Seeking legal advice/help pertaining to car accident and insurance company.

[Doppelgänger]

Oops, I see I was typing too fast yesterday...lol

Well, "agreed to put the protection" on can go one of two ways.
1) It was implied that it would be replaced on the given fact that the insurance company must pay for the car to be repaired to the condition of the vehicle before the accident.
2) It was not written up in the initial estimate. I did make Performance aware of the car having the film upon the initial drop off and they should have passed this onto the adjuster when he came out to see the car. But it seems the adjuster was not aware of the film needing to be applied given the estimate I received from him did not have it listed. But to me, point #1 overrules #2 regardless.

IMHO, when the insurance company and the policy holder came to an agreement on coverage, the insurance company assumes all liability for any situation that policy holder may create, and in this case, they caused damage to a car with special conditions/parts that are not of normal/general repairs, but too bad, they agreed to cover the policy holder. Unfortunately these mindless souls that work in claims are not car people and don't seem to understand why the car should not have been driven after painting and before film application...I need to make them understand this. I also don't feel the insurance company was in touch with Performance to check up on the car on a regular basis nor kept up with Enterprise on the increasing bill. I think I'm going to call an attorney or two just to see what they say before I call the insurance company again and speak to the claim handler's supervisor.

[Vteckidd]

Oops, I see I was typing too fast yesterday...lol

Well, "agreed to put the protection" on can go one of two ways.
1) It was implied that it would be replaced on the given fact that the insurance company must pay for the car to be repaired to the condition of the vehicle before the accident.
2) It was not written up in the initial estimate. I did make Performance aware of the car having the film upon the initial drop off and they should have passed this onto the adjuster when he came out to see the car. But it seems the adjuster was not aware of the film needing to be applied given the estimate I received from him did not have it listed. But to me, point #1 overrules #2 regardless.

IMHO, when the insurance company and the policy holder came to an agreement on coverage, the insurance company assumes all liability for any situation that policy holder may create, and in this case, they caused damage to a car with special conditions/parts that are not of normal/general repairs, but too bad, they agreed to cover the policy holder. Unfortunately these mindless souls that work in claims are not car people and don't seem to understand why the car should not have been driven after painting and before film application...I need to make them understand this. I also don't feel the insurance company was in touch with Performance to check up on the car on a regular basis nor kept up with Enterprise on the increasing bill. I think I'm going to call an attorney or two just to see what they say before I call the insurance company again and speak to the claim handler's supervisor.

If they approved the work to be done, and the extra protection was in that estimate, then your golden. If its not, then you have an uphill battle.

The bodyshop, as david suggested, should be able to sort this out. All they need say is its included in every repair, or it was explained to the adjuster that it would be put on.

what it sounds like is they didnt know this special film was being applied, didnt know it would take a 30 day cure process, and you had a rental car for 72 days. They arent happy about that added cost. But as you explained even the 11 days wouldnt have worked considering the time it took to get parts.