will find that if you do it, you will feel
much better for doing it. And it will possibly prevent the kid from
having another car accident - because when he's confronted after
the fact, he is forced to understand that you are a real person, and
that sinks in far better than a lot of punishments would. Of course,
conversely you are also forced to view the kid as something other
than a 16 year old idiot, and you may be happier just continuing to
think of him as a 16 year old spoiled idiot, and not really bothering to
find out the truth.

If the kids parents refused, I would certainly do all I could to extract
as much as possible, including filing a civil lawsuit, etc. if possible. A
refusal
indicates the parents are coddling the child, which is pretty destructive
to the child's development, and the parents also need to be taught
a lesson as well.

5) One last bit on the medical claims. You will almost certainly get a lot
of pressure from the insurance company to sign off on your wife's injuries
as being healed, and allowing them to close the claim, several months
from now. What you need to do is find out what the statue of limitations
for suing is. Here in this state it's 2 years. Do not sign the medical
claim
closure until a week before the statue runs out. Most of the time people
heal up from these injuries just fine. But sometimes a year later a problem
may come back and you will be screwed if you close the claim.

Ted

 

The standard line out of the insurance industry play book when you tell
them to either pay you a fair value or find you an equivalent car is:
"We're not in the business of buying cars for people". I had that line
used on me twice in two separate incidences.

On my last bout on getting fair value on vehilce that they were
totalling out, I found exactly the opposite of what you dio. I went to
4 used car lots in my town and made an honest attempt to find equivalent
vehicles and to see what the actual selling price would be. The prices
were in line with KBB, *BUT* what I was finding was that the cars - even
newer ones than what I had - were absolute pieces of sh** cosmetically
compared to mine pre accident. And that gets back to what NewMan was
saying about getting some value from how you've maintained it - not just
to keep it running, but to keep it looking good and fixing the minor
nuisance things that most people just let go.

With the honest information I had, they paid the retail KBB value - and
I was willing to sue their client for the difference, and told them so
when they had been playing the brick wall game for about a week - that
made a big difference in keeping them honest.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

In fact, I am stalling both insurance companies. I have an appointment
with a kick-ass lawyer tomorrow that specializes in dealing with
insurance companies. Before I sign ANYTHING, I want to lay out the
case and how I view it, and see was a legal professional has to say
about my posisiton, and the reality of the legal situation in my
speciifc case.

Could be the best $100 I ever spent! )))

In the mean time, I will try to find more information about the
vehicle value. I know my insurance company is looking at local re-sale
of older vans that have NOT been maintained like mine. But I cannot
get ti though thier thick skull that a reliable vehicle has enhanced
value.

I know what you are saying about maintenance of the vehicle, Bill.
However, I do not agree that a well maintained vehicle is worth the
same as one that is marginally maintained and "runs".

I suspect I have a case. My premise is that if the insurance company
will only pay $3500, and another van similarly equipped and in as good
shape will cost $10,000, then the at fault client should be sueable
for the difference - in this case $6500 in this example.

And this amount does NOT include the physical injury to my wife, her
pain and suffering, and the suffereing we have all undergone at this
hectic time in our lives. All that has GOT to be worth something. And
I am going to find out from the lawyer.

If I have a case, then the tone of discussions with both insurance
companies will be changing dramatically. If not, well, then I guess
I lick my wounds and move on. I just want to make sure I am being
treated fairly. I know that insurance comapnies will often stone-wall
you hoping you will go away - thus minimizing thier cash outlay. But
this is unfair practice as far as I am concerned. I pay damn good
money for protetion. If the protection is not forthcoming when
required, then what differentiates an insurance company from "the
mob"????

 

Hi Ted!

I DID provide them with the reciepts! The $3500, supposedly, includes
the $10,000 in work that was done. Someone locally told me that they
basically ignor anything done to the van that is older than about a
year. Some of the work was 2 to 3 years old.

I do have comprehensive, but so far my insurance company is NOT
representing my interests. That is why I am seeing a lawyer. I believe
that my insurance company is in breach of their fiduciary
responsibilites. They probably think that most people are not aware of
what the responsibilites are. As far as I am concerned, it is my
insurance companies responsibility to sue the other insurance company
for the disparity in what they are willing to pay, and what the actual
loss is. If they fail to do so, I am considerign sueing THEM.

Their position is that their sole responsibility is to give me a
settlement for the write-off - end of story. We shall see what the
lawyer says.

The ownership of the van is MINE. The van cannot me moved or scrapped
without my written permission. If I accept the write-off settlement,
then I still must sign the transfer of ownership papers before the
insurance company can recover the car.

I am heading that direction. Not sure if a jury would be involved here
or not. But I will be finding out.

Looking into it!

Here is is a "Crown Prosecutor". The charges against this kid come
under the motor vehicle act, which is separate and appart from the
"civil" issues (as far as I know). As far as I know, the CP cannot
order restitution here - that is the privy of a Judge.

I am not sure my wife could do this. I think she would blow a gasket.
At the accident scene, the mother was trying to play victim to the
Cops - who, basically, ignored her. I suspect I know how far we would
get with the mother, but I will discuss this with my wife.

I will double check with the lawyer, but I believe it is 2 years here.
What we have is re-agrivation of old injuries as well. My wife has had
problems with her wrist and carple tunnel - and has been on low-dose
celebrex for a long time. This accident is causing her inceased pain -
and there is no telling how long she may be off work. Again, real
important to see the lawer on this. But it is also important to wait
to the end of the statutory limit in an attempt to quanitfy the
damages.

Thanks for all the pointers Ted, I really appreciate it.

 

I think the real issue is the insurance company only wants to look at the
value of the vehicle instead of the value of the loss. The piece of metal in
the driveway is only one small portion of the total loss.

Ks

 

Well that is a sticky point I'm afraid since they are going to consider
depreciation on the work done. That's understandable. It is also why
your almost certainly going to end up in front of a judge. The insurance
company has internal guidelines on paying out claims, of course. If your
work is 3 years old it certainly will be out of those internal guidelines
so none of the lower level employees are going to have the authority
to approve a claim higher than book, and the underwriter is going to
just stall on it.

You could have called your insurance comissioner first, before
dealing with the lawyer. You are correct in that your insurance company
is legally required by law to represent your interests in a case where
it's 100% the other guys' fault, and you are making a claim against
your policy, because legally your insurance company has the right to
go after the other company to get the money. It's stupid for them to
argue with you over it because they don't lose any money, and they are
certainly going to lose a customer. Who is insuring you?

Right,. but the usual trick that is pulled in these circumstances is the
vehicle
is too badly damaged to be moved, so it is towed to an impound lot and
sits on the lot collecting lot fees. A lot of these impound lots have
sweetheart
deals with the insurance companies. The insurance company does not
want the car, if it's totaled, and it costs money for them to dispose of it,
so
the usual trick is to have the owner sign over the title to the insurance
company who then just gives it to the tow lot owner in exchange for
dropping all the lot fees. The tow lot owner then parts out the vehicle
and makes a good $500-$600 or so doing it.

If your van is in your driveway your fine.

It depends on the dollar amount the claim is I think. In small claims here
there
is no trial by jury but it sounds like the amounts involved are too high for
that.

My guess is they will plea bargain it down to avoid trial and get a
conviction, and that's why you want to be involved and make sure
that when they are negotiating the plea, that they know your not going
to get a full payout from the insurance company, and that you want
restitution.

Well there you have it, that's why the kid got into the accident in the
first place. The parents are basically teaching him that it's OK to flout
the law. That is a shame. You will probably find the kid is more sorry
about the incident than the parents are.

Make absolutely sure that the property settlement and medical settlement
aren't tied together. They will probably try to do that. But from my
vantage point you are almost certainly going to have to go in front of a
judge to get a better settlement. And here's the root of the problem. You
have 2 things you need to prove to the judge. First, the expenditures on
the van. That's the easy part, you have it documented. Second you have
to prove that you didn't pee away all the expenditures made. Like for
example you didn't dump $2,000 into the transmission then spend the
next 6 months dragracing the van on the weekends. Or you didn't spend
$2000 on bodywork and then smash the door into a telephone pole 6
months before the accident. If you can prove that, with appraisal, written
testimonial from the neighbors, whatever, you have an open and shut case
that the van's market value was worth a great deal more than blue-book.

Ted

 

That depends on how your policy is written. Seems to me that a lot of
comprehensive
policies out there pay for vehicle rental, etc. that have nothing whatsoever
to do
with the value of the vehicle, and everything to do with the value of the
loss.

Ted