>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.

Haven't been through more than a handful of wrecks, so all I know is what has
happened to me, and I always just turned in the estimate, and gotten a check, no
questions asked. Hmmm..

>  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.

Is it really a question of ethics? I am not sure. Its my property, to do with as
I please, but I do understand where you are coming from.

> two
>wrongs don't make a right.
We ought to take a poll and see if this is perceived as being right or wrong.
<g>

Are we paying for insurance to cover the loss or damage to property, or the
replacement of that property? If someone steals the stereo, are we obligated to
replace it once the insurance gives us the check, or can we just buy something
else with the cash, or perhaps buy a cheaper one and keep the difference? If we
are willing to settle for less, should the insurance company only have to buy
the cheaper stereo? Better yet, if our van (again, RVC <g>) is stolen, we would
get a check for the value, but are we expected to purchase a replacement van, or
can we buy a Beetle instead? (would that those numbers ever worked out! <g>)

I can see both sides of it. In an honest, logical society, insurance companies
could lower rates and make our life better by only offering repairs, and no cash
payments. I might be for that, but in our world, we know that they would just
the idea it to increase their profits, not lower our premiums. Hey, does that
make me a kind of vigilante? Cool! :)

I gotta say that if my property is damaged to the tune of $2000, I want $2000
for the damage. I will decide if I want to repair, replace, or live with the
loss. If I am capable of less costly repairs, or williing to live with less, I
don't think that lowers the obligation of the person who does the damage.

OTOH, I do see the point from the other side. I wonder if there is an "official"
position within the insurance industry.  Interesting.......

 If your vanagon gets hit, will you (you in general, not just Mark) fight it if
the insurance refuses to pay you, but instead insists on having the repairs
done. Anyone else have an OT opinion? At least we are not name calling or
insulting each other with this one!

John