Front End Plastic Parts

"teem" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 07:15:02 -0400, "marx404" > wrote:
>
>>this is a crazy idea, but if you can squeeze it in your budget, this would
>>be an opportune time to think about a front end body kit part. I know they
>>can be expensive, but maybe a front spoiler lip? Just an idea. Best of
>>luck.
>>
>>marx404
>>
> thanks gents for the insights,like I said,i was weighing my options.I
> live in ne ohio & am traveling to Missouri for Tgiving,i definatly
> want my ''parts'' togeather before I leave.My insurance won't pay for
> part of this,will they?.

Comprehensive would but your deductible would come off the top. Most
companies would argue that you should have reported it before now though...
If you submit a claim it would probably make sense to have a body shop do
the work.

I dont know about your local Saturn shop, but a good one may take thier own
initiative and work with you and your ins. co. to get a speedy repair and
get thier retribution back from the ins. co. My old shpo in Stuart di this
with many ppl after the last 3 hurricanes.

marx404

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:43:36 GMT, "John Grossbohlin"
> wrote:

>Comprehensive would but your deductible would come off the top. Most
>companies would argue that you should have reported it before now though...
>If you submit a claim it would probably make sense to have a body shop do
>the work.


Depends on the cause of damage. If it was while driving down the road
or from another car impact it would be collision. If it was storm,
fire or vandal damage it would be comprehensive. Both have their own
deductable though depending on your policy.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

"SnoMan" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:43:36 GMT, "John Grossbohlin"
> > wrote:
>
>>Comprehensive would but your deductible would come off the top. Most
>>companies would argue that you should have reported it before now
>>though...
>>If you submit a claim it would probably make sense to have a body shop do
>>the work.
>
>
> Depends on the cause of damage. If it was while driving down the road
> or from another car impact it would be collision. If it was storm,
> fire or vandal damage it would be comprehensive. Both have their own
> deductable though depending on your policy.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

As I recall he hit a raccoon.... that's comp like it would be if you hit a
deer (gotten a couple of them over the years).

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:59:28 GMT, "John Grossbohlin"
> wrote:

>As I recall he hit a raccoon.... that's comp like it would be if you hit a
>deer (gotten a couple of them over the years).


I could be wrong but that is collision. ALso while most people do not
know it you can sue the state (most do it if you ask them enough)
because if it was a regulated animal for hunting, the state is
responsible for the damage it causes. They di not tell you that though
unless you push the issue. You will need a police report at time of
damage.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

"SnoMan" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:59:28 GMT, "John Grossbohlin"
> > wrote:
>
>>As I recall he hit a raccoon.... that's comp like it would be if you hit a
>>deer (gotten a couple of them over the years).
>
>
> I could be wrong but that is collision. ALso while most people do not
> know it you can sue the state (most do it if you ask them enough)
> because if it was a regulated animal for hunting, the state is
> responsible for the damage it causes. They di not tell you that though
> unless you push the issue. You will need a police report at time of
> damage.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

This might be dependent upon the state... I know that my claims were paid
under comp. In fact, the first time it happened I didn't have collision on
the car as it was rather old. It's one of those "act of God" things.

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:44:19 GMT, "John Grossbohlin"
> wrote:

>This might be dependent upon the state... I know that my claims were paid
>under comp. In fact, the first time it happened I didn't have collision on
>the car as it was rather old. It's one of those "act of God" things.


Most states do not tell you that they are liable but they are. The key
here is if you hit a regulated animal. If it is a animal that the
state names as controlled for hunting or to not hunt, you have grounds
to file a claim against them because they "control" or "manage" it so
they are responsible for it.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

"SnoMan" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:44:19 GMT, "John Grossbohlin"
> > wrote:
>
>>This might be dependent upon the state... I know that my claims were paid
>>under comp. In fact, the first time it happened I didn't have collision on
>>the car as it was rather old. It's one of those "act of God" things.
>
>
> Most states do not tell you that they are liable but they are. The key
> here is if you hit a regulated animal. If it is a animal that the
> state names as controlled for hunting or to not hunt, you have grounds
> to file a claim against them because they "control" or "manage" it so
> they are responsible for it.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

Interesting. My understanding was (at least in the state I was in when I
heard this) that the opposite is true -- you kill a deer with your car (at
least outside of hunting season; maybe even during season if you don't have
a license), you pay a fine for violating the game control law.

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 15:43:37 -0400, "Steve"
m> wrote:

> Interesting. My understanding was (at least in the state I was in when I
>heard this) that the opposite is true -- you kill a deer with your car (at
>least outside of hunting season; maybe even during season if you don't have
>a license), you pay a fine for violating the game control law.


Law or not I cannot see how that could stand in court if you hit a
deer. Something very fishy here. If the state did not regulate the
animal then they can claim they are not liable.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

In article >, "Steve" m> wrote:
>
> Interesting. My understanding was (at least in the state I was in when I
>heard this) that the opposite is true -- you kill a deer with your car (at
>least outside of hunting season; maybe even during season if you don't have
>a license), you pay a fine for violating the game control law.

I can't imagine that's correct. Anywhere.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.