Samsung Flat Panel With 2 Component Inputs? (1 Viewer)

[schan1269]

I'd start right at the top...of the 40"... http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN40ES6500-40-Inch-1080p-120Hz/dp/B0077QTSQM/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1359143170&sr=1-1&keywords=40es6500

 

[schan1269]

And here if you go for exact replacement... http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-LNT4061F-40-Inch-1080p-HDTV/dp/B000N4Z42C The TV is only 5 model years old(will "turn 6" in April).

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

... they presented such a low starting point they have me believing I'll never get that and need to ask for something in-between.

That's what they WANT you to believe. Sorry if my previous reply was off-point, but I was still writing it when you posted your last message. Now that I understand your focus, I can only quote the words of a wise seven year old girl, "If you really want the dollhouse for your birthday, ask for a pony." If you come in with a "middle" figure, they will push you down. Come in higher and they might still push you down to your middle. (Watch Pawn Stars sometime. They are living proof of the old adage - "He who name a price first, loses." Because that becomes either the floor or the ceiling for the other party to work from.) Insurance companies are used to people meekly taking the first offer. Make a pest of yourself and they will come up just to get rid of you. (Have you been a customer of theirs for long? Playing the loyalty card works, too. I got all sorts of concessions out of AT&T when they screwed up my Samsung Galaxy Note order and made me wait three days for a phone that was supposed to go out on the day I ordered it, in part because I was days away from my 20th anniversary with the company. Of course, I had to get a VP at the corporate office on the line before that happened, but sometimes it is worth fighting your way up the food chain at any company, including insurance outfits. Joe

 

[schan1269]

Speaking of which, cause I just remembered, I have had a CE/furniture claim once. The lead pipe in the house from city water burst. Not the part of the pipe I, as homeowner, am responsible for. You want to talk to some lowballers sometime...talk to a city adjuster. I wasn't able to file an insurance claim...cause my homeowners wasn't going to cover it. The city had to.

 

[Fastfwd]

I submitted for a 46” 6100 Series Samsung – it’s about a $900 current price set to replace my $1,150 40”. I’m hoping they don’t try to negotiate me down from that. I think that’s a really pretty fair request. He already said he would approve a 46” – so, I don’t think that they are confined to the specs too rigidly. He’s already presented replacements for other items that were generously off spec to meet my reported retail prices on items. Granted, they were off spec, but still not really the same quality of item, but not the point (competition car audio amplifiers). I maybe should have countered with a set that cost just as much as the one I lost first, but I’m soooo worn out with it all. Had to get an alarm system, fix doors (still not all fixed), file police reports, etc. I’m really just hoping they will approve that one and I can be a step closer to it being over. I usually enjoy researching stuff like this as a hobby and what I consider to be rather enjoyable ordinarily, but it’s almost like it’s been a job to get it taken care of more than for pleasure if that makes any sense.

 

[Fastfwd]

I’m curious on this topic; it’s occurred to me after I submitted that model and if they will or will not approve it – plus just starting to really listen to the ‘backlit’ vs. ‘edgelit’ options (which I have previously considered to be beyond what they might possibly approve). Anyone know why I can’t purchase what they do approve – get the receipt and submit it for the balance of what they have agreed to pay and then take the unopened television back and get the one I want that I might have to pay out of pocket to get that I couldn’t justify to the insurance company by their ‘rules’ of ‘replacement coverage?’ I mean, once they pay me – isn’t that settled and I can now do with my property what I choose to do? I’m thinking it would only be bound by whatever return policy there might be at the store of purchase? Anyone familiar with this?

 

[Gregg Loewen]

Once you settle on a price for the replacement, you can purchase what ever you want and then just submit the bill and be paid for the portion that was agreed to. They will not care that you upgraded from the settled on item.

 

[Fastfwd]

Once you settle on a price for the replacement, you can purchase what ever you want and then just submit the bill and be paid for the portion that was agreed to. They will not care that you upgraded from the settled on item.

I’ll ask about that –thanks! I’m not sure why I never considered this option. It’s just all hit me out of left field (not that I’ve never suspected being burglarized) and I’ve never dealt with this. I’m still catching up on what the sets are on the market now since I purchased five years ago – I’ve been happy with my set really.

 

[schan1269]

You could buy yourself a 65" panny VT. The insurance company won't care. You could say you went to the nearest Alco(if you have those) and bought the $239 40" LCD they sell. They are still only going to give you a pre-negotiated amount. And it isn't like the ins adjuster is going to buy the TV for you.

 

[Fastfwd]

You could buy yourself a 65" panny VT. The insurance company won't care. You could say you went to the nearest Alco(if you have those) and bought the $239 40" LCD they sell. They are still only going to give you a pre-negotiated amount. And it isn't like the ins adjuster is going to buy the TV for you.

From the impression that I have you’ve got it wrong – they are requiring me to provide a receipt for my ‘replacement’ before they pay out the full reimbursement amount. At this point, I have received a 50% depreciated valuation of a ‘far inferior’ set = $233 for my 5 year old $1,150 television. I would have to go out and purchase the television approved as ‘replacement’ and provide receipt just to get the other ‘half’ of the cost of the television they would like to see me accept as ‘replacement’ or a total of $466. This is how I understand it. It’s not a simple matter of an ‘actual cash value’ payout – it’s more complex than that. Overall, the claim probably paid out in my favor having ‘replacement’ insurance as opposed to ‘actual cash value.’ In the instance of the television loss it might have been in my favor to have simply had ‘actual cash value’ which I believe would have been $575 from their 50% depreciation calculation. My adjuster seemed to be very willing to negotiate on what constituted a more suitable ‘replacement.’ I may have to end up accepting less than what I believe is more suitable – we shall see. I will definitely be looking to find a way to not be left with a set that is inferior to the one that I had in the very least – however that works out. If I have to return the one they do approve or otherwise. I hope I don’t have to do that, but I might end up having to. Obviously, I am focused on the television as my biggest loss and it is overshadowing however well the claim has been settled on all other counts because I don’t want to end up stuck with a lame television as replacement for my old set that I was reasonably happy with still 5 years later.

 

[schan1269]

From the impression that I have you’ve got it wrong – they are requiring me to provide a receipt for my ‘replacement’ before they pay out the full reimbursement amount. At this point, I have received a 50% depreciated valuation of a ‘far inferior’ set = $233 for my 5 year old $1,150 television. I would have to go out and purchase the television approved as ‘replacement’ and provide receipt just to get the other ‘half’ of the cost of the television they would like to see me accept as ‘replacement’ or a total of $466. This is how I understand it. It’s not a simple matter of an ‘actual cash value’ payout – it’s more complex than that. Overall, the claim probably paid out in my favor having ‘replacement’ insurance as opposed to ‘actual cash value.’ In the instance of the television loss it might have been in my favor to have simply had ‘actual cash value’ which I believe would have been $575 from their 50% depreciation calculation. My adjuster seemed to be very willing to negotiate on what constituted a more suitable ‘replacement.’ I may have to end up accepting less than what I believe is more suitable – we shall see. I will definitely be looking to find a way to not be left with a set that is inferior to the one that I had in the very least – however that works out. If I have to return the one they do approve or otherwise. I hope I don’t have to do that, but I might end up having to. Obviously, I am focused on the television as my biggest loss and it is overshadowing however well the claim has been settled on all other counts because I don’t want to end up stuck with a lame television as replacement for my old set that I was reasonably happy with still 5 years later.

Just goes to show not all insurance companies/policies are created equal. My auto policy(which was bridged with homeowners) was a "replacement cost" regardless of what was purchased in its place. Meaning I could buy a cheaper something(which in the case of some things is unavoidable) and I still get a higher price. An example would be a BD player. A BD player bought "during the format war" would cost 2-3 times what its "new replacement" would cost. So I could buy a $100 BD player...yet still receive a $300 check from insurance. And in my prior example. When I bought that E350 diesel conversion van, we had 3 adults and 4 kids. When it was totaled, we had 2 adults and 1 child. I bought a sports car. The insurance company was hedging back and forth on what they were going to give me for the van. When I bought the Mustang to replace the E350, they went back to their "original" paltry amount based on the E150 v6. I said it was irrelevant what I bought...you have to cover what I lost. The entire ordeal took 2 months.

 

[Fastfwd]

Well, I can understand what your impression might have been – that was what my impression was too generally before I had a claim to file. In thinking of ‘replacement’ – I considered that it would be ‘equal value’ and in the case of my policy I was tipped off pretty quick when I first called that it was going to mean they were going to try to match the specs to the current market – which gets them out of paying for ‘equal value’ in my opinion when they try to apply those to the most entry level model they can find that matches the basic specs. This is the entire point of my post from the beginning. I was searching for arguments beyond the number of inputs – which I indeed considered in my original purchase. It appears that is an area where ALL televisions have cut costs across the board from entry to premium. I am still going to try to negotiate for something that is a more a suitable replacement than the entry level relative piece of junk they initially suggested as a ‘replacement.’ The best case I still have is for it to AT LEAST match the number of HDMI Inputs – I’m not budging off that. That’s absolutely ridiculous and an obvious feature that differentiates a low/entry level model from a more upper tier model like what I had stolen. Since 46” was mentioned – then I may try to persist for 3 HDMI inputs on a 46”. Otherwise, I’m probably going to go the route of buying what they will approve and return it for the one that I want and feel is a more suitable replacement if not an upgrade in the process. I was strictly thinking of being stuck with whatever low/entry level model they were going to try to force on me before, but I’m not going to sweat it so much and plan they will probably not agree to anything I might consider is reasonable and justified. They have already been generous in other areas of the claim. The structure cost reimbursement was far beyond what I might have expected it to be. So, they probably did that on purpose to make up the difference, but I’ve already submitted for what I did and I will likely pursue a better match than what they suggested to work from. I have yet to see what my total costs for structure repairs will run for that matter too. I have estimates, but who knows if they will stick to those in the process.

 

[Fastfwd]

Update: After all that drama – just wanted to give a plug for Farmer’s Insurance. I may or may not have mentioned them by name otherwise, but they pulled through on the ‘replacement’ coverage. I have no complaints. I appreciate the advice in regard to asking for what I want. I might otherwise have been too timid to make what I regarded as a reasonable request of replacement. Lesson learned; ‘replacement’ doesn’t necessarily mean it will be replaced with something the very same price you paid. I don’t think I am alone in misinterpretation of that, but it worked out in the end for the most part.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Bum pah bum bum bum bum pah bum