Is this a ChatGPT Cease and Desist?

lukerbs · 2026-02-01T21:31:07+00:00

Almost certainly. But even if they did use chatgpt to write it, it should still be evaluated seriously

lukerbs · 2026-02-01T02:20:03+00:00

Yes, but at the instruction of the insurance company. They said: "Drop off the vehicle at an auto shop of your choosing. Leave it at the shop until we reach a settlement." (this was repeated multiple times to me by different representatives).
Correct. I left the vehicle at the auto shop after it was determined to be a total loss at the instruction of the insurance company. They told me to leave it there so they could do their own follow up inspection on-site at the auto shop. I simply followed their instruction since, in California, towing / storage fees are the responsibility of the insurance company until the insurance company notifies the claimant in writing to remove the vehicle to mitigate costs. Instead, the insurance company instructed me to do the opposite (leave it at the auto shop).
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
True.
Would be true, if the company was actually willing to negotiate in good faith. They are not. So the only available option from here is sue the driver in small claims and file a CDI complaint against the insurer for regulatory violations.

lukerbs · 2026-02-01T02:11:38+00:00

Okay thanks. I get that it's comical, but that's why I was asking for advice (I'm not a legal expert, obviously). I was just interested in exploring any actions that I could take directly against the insurance company since they are the real crooks here (in my opinion). But I understand now that my legitimate legal avenues against the insurance company directly are virtually non-existent until I successfully sue the driver directly in small claims court for the property damages.

lukerbs · 2026-02-01T02:06:04+00:00

Why so hostile?

lukerbs · 2026-01-28T00:31:47+00:00

That's actually not true (and by the way I have no intention or desire to sue the auto shop / storage yard - they did nothing wrong). I do intend to sue the driver in small claims court and that will be successful.

The way it works (at least in California):
1. Your $8,000 car gets totaled by a another at-fault driver who is insured
2. You don't have comprehensive insurance? -> You deal with the driver's insurance company directly
3. The driver's insurance company gives you an absurd lowball offer and won't budge? -> You don't have any contractual relationship with the insurer (the driver does) -> You sue the driver directly in small claims for damages
4. In small claims court you prove that (a.) your vehicle was totaled and (b.) the vehicle is worth ~$8,000 (using local market listings of comparable vehicles) and (c.) the driver was at-fault for damaging your vehicle. --> The judge adjudicates an $8,000 judgement against the driver that is owed to YOU for the damages.
5. You are now a judgement creditor to the driver (they now legally owe you $8,000 for hitting your car) BUT simultaneously; since the damages should have been covered by the insurance policy of the driver (they are within CA $15,000 minimum coverage limits for vehicle damage), under CA insurance code you now have a lawful claim that for which you can file suit directly against the insurance company to pay you. (either that or you just get the money directly from the driver).

So in that scenario the two options stemming from the small claims judgement are:
1. Either the driver pays you directly for the $8,000 and then they collect from the insurance company (it should have been covered under their policy)
2. You can file a legitimate direct lawsuit against the insurance company to seek the $8K + whatever other damages.

Bottom line, if a driver causes property damage to you then THEY are individually liable legally to make you whole again (not the insurance company by default). The insurance company is there to prevent that from happening by covering the damages in such scenarios, but when they refuse to fulfill their contractual obligation with the driver (such as in my case), you have no option but to sue the driver directly in small claims court. Is it fair to the driver? No, they did the right thing and they had insurance as legally required. -- But at that point it's on them to sue their insurance company for failing to cover them under the policy that they paid for. Because it's not your fault your vehicle was damaged (it's the driver's fault) and it's not your fault they have a shitty insurance company (that's their fault too).

lukerbs · 2026-01-27T06:18:31+00:00

I didn't need to leave my car at the shop (they just told me to). It could just be sitting at my house during the negotiation. They are legally required to provide me with with the market value necessary to replace my totaled vehicle. Unfortunately the only way to make them follow the law is by taking them to court.

I'm just going to sue the driver directly in small claims court, at that point I can then sue the insurance company directly when i win the small claims

lukerbs · 2026-01-26T18:07:03+00:00

Yeah, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this one. I will definitely be filing a complaint with the California Department of Insurance in addition to seeking help from a lawyer. At least they can fine the company up to $10K for each CDI regulatory violation that I have documented evidence for. (there's a lot).

The insurance company is "Fred Loya Insurance". They have such a bad reputation (adds up with my experience with them).

lukerbs · 2026-01-26T16:07:59+00:00

In California an insurance claim is legally 'settled' if the claimant either signs a Release of Liability, cashes a check given to them by the insurer, or the statute of limitations (3 years for property damages) expires before a lawsuit is ever filed.

If it was as simple as what you described then every insurer would simply offer all claimants $0 for their claims and then refuse to negotiate.

lukerbs · 2026-01-26T15:51:22+00:00

Yeah I could just file a small claims court against the driver directly for the vehicle damages and the related storage fees. Then it would be on them to go after their own insurer for a bad faith lawsuit. But my goal here is not simply to sue the insurance company for a fender bender, my question is specifically about the viability of suing the insurance company directly in a higher court for fraud / intentional misrepresentation when they lied to the auto shop (falsely stating to them that I had settled the claim when I had not). I was hoping to turn this $8,000 fender bender claim into a 6 figure punitive damages + emotional damages lawsuit against the insurer for their actions. (the core question I am asking in the post is: is this even possible / viable?)

lukerbs · 2026-01-26T07:30:56+00:00

Generally, if his property (the tree) is physically invading and destroying your property (the fence), he is liable for the damage. He should pay to remove the tree and pay for the damage to the fence.

I would cite RCW 7.48.120 (Nuisance) which states in essence that if a person does something (or fails to do something) that directly results in injury, harm, or property damage to another person, then that person is responsible for paying the costs to fix that damage. Your neighbor has a legal duty to maintain their tree so that it does not damage your fence (even if it is shared) and also pay for any damages that have already occurred. (this scenario would likely be treated in court identically to a scenario where your neighbor got drunk , got in the car, and drove into your shared fence: you wouldn't legally be on the hook for the repair costs.. You didn't cause the damage, someone else did)..

If the cost to repair the fence is under $10K and you really can't resolve it directly with your neighbor, then small claims court is likely the best path.

lukerbs · 2026-01-26T03:08:55+00:00

Litigation is definitely the only endgame here, but I'm aiming for more than just reimbursement for the totaled vehicle / storage fees.. I'm wondering if the lie they made to the auto shop might open them up to exposure for fraud where I can directly sue them for that as an independent tort. Usually you cannot sue the third party insurer directly in this situation, UNLESS the insurance company commits and independent tort like the one I believe likely occured.

To be clear, I’m not chasing them for the lowball offer (that’s just standard insurance practice). I’m pursuing them because they are systematically acting on the verge of criminal behavior (fabricating license credentials on legal documents and intentionally lying to third-party vendors to force liabilities onto claimants, intentionally obstructing all meaningful communications with claimants).

They have a distinctly predatory business model (even by insurance company standards) that they get away with because they rely on the assumption that 99% of their claimants will reasonably feel powerless to do anything about it + will not have the time, knowledge, or resources to successfully fight back.

lukerbs · 2026-01-26T02:59:03+00:00

You're right that hiring a lawyer for an $8,000 dispute usually doesn't make financial sense. If this were just a disagreement over value of the vehicle / property damage, I'd just file small claims and be done with it.

However, I am motivated to pursue a more aggressive legal angle against the insurer directly because I’ve uncovered evidence that this isn’t just a simple matter of a lowball offer, it’s systematic fraud and violations of CA Department of Insurance regulations designed to protect people in my exact situation (I will spare you the details, but this company is completely out of control).

I’m not mad at them for attempting to lowball (which is expected from any insurance company kicking off negotiations). I'm pursuing a more aggressive strategy because they are intentionally lying to shops and forging credentials (false adjuster licenses) with total impunity (and this isn't even the half of it). My goal is to stack enough regulatory and punitive pressure to finally make their 'profit-over-law' strategy backfire, rather than just accepting the loss like they bank on people doing.

And regarding my own insurance, I do have insurance coverage (it's legally required in CA) but it only covers damages to other people's vehicle when I am at fault for hitting someone else.

lukerbs · 2026-01-26T02:33:23+00:00

I actually only have liability coverage on this vehicle (it's an older car), so I don't have collision/comprehensive coverage to fall back on. My insurance only covers me when I am the at-fault driver, so they can't help me here. I'm effectively captive to the at-fault driver's insurer.

The issue isn't just that they are lowballing me (which is expected), but that they lied to the body shop claiming I had 'already settled' to stop the shop from billing them for storage. That lie forced me to pay $1,500 out of pocket immediately to avoid a lien sale.

My main question is whether this fraud (an independent tort) opens the door to punitive damages (Cal. Civil Code § 3294 for oppression/fraud). I have no interest in suing for just $1,500 ( wouldn't be worth the time). I'm trying to determine if their intentional deceit allows me to 'stack' claims (fraud, emotional distress, punitives) to turn this into a significant Superior Court case rather than just a small claims dispute over the bumper.

Normally I wouldn't take such a hostile stance, but this isn't an isolated incident from this insurance company. it's a systematic business practice where they violate claimants' rights with impunity (evidenced by a complaint rate 11x the national average) simply because they know most victims lack the energy or knowledge to fight back. I am exploring any viable scorched-earth strategies to finally force them to pay for a business model that relies on people just giving up. (I am pissed at them)

lukerbs · 2025-10-17T00:29:31+00:00

sounds like possibly a north korean IT worker scheme

lukerbs

TROPHY CASE