WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

602

You may think "but yes I do, I have a title and don't owe anything on it." Well, you have insured yourself and the car, right? So you go for a drive and get into an accident where you cannot drive the car away. At that point, the car becomes property of the insurance agency that insures it since they have to then determine liability and subsequent costs of repair or write off. You can REQUEST to have the car "released" back to you in which then your write off amount will be the value of the car at the time of accident minus whatever they calculate the junk is now worth.

But technically, you don't actually own it. If you declined towing and removed it from the scene on your own, taking it home or to another service station not authorized, your insurance coverage could be affected negatively.

It's another usury game by the usual suspects.

Note: I live in Texas and so this may all be regional, could even be part of the coverage paid for. Either way, still seems dodgy to me.

EDIT again: This is all due to the fact the car in question is actually my dads, so the 'ownership' isn't mine, which all makes sense. I guess I need to read up more on kike insurance regulations.

You may think "but yes I do, I have a title and don't owe anything on it." Well, you have insured yourself and the car, right? So you go for a drive and get into an accident where you cannot drive the car away. At that point, the car becomes property of the insurance agency that insures it since they have to then determine liability and subsequent costs of repair or write off. You can REQUEST to have the car "released" back to you in which then your write off amount will be the value of the car at the time of accident minus whatever they calculate the junk is now worth. But technically, you don't actually own it. If you declined towing and removed it from the scene on your own, taking it home or to another service station not authorized, your insurance coverage could be affected negatively. It's another usury game by the usual suspects. Note: I live in Texas and so this may all be regional, could even be part of the coverage paid for. Either way, still seems dodgy to me. EDIT again: This is all due to the fact the car in question is actually my dads, so the 'ownership' isn't mine, which all makes sense. I guess I need to read up more on kike insurance regulations.

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt

Yeah, I have been wanting to drop SF for a while, but especially since they released their DEI antiWhite memos.

[–] 1 pt

Get in a few accidents and make em pay out more than you've ever paid in, you'll get the boot.

[–] 0 pt

Well, we're one down, LOL! (though this was on the other driver).

[–] 0 pt

Haha, doesn't matter. Cheaper insurance pastures await you. Progressive is a great insurance to use. Owned by soros. They take all dei stuff and low standards. I'm way ahead on insurance so I never mind paying for it.