01-26-2019, 03:50 PM
I’m finding this discussion really interesting—probably because I’ve never really thought about it.
If I’ve got it right from this conversation, the decision to write off a vehicle is made by an insurance company entirely in financial grounds. No consideration is apparently given to whether the vehicle could be repaired and operated safely.
I suspect that’s because the cost of assessing, for example, whether a motorcycle’s frame has been damaged is significant and should not really be trusted to anyone other than a regulator. On one level, it makes sense that taxpayers are not burdened with this cost; on another, in a world where waste and dealing with it is a serious issue, it seems crazy to declare something unsafe to repair just because it’s cheaper for an insurer not to fix it.
If I’ve got it right from this conversation, the decision to write off a vehicle is made by an insurance company entirely in financial grounds. No consideration is apparently given to whether the vehicle could be repaired and operated safely.
I suspect that’s because the cost of assessing, for example, whether a motorcycle’s frame has been damaged is significant and should not really be trusted to anyone other than a regulator. On one level, it makes sense that taxpayers are not burdened with this cost; on another, in a world where waste and dealing with it is a serious issue, it seems crazy to declare something unsafe to repair just because it’s cheaper for an insurer not to fix it.