Good points.  Every accident I've been involved in, none of which was my fault, the
insurance companies wouldn't write me a check directly, but would pay the shop that
did the work.  Therefore, I have no experience with this kind of situation.  It also
seems to me to be a kind of ethics issue wherein the insurance company pays for
certain work to be performed with the expectation that the work be done.  Certainly
one could shop around and get the work/parts cheaper, but the end result should be
the same.  Of course, one could hardly make an argument for insurance companies
being all that ethical either, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Still, I do understand and respect this different point of view.
Marc Perdue

Anonymous Digest wrote:

> >You're kidding, right?  Why would one do it one's self when it's clearly a
> >situation where the liable person's insurance company will be required to pay
> >for all the repairs.
>
> Perhaps the idea is to get the money from the insurance company to actually
> replace everything, but fix it yourself and keep the cash for the aggravation?
>
> Everyone is in a different place in life, but when my van got hit on the side,
> the estimate was just over $1000, even tho the damage was really minor in my
> eyes. I looked at my, then twenty year old vehicle, considered the 'street
> value' and the value to me, and spent the money on other van-related stuff to
> keep it going, and to take me places I wanted to see. I fixed some of the damage
> myself, the rest is inconsequential and gonna be there for life. Would that I
> could afford everything I ever wanted <shrug>
>
> If someone offered you, I don't know, $400 for a new bumper, but you would be
> happy with something less, why not take the less, pound out the bumper, and use
> the money to pay for a nice trip, or stereo, or a porta potti with a heated
> seat? :-)
>
> Just my POV,
>
> John