[adrianmonk]

> would have happily repaired on my own if possible

I actually did that once. The claims adjuster was pretty surprised at the request, and she confirmed multiple times that I really wanted them to pay out less money (parts but no labor). Then she was like, "Well, I don't know why you'd want to, but it's your decision, so OK."

The reason: someone stole my stereo and, in the process, they destroyed several pieces of the dashboard. The insurance didn't cover my (aftermarket) stereo, just the dashboard.

I was going to install a replacement stereo myself. I had installed the other one (that was stolen), so I already knew how to do it, and I knew that stereo installation requires removing the same dashboard parts. If I'd let insurance pay a shop to do it, I would have needed to have them install the parts, then take it home and remove the same parts, install the stereo, and then put them back. Buying parts at the dealer is less work and takes less time.

[MikeKusold]

They were probably surprised because the insurance company would have paid the fair market rate for the replacement (parts & labor based on various quotes), regardless of if a professional did the work, if you DIYed it, or even if you never decided to repair it.

You likely talked yourself out of additional money.

[jkingsman]

Yeah this process caught me off guard during a recent repair. In my mind, the model was "Insurance company will pay what the repairs cost." How it actually works is "Insurance company will give you the cash to cover what they believe the repairs cost. If it costs more, they'll cover the difference. You are free to do anything you want with the money."

Walking away with leftover cash in your pocket is a normal and above-board part of the process if you can do the repair more cheaply/by yourself/don't get it fixed; it's not fraud.

[function_seven]

> Walking away with leftover cash in your pocket is a normal and above-board part of the process if you can do the repair more cheaply/by yourself/don't get it fixed; it's not fraud.

A friend had paint damage to his truck caused by a canopy (a large EZ-UP) being blown into it repeatedly during a storm. He filed a claim and the adjuster determined it would be something like $5,000 for a proper repaint.

He asked another friend of ours–who worked in insurance—if it was okay to just keep the money and ignore the paint damage: "Yeah, you suffered a loss, you were compensated for that loss, that's all there is to it. It's up to you if you want to repaint, or if you consider it diminished value compensation, or whatever. It's your money free-and-clear."

It feels wrong somehow, but it really isn't. Just don't try to claim the same damage again in the future.

[Spooky23]

Yup. I know a body guy, and always get quotes from an expensive shop, then he does it for less.

I hit a deer a few years ago and made $5000.

[mwint]

Did you suffer any increase in premiums? I’ve never been involved in any sort of accident (other than being a passenger), so what happens after an accident re. premiums, etc. is a Scary Thing that I’d love to demystify for myself before I learn by experience.

[Spooky23]

It depends on your policy. In my case, no. But it think multiple incidents will raise it. Also, they’ll drop you if you’re too unlucky.