Without starting a new thread, and after waiting for more than a day, so that this doesn't look like threadcrapping, let me share with you a success story against a major auto insurance company -- let's call them LM.

So my wife was in the right lane. A jerk to her left all of sudden changes lane, cut her off and tries to make a right turn at an intersection that they were both approaching. She impulsively swerves to the right, completely avoids the jerk, but ends sideways in a entrenchement that separates the street from the sidewalk.

There were witnesses. The jerk does not even stop. One particular witness writes down the jerk's licence number and gives it to my wife along with his name and address.

We call the ins company. Of course she was covered but I wanted to know if they would count the accident against my wife. The answer was a resounding "yes". I explained the circumstance and told them that there were witnesses. They said since there was no contact they had to count this against our policy. They considered it under the "collision" provision; I wanted them to count it against uninsured motorist (or some kinda "hit and run") or go after the jerk.

They rejected both options and insisted that this would count against our policy and our rates would be affected. I called them several times and always took names and wrote down the exact date and time of the call.

They started to treat me like I was a nuisance, a lunatic and would not take me seriously. Finally one day after they informed me (like always) that they are recording me, I also informed them that I am recording them too. (I lied.) Then I forwarded this argument.....so a toddler suddenly jumpes in front of my wife's car and you are saying she would not be considred at fault (for rate purposes) if she plows through the toddler but considered at fault if she uses her skills and totally avoids the toddler but end up in a ditch? The ins guy had to say yes based on his earlier answers. At that time he said he would discuss this with his boss and get back with me.

I called back in a few days and they told me that they reconsidered their position based on info provided by me and they had decided to not count the accident against us and cosider it a no-fault accident.

Fast forward a few years. I am still with the same company (they were the only company to provide payroll deduction.) I called them to see if I could get any cheaper rate. They told me that I was being surcharged. I asked why. They said your wife had a major accident. The date matched the said accident's date. I told them that on such and such date and time and someone with such and such name agreed to not count the accident against us. They literally laugh at me, mistreated me, and stopped returning or accepting my calls. (I do not give up easily.)

So I wrote to the insurance commissioner giving them the details with quotes, dates and times. A month later, I received a letter from the LM ins co headquarter saying that such and such accident would not be counted against us along with a check for about a $1000+ for the few years of surcharge that they had overcharged me.

Needless to say I was very pleased.

I hope this story would inspire others not to quit and fight ins cos.

Great post! Good job!

gincentive said:DjPiLL said:- Disputing a charge on your credit card (and winning dispute) doesn't absolve you of the debt. Merchants can still go after you.
Is this standard? The merchant sending a debt that Chase says doesn't exist to collections surprised me.

Obviously the dispute department isn't a court of law, but I'd always thought that winning a charge back meant "case closed". Is it just that in most cases it's not worth it for the merchant to pursue the matter?

I thought this bit from the FTC explained why card issuers are so proactive in defending their customers.
From http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fcb.shtm:
Disputes about the quality of goods and services are not "billing errors," so the dispute procedure does not apply. However, if you buy unsatisfactory goods or services with a credit or charge card, you can take the same legal actions against the card issuer as you can take under state law against the seller..

All a successful credit card dispute does is reverse the funds. It does not cancel a contract, void a sale, eliminate an obligation, etc....

It's a double edged sword, but EVERYONE has the right to have their day in court (it's just that some people abuse it).

I count OP's story as a consumer success. Unfortunately, consumer's are giving up their rights so much today, that many people actually feel embarrassed to exercise their right.

Think about this one.

I receive $1000 in cash at the bank. I get dirty looks from the tellers and the customers because I check for counterfeit notes before I leave the teller window, BUT if I walk away and it turns out that I indeed did receive a counterfeit, the bank will do nothing because I left the window. Why do people despise me for checking my money when there is an admitted $50 Million confiscated every year? Even the Federal Reserve is finding counterfeit money and EVERY bill received at the Fed passed through at least one bank. So with so much counterfeit money out there, why do people scoff at me for checking my money.

Anyone who tried to make the OP feel bad about standing up for his legal rights should be ashamed of themselves!!!!

Nice going, DjPiLL and codename47.

Mods, time for a "Consumer" category? Just askin'...

gatzdon said:gincentive said:DjPiLL said:- Disputing a charge on your credit card (and winning dispute) doesn't absolve you of the debt. Merchants can still go after you.
Is this standard? The merchant sending a debt that Chase says doesn't exist to collections surprised me.

Obviously the dispute department isn't a court of law, but I'd always thought that winning a charge back meant "case closed". Is it just that in most cases it's not worth it for the merchant to pursue the matter?

I thought this bit from the FTC explained why card issuers are so proactive in defending their customers.
From http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fcb.shtm:
Disputes about the quality of goods and services are not "billing errors," so the dispute procedure does not apply. However, if you buy unsatisfactory goods or services with a credit or charge card, you can take the same legal actions against the card issuer as you can take under state law against the seller..


All a successful credit card dispute does is reverse the funds. It does not cancel a contract, void a sale, eliminate an obligation, etc....

It's a double edged sword, but EVERYONE has the right to have their day in court (it's just that some people abuse it).

It can also be argued that as part of your purchase both you and the merchant are agreeing to the terms and conditions of your credit card company which include a dispute resolution mechanism know as a charge back. As part of that process the merchant has the chance to defend its position and should they fail to win with the CC company that is the end of their right to go after the consumer.

I am not completely sold on this argument but it is not completely without merit.

gatzdon said:If the merchant's agreement with the processor stipulates that they give up the right to sue you, then you would need a copy of that agreement and proof that the merchant agreed to it as part of your defense.In most cases, there is no such clause; hence, a chargeback ruling in your favor does not automatically end the dispute for the merchant.

codename47 said:...hit up with a bar complaint.just my personal opinion... but it's pretty pathetic to file a bar complaint over a bad debt collection lawsuit. this is no different than people who threaten to call the cops on you if you don't do what they say.

Crazytree said:codename47 said:...hit up with a bar complaint.just my personal opinion... but it's pretty pathetic to file a bar complaint over a bad debt collection lawsuit. this is no different than people who threaten to call the cops on you if you don't do what they say.

I don't see a problem with this. Lawyers who represent sleazy bill collectors where the lawyer knows the case is bull but take it anyways are not only being disrespectful to the individual they are trying to screw over but they are also being disrespectful to the Judge hearing the case, being disrespectful to the Court, being disrespectful to the United States, and being disrespectful to the People of the United States.

So if they want to ultimately waste the Court's time with bull then they can be disbarred. I seriously see no problem with this.

Katx said:A Hitler needs a lawyer. An Osama bin Laden needs a lawyer.

Ahhh ... there is a liberal among us ... binladen doesnt need a f'ing lawyer .... he needs a 500 pound cluster bomb ..... or ten minutes with a few dozen 9-11 victims families with hammers in there hands ..... thats what he needs.

I guess you think we should arrest him and turn him over to the USA court system ....... yeah HE sure fought fair ... he let all those people who DIED on 9-11 have access to the courts didn't he !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I disagree ..... those innocents he helped kill on 9-11 didnt get any court time ... no lawyers allowed for them to see if they deserved to die ...... as far as he didnt do it .. i'll take him, at his own words, when he said he did.

Or wait .... maybe he had a bad childhood and doesnt deserve any punishment ... reasons like those are why most people dislike lawyers.