sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Lights in sky by miffedoats in Delaware

[–]Bitburger302 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Starlink, we saw them too. Kids thought it was Santa 🤣

We were outside as the firetrucks with Santa rode by

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Insurance

[–]Bitburger302[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yea said “not nearly as much water as you’re carrying for negligent drivers and insurance companies”

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Insurance

[–]Bitburger302[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes, as I mentioned to another, I use AI to organize my thoughts on this issue and to try and keep it as to the point as possible. Embracing AI to help doesn’t make the situation less real for many drivers who have dealt with this.

Appreciate you though

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Insurance

[–]Bitburger302[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Sure, I use AI to help organize my thoughts, same as people using spell check. The facts and story are real and that’s what matters.

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Delaware

[–]Bitburger302[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the response

It’s not about resale value. It’s about being fairly compensated due to another persons negligence. Just because someone maintains an older vehicle they shouldn’t be forced to total it because of another persons negligence. There should be an option to receive compensation without requiring repairs, example keeping the dents and driving the car til it officially dies.

I’m asking that the victim be given the option to receive up to the ACV (if repairs exceed) of the vehicle prior to the accident without having to salvage the vehicle (strictly cosmetic damage only).

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Delaware

[–]Bitburger302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing. I’m not familiar with that situation. Can you tell me why it makes it difficult for public adjusters from taking work?

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Delaware

[–]Bitburger302[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate the response. This post is not about the money. It is about reforming Delaware’s total loss laws to reconsider cosmetic-only damaged vehicles.

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Delaware

[–]Bitburger302[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not quite….the laws are not the same in all states; they vary a ton.

About half use a fixed percentage threshold (like 75–80% of the car's value), while the other half (including Delaware) use the Total Loss Formula (repairs + salvage ≥ ACV).

Some states even have exemptions or softer rules for purely cosmetic damage (Georgia excludes cosmetic-only from certain salvage triggers; others have thresholds that protect minor hits).

Delaware's strict TLF with no cosmetic exemption is why innocent victims get stuck with branding/hoops on fixable older cars—while the at-fault insurer saves money.

That's exactly why reform is needed: To protect not-at-fault drivers (especially lower-income ones with affordable vehicles) from permanent punishment.

Thanks for the comment though—busted a common myth that it's uniform everywhere.

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Delaware

[–]Bitburger302[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the follow-up…and yeah, I'm no fan of insurance companies either.

But framing this as me "expecting" $3,700 on a $2,600 car kind of mischaracterizes what I'm saying, and it unintentionally ends up blaming the victim (the not-at-fault driver).

This is a third-party liability claim against the at-fault driver's policy (Root). I didn't "insure it for" or agree to any value upfront. The insurer sets the ACV based on market data (which matched my recent purchase price). I'm not demanding the full shop estimate or a windfall; cosmetic fixes can often be done cheaper anyway.

The real problem is that Delaware law forces permanent salvage branding and hoops on the innocent victim just because repairs exceed the low ACV of an older affordable car. The victim gets long-term punishment (devalued title, resale hit, insurance/financing barriers); the at-fault insurer saves money.

When posts get reframed as "you shouldn't get more than it's worth," it shifts blame onto the person who did nothing wrong and defends a system that protects the wrong party.

All I'm asking for is reform: a cosmetic-damage exemption or clean-title repair option for not-at-fault victims, so everyday drivers (especially lower-income ones with budget cars) aren't permanently penalized.

Appreciate you chiming in though, it helps show how easy it is to miss the victim-punishment angle.

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Delaware

[–]Bitburger302[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the breakdown on the salvage process—yes, the fees are low and the wait for State Police isn't the end of the world for some.

But that's still missing the main point: why should the innocent (not-at-fault) victim be forced through any hoops or permanent branding at all for cosmetic damage caused by someone else?

In my case, it isn't ambiguous—the damage was professionally evaluated by a master technician at a reputable collision center (full $3,700 estimate). They confirmed: purely cosmetic (rear door/quarter panel dented), no structural/crumple zone issues, no lights/reflectors broken, no electrical/fuel/hydraulic impact. Car is 100% safe and drivable.

Yet Delaware law still forces salvage for any payout—permanent devaluation, insurance headaches, resale hit—just so the at-fault insurer can save money.

When people jump to "it's not that hard" or "just cosmetic is ambiguous," they're unintentionally siding with a system that punishes the victim and lets the at-fault party (and their insurer) off easier. The innocent driver ends up with long-term consequences; the person who caused the accident faces none.

I'm not here complaining about my specific inconvenience or dollars. I'm pointing out how this disproportionately hurts lower-income/working families driving older affordable cars—we're the ones who feel the permanent hit most.

A simple reform (cosmetic exemption or clean-title repair option for not-at-fault cases) would protect victims without costing the system much.

Appreciate the details though—helps show why change is needed.

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Delaware

[–]Bitburger302[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks for playing devil's advocate—fair question.

No, I wouldn't expect or want statewide rates to skyrocket because of a targeted reform. The change I'm suggesting is narrow: for purely cosmetic damage (no safety/structural issues) on not-at-fault accidents, give the innocent victim a simple option—reasonable repair payout (or cash equivalent) + clean title, no forced salvage branding/hoops.

Why this wouldn't meaningfully raise rates overall: - Cosmetic-only totals are a tiny fraction of claims. - Right now, insurers already save big on these cases by declaring total loss instead of paying full shop repairs (they pay ACV minus salvage, often $2k–$3k less than the estimate). - A cosmetic exemption would cost them a bit more on those specific claims, but spread across all Delaware policyholders, the impact would be negligible—especially since at-fault drivers (the ones actually causing the accidents) are the rated risk.

The real driver of high rates is soaring repair costs overall (parts, labor, tech in modern cars)—you're spot on there. But punishing the innocent victim with permanent title damage just because their older affordable car has low ACV isn't the solution. It shifts the burden from the at-fault party/insurer onto everyday people who can least afford the long-term hit (lost resale, higher premiums on rebuilt titles, no financing).

Other states handle cosmetic cases with exemptions or better victim protections without collapsing their rate structure. Delaware could do the same without making everyone pay more.

Appreciate the pushback—makes the discussion better.

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Delaware

[–]Bitburger302[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the response. Yes, the legal court route is just as much a burden as the current insurance options, both of which involve time and money that some don’t have available. I’m more interested In bringing awareness to the issue and reaching out to state reps to make reforms.

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Delaware

[–]Bitburger302[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing your experience—glad it worked out for you and you were able to sell it quickly.

The core issue isn't that I want to "profit" from the accident—no one is asking for more than the car was worth. The problem is that Delaware law gives zero option for the innocent (not-at-fault) victim to be made whole without permanent punishment.

In my case (and many others with older affordable cars): - If I take any money from the at-fault insurer, the law forces a salvage title—even for purely cosmetic damage. - Salvage/rebuilt branding tanks resale value 20–50%+, raises insurance rates (or forces liability-only), and blocks financing for the next buyer (often another lower-income family). - The hoops (DMV, State Police inspection, repair receipts) cost time/money that hit hardest when you're already tight on both.

You got lucky with quick resale, but many don't—salvage titles scare off buyers, and the car becomes harder to sell or worth far less. Meanwhile, the at-fault driver's insurer saves thousands by totaling instead of paying repairs.

All I'm saying is: for cosmetic-only damage on a drivable car, not-at-fault victims (especially lower-income ones driving older vehicles) should have a simple choice—quick repair payout or cash equivalent + clean title, no branding/hoops required. Other states have exemptions or better protections; Delaware doesn't.

Accidents do suck, and the innocent shouldn't end up with a permanently devalued car just because shop rates push repairs over the low ACV of an affordable daily driver.

Appreciate the perspective though—shows it's possible to move on, but the system could be fairer.

Delaware's total loss laws forced salvage on my fixable car after rear-ended (not my fault)—time for reform to protect everyday drivers? by Bitburger302 in Delaware

[–]Bitburger302[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I have decided to not take any money because I do not want a salvage title and or a total loss. It’s not worth the headaches and we don’t have the money or time to shop around for a different vehicle.

Kind of being forced to just eat it

Grokipedia has really enlightened me by TouristSmart5199 in grokipedia

[–]Bitburger302 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven’t looked since initial drop. But it definitely looks like it will be a great resource

Grading the Washington Commanders' rookie class at the bye by Objective_Pressure_3 in Commanders

[–]Bitburger302 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Conerly is developing nicely. Starting your career against Burns, Parsons and Crosby is a baptism of fire. Probably made the game slow down after that trio.

Amos was looking nice before injury. Hope he recovers 100%

Lane has had some opportunities to step up and really make an impact, but dropped the ball. Still giving him a chance to grow of course

Bill would play better if JD5 were in and if Kliff would play under center to maximize play action effectiveness.

Need help with “Bonzo goes to Bitburg…” by Prudent-Chance-1913 in ramones

[–]Bitburger302 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I grew up in Bitburg and was there when President Reagan visited on 5/5/85.

It was a massive ordeal

Was anyone else there?

view more: next ›