by Guest » Sat Jul 11, 2009 09:37 pm
I had my car ran into the other morning by a guy that fell asleep. He doesn't have insurance so I have to claim it on my insurance under uninsured motorists property damage. The car is a 07 Elantra and it was hit in the front driver's side. The car was struck and moved up the curb and then slid/rolled through the yard. The estimate is $6,182 for body damage and suspension repairs. There is no where in there a mention to the damage to the transmission that could have possibly occurred. The pillar that the door is mounted to is mangled and twisted. Also my airbags did not deploy.
From my understanding, the car is supposed to be able to be fixed to as it was prior to the accident. IMO, there is no way to get it that way without replacing the transmission and the frame will never be the same. How are they not totaling my car? They just come up with an arbitrary value for the car to meet this threshold? The NADA value of my car is $10,300. Which these cars are just not selling for that.
The accident was in South Carolina. So would I be entitled to a diminished value claim if the car is repaired? They came up with the estimate with the door, front fender, and front bumper removed. If there is any more damage found, and it eclipses the so important threshold, will they just stop fixing it and make the car a total loss?
Can someone please shed some light onto this, I'm at a loss. I've never had to use my insurance before out of my 8 years of driving and now that I need to use it, I get the shaft.
From my understanding, the car is supposed to be able to be fixed to as it was prior to the accident. IMO, there is no way to get it that way without replacing the transmission and the frame will never be the same. How are they not totaling my car? They just come up with an arbitrary value for the car to meet this threshold? The NADA value of my car is $10,300. Which these cars are just not selling for that.
The accident was in South Carolina. So would I be entitled to a diminished value claim if the car is repaired? They came up with the estimate with the door, front fender, and front bumper removed. If there is any more damage found, and it eclipses the so important threshold, will they just stop fixing it and make the car a total loss?
Can someone please shed some light onto this, I'm at a loss. I've never had to use my insurance before out of my 8 years of driving and now that I need to use it, I get the shaft.
Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:18 am Post Subject:
I spoke with the "expert" and he assured me that it would be totaled out even if the repairs were completed and if by chance the trans was bad and pushed it over the threshold.
That's great news Burnett! Their 'expert' most likely was an adjuster as well. Just a PD adjuster, either one that works for their company or an indendent. That should take a load off your mind. I'm glad to hear it. Re: your adjuster not returning calls, as I've said, call back zero out, and ask to speak to that adjusters supervisor, there is NO reason for your calls to go unreturned, NONE. And personally I wouldn't put up with it for a second...It's still the property of the owner and they can decide whether they choose to fix it or not
Ab-so-freakin'-lutely! I couldn't agree more...They however, cannot make the decision if the vehicle is a total loss or not.They may not have the authority to report it to the state that it is a total loss but, they can choose not to repair if the lein holder or a dealer is in agreement to sell the salvage and take the insurance check and roll the owner into a different vehicle and pay off the lein. Done all the time
I (again) totally agree Mike. Reporting a vehicle as a total loss to the state, isn't what totalling a vehicle is all about, (in fact in our great state if it's over seven years old that isn't even required anymore...maybe seven yrs. and over)...It's totaled if the cost of repair is either 80% of the ACV or ACV-salvage...I just wrote an estimate on a 13,000 dollar vehicle with 10,000 in damages. The insurer estimate was 7000 and they asked me to tow it in and make a closer inspection. It doesn't meet the threshold of 80 percent and after taking taxes and other non factors in the total loss equation
Again, the 80% rule, doesn't apply to every car, and no cars over a certain age (in MO folks)...they took the maybe route because they didn't want to get caught repairing a total loss or one that would likely total even after 75 percent of the repairs were completed only to find additional problems.
Right, and on a vehicle that is very close to a total, you can (as I said in prior post) push it over the cliff, but in a situation like the OP's you can't say, 'might be some tranny damage, yeah, I know we're over 1k from a total, but still :roll: "...It was a wise move on their part and the vehicle owner was happy with the settlemnt and I got paid for my time and administrative fees by the insurer.
I agree, and do the same, probably one every other month or so. But it's purely a case by case basis. If I have a vehicle who's front bumper is touching the dash, while I cannot see the individual parts damaged, I can pretty much prove that there is the high likelyhood of a huge supplement. Again, that's totally different from the OP's 'possible' tranny damage.Paying for a second opinion is done all the time in the medical field and sometimes it saves a person's life or pocket book in the longrun.
I'm not saying it doesn't my point is this is a cost HE would incur that would be unreimbursed...15 hours of repair in a new vehicle quarter panel full of bondo and black to boot?
Yeah, I wouldn't have written that either, but I've also run across in my time, some greedy shops that want to do the same thing, (high repair time rather than replace). Again, apparently that 'expert' agreed it was going to be a clean repair...was it? or did they end up replacing the 1/4? or just adding insult to injury by re-repairing it?The point being, a disinterested third party should be called in to give the owner an opinion which could save them money down the road when they try to trade in a train wreck that has been repaired not to oem standards and requirements.
Which is precisely what the appraisal claus is about...so did this insured impose that claus? Did they get the 1/4 replaced?http://www.csiofnc.com/your_minimum_dv_loss.pdf letter from niada director with regard to 2800 member dealerships using 25 percent depreciation as a starting point for trading a used vehicle with accident damage.
Thank you, I looked for it yesterday and couldn't find anything..Actually what he said was that repairs (#1) have to have been for 25% or more of the vehicle ACV to begin with. He further states that it's hugely dependent upon the age of the vehicle an older vehicle wouldn't have near (if any?) the deduction. In fact he says that the older the vehicle the less the impact. He also states no governing body or association publishes ANY guideline at all for this. His opinion is based upon discussions with his membership only. And not a guideline at all set out by this or any other association. And again, NC (state he is addressing this to), has a law on the books stating an OWNER must disclose any repair over 25% of the vehicles ACV, not sure MO does. I know the car dealer must, which is why they don't ask when you trade a vehicle in (don't ask don't tell mentality). But I'm not sure a private owner is required to report this unasked, and again we're talking about 25% of the vehicles ACV in repairs. I just don't think you can use this letter as a blanket for the entire country Mike.Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 02:19 pm Post Subject:
Most if not all of the DV assessments I have written were for newer cars with damage higher than 25 to 50 percent of acv. The greatest loss is for newer low mileage cars and for people that routinely trade every three or four years. In fact most off the assessments I do are on current year model or the last two years.
I typically see 10,000 dollars in damages on 25,000 dollar vehicles or 15,000 in damages on 35,000 bmws, lexus, etc.
Most people who are concerned about losses in value are people with damages that fall more into the 33 to 75 percent range.
Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 09:25 pm Post Subject:
There's a lot of information in here. I think the reason that they don't want to call it a total loss with it being 700 dollars away from the threshold is because the person that hit me didn't have insurance. Even though I know that they will get their money because he's in the navy. They will make him get a loan to pay it off.
We are entitled to the diminished value claim since we were hit and have filed under the uninsured motorists property damage, so that is what we will do. Hopefully we can get some money there.
Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:07 pm Post Subject:
The greatest loss is for newer low mileage cars and for people that routinely trade every three or four years. In fact most off the assessments I do are on current year model or the last two years
Well, that makes a little more sense, but I still maintain that there is NO loss until that vehicle is traded or sold, (if any)..I (personally) think that NO DV claim should be paid until that time. If I have a 25k one year old vehicle that suffers 10k in damages, it's repaired, but I don't trade or sell it for five or six years, did I have the DV claim that I was paid when my vehicle was repaired? Of course not...That's one of my biggest problems with the validity of DV claims..I think the reason that they don't want to call it a total loss with it being 700 dollars away from the threshold is because the person that hit me didn't have insurance.
Nope, I assure you that has zero to do with it...Even though I know that they will get their money because he's in the navy. They will make him get a loan to pay it off.
Yeah, or they'll let him make payments...He'll sign a promisory note, and have to make payments forever. If he can pay them a lump sum, they'll reduce it substantially (ie-3-4k all at once and the whole thing goes away...that would be his best bet)...We are entitled to the diminished value claim since we were hit and have filed under the uninsured motorists property damage, so that is what we will do. Hopefully we can get some money there.
Are you SURE of that? Did the adjuster tell you that? Your state has no DV on first party claims, you need to get clarification on that ... If that's true, then your DV claim should eat up that 700.00 between repairing and totaling the vehicle.Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:39 pm Post Subject:
They did assure me that since it was the uninsured motorist property damage claim that a DV claim is allowed. I brought that up to the adjuster but they are adamant about repairing the vehicle. I held out as long as I could. Two weeks of BSing was all I could take. We will trade the car in as soon as it's repaired though so we can get the DV.
Also, the reason why the rental car wasn't initiated as soon as the collision happened is because I don't have it on my policy, but since it is being claimed under the UIMPD I'm entitled to a rental car.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:49 am Post Subject:
Please consider coming back and telling us what kind of trade in offer values the dealer made to you after the car is repaired and you attempt to purchase another car with the repaired one as a trade in. We'll be here. Please also come back to let us know if the repairs were to your satisfaction and how many times, if any, did you have to return it to get additional repairs. Please be sure to ask for a written copy of the warranty from the insurer or shop.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:53 am Post Subject:
I will. My wife doesn't want the car since it's been in the accident. The insurance company assures me that the incident will not be put on the carfax report which is just retarded.
So if the repairs are made and it looks oem, then there will be no way to tell. Believe me though, since they were so adamant about saying it could be done, IT WILL BE DONE.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:30 am Post Subject:
The insurance company assures me that the incident will not be put on the carfax report which is just retarded
How are they able to assure you of that? or how are you able to know it will be? I'm assuming if it's on the carfax then your dv claim will increase? Are they telling you that your DV claim will not be paid unless and until you trade it in and there IS a diminished trade in value?Believe me though, since they were so adamant about saying it could be done, IT WILL BE DONE
I couldn't agree more, regardless of what they said. Any shop accepting your vehicle for repair, should be doing so with the sole intent of returning it to preloss condition. If they can't they should tell you that upfront. You didn't say if this is a 'preferred' shop or not.Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:57 am Post Subject:
It is the preferred shop for USAA in the area.
As for the DV, my understanding is the same as yours. You shouldn't be entitled to the DV if you still have the car. It should only be when you go to sell or trade in the vehicle. For the car fax, I'm not going to try and wait around and see if they put it on or not. We are going to trade in the vehicle when we get it back from repairs.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:04 pm Post Subject:
.
.
Lori,
A side-bar comment about DV / Betterment
Well, that makes a little more sense, but I still maintain that there is NO gain until that vehicle is traded or sold, (if any)..I (personally) think that NO BETTERMENT claim should be deducted until that time. If I have a 25k one year old vehicle that suffers 10k in damages, it's repaired, but I don't trade or sell it for five or six years, did I have the betterment claim that was deducted when my vehicle was repaired? Of course not...That's one of my biggest problems with the validity of betterment claims..
Lori, what's the biggest difference between "DV" & "Betterment"?
Answer....... Insurer's [Pay] DV (bad)....... Insurer's {Deduct] betterment (good).......
Replace "DV" with "betterment" replace "paid" with "deducted" and replace "loss" with "gain" as you re-read your above comment.
||||||||| Well, that makes a little more sense, but I still maintain that there is NO gain until that vehicle is traded or sold, (if any)..I (personally) think that NO BETTERMENT claim should be deducted until that time. If I have a 25k one year old vehicle that suffers 10k in damages, it's repaired, but I don't trade or sell it for five or six years, did I have the betterment claim that was deducted when my vehicle was repaired? Of course not...That's one of my biggest problems with the validity of betterment claims ||||||||||||
They kind of go together don't they?? As in direct opposites, like Yes & No, right & wrong "DV" & "Betterment" if one exist then so must the other.
Add your comment