Are you OK with this? Is this ethical?

[mikefixac]

My wife and I were on vacation, and the first night in our hotel someone backed their car into ours (our car was parked). The person who caused the accident left a note on the car with his address.

When I got back home, I got 2 estimates for the repair--$1600. We sent him the two estimates and he sent us a check for $1600. After getting the check, I went on Youtube and watched a few videos on dent removal, and though the car is not perfect, it looks much better and it only took me around 20 minutes to fix.

So basicly, I made $1600 on a 20 minute repair, though one can see that there was an accident and the repair is not perfect.

I'd appreciate other's thoughts on this. Thank you.

[matchewed]

I personally think it's unethical. You're taking money for the intent to fix your car, you did not use the money in that way.

[davisgang90]

I think you should either take it to the body shop for the repair or return the check.

[Riceman]

Given that your job was imperfect, how much lower is the resale value on the car now than before it was hit?  I'm not saying he will agree to "split the difference" or something like that, but if doing it yourself lowers the value of the car by 500, it would be a mistake to return the full 1600.

You could explain that to him and send back, say, 1100.  Or if he's not fine with that, tell him you'll take it to the body shop and pay the full 1600.

[Simplicity]

You posted your question because I assume you are interested in the opinions of others.
Unless there were some mitigating factors that you havent shared such as you being in really desparate financial straits I personally couldn't do what you have done. The person was incredibly honorable and you are profiting on their decency. The possible diminished value of my car would have no baring on my thought process.
I would either utilize  the money fully to repair my car or return the difference.

[BlueMR2]

I would have just fixed it myself without taking any money.  Everyone makes mistakes, and if the mistakes don't really matter, I like to let them slide.

However, I don't have a problem with what you did either.  They *did* do $1600 worth of damage to your property (as established through the normal estimation procedure).  There's nothing wrong with getting repaid for your damages.

Closest I ever got to a similar situation was when a parking lot was resurfaced at the building next door to where I worked...  Tar was misting and spraying all over the place and we came out of work to find tar spots all over our cars.  Insurance company for the parking lot people made arrangements for a detailer to come out and take our cars and get them detailed.  That was a no go for me, I don't let *anybody* else drive my car anywhere!  I told them not to worry about it, I don't wany any money, I'd just clean it myself.  Apparently that violates some insurance rule somewhere and they were *required* to send me money...  So, ended up taking $150 from them even though I wanted to just let it go...

[2527]

I think what you did is OK.  An independent estimate determined that it would cost $1600 to return your car to its previous condition and value.  You accepted the estimate and the money.  What you do with the money after that is up to you. 

I wouldn't do it among friends or people you want to work with in the future, or if I knew the person was in very limited economic circumstances. 

The main thing is you didn't manipulate or inflate the estimate. 

[Rural]

I don't see a problem myself. You went out of your way and avoided the authorities and insurance companies to benefit him, taking on the risk of getting nothing for no reason other than being kind to someone who had damaged your property.

My biggest question would be whether the check is good.

[Zamboni]

I don't have a problem with what you did either.  They *did* do $1600 worth of damage to your property (as established through the normal estimation procedure).  There's nothing wrong with getting repaid for your damages.]I don't have a problem with what you did either.  They *did* do $1600 worth of damage to your property (as established through the normal estimation procedure).  There's nothing wrong with getting repaid for your damages.

I am in this camp.  What if they totaled your car and paid you its value:  would you be obligated to buy the exact same car, or even any car at all, with the money?  I say no.  It's simple:  you had something that was undamaged, their negligence damaged it.  This was really inconvenient for you as you had to go get the estimates, etc.  They did the right thing and paid you for the damage they caused (I find it interesting that no one seems to think the inconvenience they caused should cost anything.)  You have the right to do whatever you'd like with that money. 

Also, bonus point for the sweat equity of fixing your own car!

[arebelspy]

Poll added.

This is a fun one.  Some decent points on both sides so far.

What is your system of ethics?  Ad hoc?

[COMO]

I have no problem with what you did. As people have said your property was damaged and you were compensated for it. There was inconvenience to you and your property is worth less. Assuming you didn't go to your buddies shop for an inflated estimate I think your fine.

[ender]

How would you feel if the situation was reversed?

[olivia]

I have no problem with what you did. As people have said your property was damaged and you were compensated for it. There was inconvenience to you and your property is worth less. Assuming you didn't go to your buddies shop for an inflated estimate I think your fine.

Ditto, and I've done the same thing, and twice. My car got broken into and the stereo was stolen. When I got the insurance check I bought a new computer and just didn't have a stereo.

Another time someone hit my car and left a note so I took it to their insurance company's body shop and got a check. Then I didn't fix the car because I lived in the city and it was bound to get hit again.

[arebelspy]

How would you feel if the situation was reversed?

Nice.

[Joshin]

I see nothing unethical about it, personally, for the reasons posted above. There was $1600 in damage, he paid the damages. What you do with the money is up to you. If the situation was reversed, I would have no problem with the person just keeping my check and fixing or leaving the damage as they saw fit. My responsibility for the situation ended when I paid for my negligence, after that it is none of my concern how the person decided to take care of the damages.

Now, if I knew they purposefully inflated the damages (threw in an estimate for some existing damage that I didn't cause, for example), then I would find it unethical.

[Daley]

I think the wrong questions are being asked in this thread by those people who are objecting to what's been done. These would be my questions back to Mike after being asked if what he did was ethical:

1) Prior to the damage done, what was the Black Book value of the vehicle?
2) Were both estimates within a few bucks of each other, and were the shops that provided those estimates known for highballing parts and labor (say, dealerships versus independent body shops)?
3) Has your insurance company been notified of the damages to the vehicle and the situation? Was comprehensive and/or collision carried on your vehicle at the time of the wreck, and if so, has that coverage since been dropped from the vehicle?

I have a habit of being pretty hard-line on the morals and ethics, but what I'm seeing here is the private party equivalent of insurance payouts (responsible self-insurance). As long as the estimates were genuinely reasonable for the damage done, the repair costs didn't meet or exceed the value of the vehicle, and Mike takes steps to ensure that no other person or insurance underwriter can or will be held financially responsible for future cosmetic or related mechanical repairs to the now damaged vehicle on the impacted body parts... what he's done is no different than opting for a financial payout for damage from the responsible party's insurance company over taking the physical repairs for a non-totaled vehicle. Damage was done to physical property, and the responsible party voluntarily made the appropriate level of reparations for that damage.

The only way I can say with certainty that what Mike's done is unethical is if the $1600 repair was for a car only worth $1599 or less, and only so far as to the tune of the difference, and if he doesn't notify and make the necessary policy changes with his own insurance provider to reflect the new value and condition of the vehicle, or files a claim with the insurance company as well.

[olivia]

How would you feel if the situation was reversed?

I wouldn't mind, but I've done the same thing so I couldn't really say anything else, could I? :P  That said, if I damaged someone's property I would expect to compensate them appropriately to make it right.  Once I do that, it's not really up to me. 

[sol]

How is this any different from collecting your car insurance payout and then choosing to drive a dented car instead of paying to have it fixed?

When a blind old lady hit my crappy Escort back in 06, her insurance company sent an appraiser and wrote me a check for the damage.  Since it was purely cosmetic and the car was a POS anyway, I deposited the check and drove a dented car.  It never even occurred to me that doing so might be unethical, and I don't see how the OP's question here is any different.

[KMMK]

How is this any different from collecting your car insurance payout and then choosing to drive a dented car instead of paying to have it fixed?

When a blind old lady hit my crappy Escort back in 06, her insurance company sent an appraiser and wrote me a check for the damage.  Since it was purely cosmetic and the car was a POS anyway, I deposited the check and drove a dented car.  It never even occurred to me that doing so might be unethical, and I don't see how the OP's question here is any different.

Technically, I believe that is insurance fraud. You only have a right to be reimbursed for monies that you actually spent. Insurance is never supposed to provide a financial gain. (Life insurance is its own separate area.) That is why I answered "unethical" in the poll.

[jdoolin]

I'll feel differently about this tomorrow than I do today, due to my sometimes annoying ability to see both sides of an argument.

But today I feel as though it were not much different than a usual insurance payout, just done privately.

However...

After fixing it myself, I would get SO much enjoyment out of telling them I figured out how to do it myself, that I'm fine with the car the way it is, and here's your money back minus what little I needed for the repair.  I'd have to think it's the last thing the other person is expecting.  :-)

If at that point the person insisted I keep it, then perhaps I'd change my mind.

[jpdcpajd]

What if you were in the car repair business.  Of course it would not cost you $1600 to repair, but should you take less to repair it when you could use that time and resources to make $1600 from another repair customer.  I think not.  You suffered damages two independent estimates established those damages.  You collected that amount.  How you spend it is not relevant.

[arebelspy]

What if you were in the car repair business.  Of course it would not cost you $1600 to repair, but should you take less to repair it when you could use that time and resources to make $1600 from another repair customer.  I think not.  You suffered damages two independent estimates established those damages.  You collected that amount.  How you spend it is not relevant.

Absolutely you should take less to repair it, if it takes you less (including a fair wage for your time).

Now if you repaired it to less than standard, one could argue that you could keep the difference that it would take to make it whole, and drive around the lesser valued car (as some above have done).

But if given $1600 you repair it to 100% counting a fair wage for your time for only $1100 of the 1600, absolutely you should refund the $500.  If you repair it to where the car is worth $300 less than it was and it cost you only $500 (including a fair wage for your time), keep the $300 (for the reduced value of the car) and refund the other $800.

Keeping an amount above what it would cost to restore the car to whole is not right, IMO.

How about this scenario: you get quotes for $1600.  Guy cuts you a check for 1600.  You go in to get it repaired.  They repair it to 100% brand new and let you know their estimate was high, and they only charge you $1000.  Do you keep the $600 difference?  Or do you tell the guy the actual cost to repair turned out to be lower, and refund the $600?  I.e. do you profit off his mistake, even though you are restored whole?

[sol]

Technically, I believe that is insurance fraud. You only have a right to be reimbursed for monies that you actually spent. Insurance is never supposed to provide a financial gain.

Not according to the agent who handed me the check.  I specifically asked her about this, and she said if I could find a person to repair it for less than she was paying, the extra was mine to keep.  Maybe because it was the other person's insurance paying, and not mine?

[lbdance]

A friend of mine was on the other side of this when she was a learner driver. Involved in a very minor incident, and the other party gave her a quote to repair. Her mum then made out a cheque for the value of the repairs to the repairer so that the other person did not have the opportunity to do what OP posted.
With insurance in New Zealand it is normally like this also, if the insurance is going to pay for it, they pay direct to the repairer, so there is little opportunity for this to happen.
My instant reaction was that I did not think it was ethical, however the more I thought about it, I couldn't really justify why.

[randymarsh]

I don't see how it's unethical. Your property was damaged. You were paid an amount to compensate for that loss. You simply traded having it having it fixed for money in the bank. What's the difference between $1600 of parts and labor vs. $1600 in the bank?

I hit a car while parking and dented the bumper of the other car and scratched mine up a bit. I left a note and then actually was able to talk to the owner when he left the store. He said it was a work truck and wasn't worried about a small dent and said it was fine. However, he had every right to be compensated for damage I caused. Whether or not he actually fixes it I think is irrelevant.

[Undecided]

Technically, I believe that is insurance fraud. You only have a right to be reimbursed for monies that you actually spent. Insurance is never supposed to provide a financial gain.

Not according to the agent who handed me the check.  I specifically asked her about this, and she said if I could find a person to repair it for less than she was paying, the extra was mine to keep.  Maybe because it was the other person's insurance paying, and not mine?

Or just "not at all"---fraud, as a legal concept, would require that you at least misrepresented a material fact (plus the other elements), which has nothing to do with taking a check for damages actually suffered. Knowingly presenting a dishonest repair estimate could be fraud, but deciding that you prefer a damaged vehicle plus cash to a repaired vehicle is just a decision as to how to spend money. In most vehicle damages incidents, the damaged party is entitled to monetary damages in an amount that makes him or her whole. How he or she spends the money has no bearing on that.

[NumberJohnny5]

Completely ethical. Also would have been ethical for the guy to send the check to the repairer instead.

I guess the conundrum would be if that part of the car gets damaged again. What if it's hit in the same panel, but different location, and it needs to be replaced? That's where it would get tricky for me. But in this scenario; undamaged part of car gets damage. Cost to repair properly is $1,600. Person responsible for the damage should pay that (or the replacement value of the car, whichever is lower).

Our car was totaled years ago. Insurance paid off the loan (*gasp*) and sent a check for the remainder. At no time did I feel obligated to go out and buy the exact same model car.

Should note, that I wouldn't view it differently had an insurance company been involved. You pay for insurance so they'll pay out ON YOUR BEHALF. So you need to pay money for something, but you have insurance, they pay for you. Taking $1,600 from an insurance company would be the same (to me) as taking $1,600 directly from the person responsible. Though perhaps I'd feel differently if my mom crashed into us causing $20,000 of damage.

[Argyle]

The situation commented on by Kestra is not insurance fraud.  A car hit mine and the estimate from the body shop was $3000.  I thought this was outrageous and called up the insurance company and told them so.  "That is a licensed shop and we abide by their estimates," the insurance company told us.  I told them, "I am never going to spend $3000 on getting that little dent repaired."  "We issue the check, you can do what you want with it," they said.  I used it to put a new roof on my house. 

The crucial thing is that the car was paid off.  If someone still has a car loan, the bank has an interest in the car, and not keeping the value of the car up would be defrauding the bank.  So as the insurance company explained it to me, if I had not paid off the car, I would be obligated to used the insurance payout to fix it.  But since I had paid it off, the check was mine to do with as I wished.

That said, I think taking $1600 from an individual and not using it to fix the car is sketchy.

[tomsang]

They did damage, they did not want their insurance to be affected, you got quotes on the cost of the damage, what you do with the damage is up to you. Not unethical.  This happens all the time with insurance.  Their job is to make you whole by repairing or paying.  They gave you the cash, now it is up to you to determine whether you want cash and an imperfect car or a completely repaired car. 

Now I knew a brother of a friend who lived on a very steep hill and had a piece of junk car.  He would actually move his car to to a specific location everytime it snowed.  People would hand him hundred dollar bills not to go through the insurance for the "damage". I am sure he made a few thousand doing this.  I would call that not ethical.

   

[sol]

When my motorcycle was totaled, the insurance company paid me the value of the bike.  There was never any expectation that I would use that money to buy a new motorcycle, considering that I was in the hospital and physically unable to ride anymore.

I fail to see how taking the money from a person is any different from taking it from an insurance company.  The person pays the insurance company to be the responsible party.  If they opt to pay you directly instead of letting their insurance cover it, that should be their choice and should have no bearing on what you do with the money.

[DocLago]

At first glance, my brain screams, take the money.  After some reading, and the inevitable post of "what if it were you" I'm left with the same end conclusion but much less conviction.

There is notable damage to your vehicle, as noted by the 2 estimates.  Yes, you fixed the damage enough to appease yourself, but when the day comes that you want to sell the car or trade it that damage still remains.  Consider it as an investment toward a future loss.  Or a current loss with a future price tag.  It doesn't effect you now, but at some point, it will change the value of your investment.

Now the small voice in my head is whispering that the guy who sent you the 1600$ out of the kindness of his heart for you to do little to nothing related to the reason the money was sent should be considered.  If you send the money back to him, the game of paying it forward begins.  He gets this check in the mail, he is pleased and surprised, 1600$ while not being an extravagant amount of money, is still a sizable sum.  In essence the good deed that he did(he REALLY didn't have to do this), repaid by the good deed that you are thinking of doing will in turn cause other good deeds to snowball down the mountain.  In both his case and yours and possibly a certain amount of readers of this forum.

Regardless I'd keep the money, and I vote ethical.  This 1600$ will come back to being relevant at some point even though currently the solution is acceptable.

[Undecided]

Now the small voice in my head is whispering that the guy who sent you the 1600$ out of the kindness of his heart for you to do little to nothing related to the reason the money was sent should be considered.  If you send the money back to him, the game of paying it forward begins.  He gets this check in the mail, he is pleased and surprised, 1600$ while not being an extravagant amount of money, is still a sizable sum.  In essence the good deed that he did(he REALLY didn't have to do this), repaid by the good deed that you are thinking of doing will in turn cause other good deeds to snowball down the mountain. 

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. If the other driver was at fault, he was liable for the damage; how he chooses to satisfy that liability, whether by writing a check or by having his insurer pay for it, isn't the OP's business and doesn't reflect morally (good or bad) on the other driver. He wrote the check to discharge his liability, which has nothing to do with "the kindness of his heart" and is something that "he REALLY [did] have to do. ..."

[DocLago]

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. If the other driver was at fault, he was liable for the damage; how he chooses to satisfy that liability, whether by writing a check or by having his insurer pay for it, isn't the OP's business and doesn't reflect morally (good or bad) on the other driver. He wrote the check to discharge his liability, which has nothing to do with "the kindness of his heart" and is something that "he REALLY [did] have to do. ..."

Again we come down to ethics though.  Ethically or morally, he had to satisfy the debt one way or the other.  Legally, he had to satisfy the debt one way or the other.  But the legal standing in this is about the same as speeding.  Do you pay the speeding ticket you never got from the cop who never saw you speeding?  Based on the story that I read, info was left on the OP's car.  Which means it wasn't like he was walking out to his car and saw it happen and stopped the guy.  I'd wager a good 6/10 people that I meet on a daily basis would have left without a second thought and shrugged it off.  A good 2/10 would have contemplated it and driven off anyway.  1/10 would have felt really bad about it, but chucked dueces to avoid the cost, and that last 1/10 would have stopped, left an insurance card or a way to contact and fulfilled their debt.

So yea, I say the person really didn't have to do this.  And even after living on a military base for the last 3 years and seeing this happen to numerous people in a place that is driven by honor, loyalty, respect, duty.  It happens once a week around here, and rarely does anything happen about it.

[Undecided]

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. If the other driver was at fault, he was liable for the damage; how he chooses to satisfy that liability, whether by writing a check or by having his insurer pay for it, isn't the OP's business and doesn't reflect morally (good or bad) on the other driver. He wrote the check to discharge his liability, which has nothing to do with "the kindness of his heart" and is something that "he REALLY [did] have to do. ..."

Again we come down to ethics though.  Ethically or morally, he had to satisfy the debt one way or the other.  Legally, he had to satisfy the debt one way or the other.  But the legal standing in this is about the same as speeding.  Do you pay the speeding ticket you never got from the cop who never saw you speeding?  Based on the story that I read, info was left on the OP's car.  Which means it wasn't like he was walking out to his car and saw it happen and stopped the guy.  I'd wager a good 6/10 people that I meet on a daily basis would have left without a second thought and shrugged it off.  A good 2/10 would have contemplated it and driven off anyway.  1/10 would have felt really bad about it, but chucked dueces to avoid the cost, and that last 1/10 would have stopped, left an insurance card or a way to contact and fulfilled their debt.

So yea, I say the person really didn't have to do this.  And even after living on a military base for the last 3 years and seeing this happen to numerous people in a place that is driven by honor, loyalty, respect, duty.  It happens once a week around here, and rarely does anything happen about it.

I didn't read the part about how there was no way that any hotel camera, employee or guest might have seen him do it and how he knew he was going to get away with it, but he nonetheless decided to voluntarily do the right thing (even though he'd used his fake identity to register the car that he was driving!).

And in my state, doing $1,600 in damage to someone else's property and leaving the scene is a Class A misdemeanor, not remotely in the same category as speeding (unless the speeding rises to the level of reckless driving)---not that that's even relevant.

[Rural]

What if you were in the car repair business.  Of course it would not cost you $1600 to repair, but should you take less to repair it when you could use that time and resources to make $1600 from another repair customer.  I think not.  You suffered damages two independent estimates established those damages.  You collected that amount.  How you spend it is not relevant.

Absolutely you should take less to repair it, if it takes you less (including a fair wage for your time).

Now if you repaired it to less than standard, one could argue that you could keep the difference that it would take to make it whole, and drive around the lesser valued car (as some above have done).

But if given $1600 you repair it to 100% counting a fair wage for your time for only $1100 of the 1600, absolutely you should refund the $500.  If you repair it to where the car is worth $300 less than it was and it cost you only $500 (including a fair wage for your time), keep the $300 (for the reduced value of the car) and refund the other $800.

Keeping an amount above what it would cost to restore the car to whole is not right, IMO.

How about this scenario: you get quotes for $1600.  Guy cuts you a check for 1600.  You go in to get it repaired.  They repair it to 100% brand new and let you know their estimate was high, and they only charge you $1000.  Do you keep the $600 difference?  Or do you tell the guy the actual cost to repair turned out to be lower, and refund the $600?  I.e. do you profit off his mistake, even though you are restored whole?

But any car that has been in a wreck is worth less at resale than one that has not. It's not possible to be restored whole. Any extra money may (or may not) compensate for the loss at resale, unless of course the seller doesn't disclose (actually unethical in my book) and the buyer is foolish enough not to check.

[arebelspy]

But any car that has been in a wreck is worth less at resale than one that has not. It's not possible to be restored whole. Any extra money may (or may not) compensate for the loss at resale, unless of course the seller doesn't disclose (actually unethical in my book) and the buyer is foolish enough not to check.

How has it been in a wreck?  What if it dented the bumper, and they replaced the whole bumper?

I notice you ignored the questions I asked.

It is my opinion that you should not profit off their mistake. If it costs you 500 to fix, and the car is worth 500 less when you sell it, you should not keep 1600.  You should keep what it will take to restore you to where you were before their mistake.

[Undecided]

But any car that has been in a wreck is worth less at resale than one that has not. It's not possible to be restored whole. Any extra money may (or may not) compensate for the loss at resale, unless of course the seller doesn't disclose (actually unethical in my book) and the buyer is foolish enough not to check.

How has it been in a wreck?  What if it dented the bumper, and they replaced the whole bumper?

I notice you ignored the questions I asked.

It is my opinion that you should not profit off their mistake. If it costs you 500 to fix, and the car is worth 500 less when you sell it, you should not keep 1600.  You should keep what it will take to restore you to where you were before their mistake.

I don't disagree with this idea in a broad sense, but there are a couple of problems. First, the OP didn't even suggest that the other driver should pay "diminished value," which is more like the damages component that you're arguing should (eventually?) be refunded if it turns out to be overstated. Second, how does anyone know the impact of the damage and repair on the eventual sale? There's no way any presumption or hypothetical contribution of that damage to resale shoud cut against the OP, who wasn't at any fault! Practically, the reasonably understandable facts shortly after the accident have to be the end of the story, and in vehicle accidents, the cost of professional repair is effectively the minimum reasonable interpretation of damage. In many views, it's not the end of the story (for example, diminished value, as mentioned above).

[mikefixac]

Hi MMMers. I'm Mike, the OP on this thread.

Reading the first few comments, I thought "yikes, I'm one unethecal dude". Then I felt better as I read more comments.

The car is a Toyota Sequoia 2004 (before MMM). And the roles were reversed on me before. I backed into a car as I was leaving my parking space. I immediately admitted my culpability and sent the guy a check. Actually, the accident that I caused, after I thought about it, I think I may have not been cupable at all.

I did send the person a note to thank him for the check and his honesty, and I would feel better sending him back $500.

Thanks to Youtube for helping me do the repair. I learned how to remove the panel to the door and make the dent look a lot better.

And the 2 estimates I got, one was for $1600 and the other at $1650.

[DocCyane]

When my mother's greenhouse was blown away in a tornado, the insurance company gave her $10k. She decided she was done raising orchids and bought a ruby ring.

Still makes me laugh.

[oldtoyota]

I am curious what others think about the following.

What if it had taken Mike 4 hours to repair the car? How much should a person compensate himself for time spent on a repair?

This could be for anything--broken window on your house, car accident, etc.

[travelbug]

I understand why you did what you did and I applaud that you fixed the car yourself.

I would be tempted, but the situation does not sit well with my ethics, personally.

[Baylor3217]

This

I think what you did is OK.  An independent estimate determined that it would cost $1600 to return your car to its previous condition and value.  You accepted the estimate and the money.  What you do with the money after that is up to you. 

I wouldn't do it among friends or people you want to work with in the future, or if I knew the person was in very limited economic circumstances. 

The main thing is you didn't manipulate or inflate the estimate.

[arebelspy]

This

I wouldn't do it among friends or people you want to work with in the future, or if I knew the person was in very limited economic circumstances. 

To both of you that answered this: why is it okay to do to a stranger, but not a friend?

Why is it okay if the person has a $10,000 emergency fund, but not if they have no emergency fund and had to take a cash advance on their credit card to pay for it?

Can you explain your reasoning on how it's ethical to do it to one person (stranger with some money) but not another (friend or stranger without money).

[matchewed]

The only reason I feel it is unethical is the idea behind a square deal. Forget the talk about insurance, that's a middle man to this discussion which is actually not relevant.

This guy was trying to do right to the OP for a wrong he did. To make things square between them. The reason I think it's unethical is because you shouldn't profit off of a restitution, things should be equal at the end of it when it's just between two people. Sure toss in all sorts of different variables, the time it took to fix, the tools needed to be bought...etc. Get a decent calculation of the value of those variables which you can agree with and send the rest of the money back. To profit off of someone's honesty just seems shady.

[tomsang]

The only reason I feel it is unethical is the idea behind a square deal. Forget the talk about insurance, that's a middle man to this discussion which is actually not relevant.

This guy was trying to do right to the OP for a wrong he did. To make things square between them. The reason I think it's unethical is because you shouldn't profit off of a restitution, things should be equal at the end of it when it's just between two people. Sure toss in all sorts of different variables, the time it took to fix, the tools needed to be bought...etc. Get a decent calculation of the value of those variables which you can agree with and send the rest of the money back. To profit off of someone's honesty just seems shady.

That is a good approach, but what if it shows that he did $2,000 based on the calculation. I have found that people buying a car discount the price of the car greater than the cost to repair the damage. If this was a beater car with lots of dings then maybe the $1,600 would be on the high end. If this was a flawless car, then the guy probably owes you another $500. If I took three hours to figure it out and semi repair the damage at my standard billing rate of $500 an hour is that different from someone making minimum wage. The market says it is $1,600 to bring the person to whole.  The person readily paid $1,600. It seems like everyone has accepted the valuation except the OP, who would rather have an imperfect car and cash. This happens all the time with insurance. People live with imperfections and deploy the cash in different ways.

[matchewed]

Seriously... $500 an hour. That's a fairly outlandish number to pull to represent the estimated cost of the fix the OP implemented. Also we know how long it took, 20 minutes. Like I said in the post you quoted, you can pull all sorts of variables to justify it. We have known variables here. The OP, if he decides to keep it, pocketed $1600 for 20 minutes of work, the frustration of having a damaged vehicle, and according to others opinions the estimate of a body shop which he chose not to bring the car to for fixing. Somehow that is fair.

I just personally believe that between two people regardless if it's a friend or a stranger you should be honest and fair. I can't change the insurance system or how it's set up, that's why I choose to throw out that argument. I can however choose how I treat other individuals, I view it as cheating someone and I wouldn't do it. That's all. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to convince anyone otherwise.

[sol]

I just personally believe that between two people regardless if it's a friend or a stranger you should be honest and fair.

How was this not honest and fair?  He got two estimates, and he settled for the lower one.  He didn't misrepresent the costs or the extent of the damage.  He didn't extort the funds.  He didn't ask for the damage.  This all seems totally legit to me.

[arebelspy]

I just personally believe that between two people regardless if it's a friend or a stranger you should be honest and fair.

How was this not honest and fair?  He got two estimates, and he settled for the lower one.  He didn't misrepresent the costs or the extent of the damage.  He didn't extort the funds.  He didn't ask for the damage.  This all seems totally legit to me.

But several people said they wouldn't do it to a friend, but would to a stranger.  If you feel it's honest and fair for one, why is it not for the other?

[rebel100]

You got 2 estimates, went from those estimates to arrive at a fair figure.  You received funds to cover your repair and inconvenience caused by this guys negligence. 

That you figured out a way to DIY in no way negates the value of the injury. 

And it could have been much worse...had you insisted on calling the police he might have been charged with a hit an run...you didn't, possibly saving him from significant trouble.

Had you dropped the vehicle off for repair there may have been several days worth of inconvenience and rental cars.  This would have added to his burden....he got off cheap.

Your vehicle has been wrecked, can't undo that. 

Did I mention this was caused by his negligence?

Completely ethical....now if I was the guy and you sent me back a couple hundred bucks since it wasn't as expensive as you expected...well that would make me happy.

[matchewed]

I just personally believe that between two people regardless if it's a friend or a stranger you should be honest and fair.

How was this not honest and fair?  He got two estimates, and he settled for the lower one.  He didn't misrepresent the costs or the extent of the damage.  He didn't extort the funds.  He didn't ask for the damage.  This all seems totally legit to me.

What seems unfair is the claim that it will cost $1600 to fix. Then the funds are pocketed for profit rather than for fixing the damages. It's personal gain for something that was apparently not $1600 dollars worth of a problem. In my mind it's using the situation for profit rather than for restitution.