diminished value

Message Author
ampm-bookmark
delicious-small Add to delicious
yahoomyweb-small Add to YahooMyWeb
blinklist-small Add to BlinkList
PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:07 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
Ok, if we go on this assumption...then when I'm figuring an ACV on a total loss then it is only fair that I not only deduct from that ACV any UNREPAIRED prior damage, but I must also deduct from it's value, this 'diminishment' it suffered from any and all prior repairs that pop up when I run and ISO on that totaled vehicle...so now we have a vehicle that has an ACV at 5k, I pull ISO, and this vehicle has had four prior losses in it's life, all repaired, and repairs done well..well poor sap, I'll have to find out how much was paid for each repair then deduct the appropriate DV amount for each loss/repair (whether they got one or not and if they did get a dv payment/claim then I would deduct that amount exactly)..from the value of their vehicle! So now after I remove the loss of value (dv) this guys car suffered because he repaired it, his vehicles ACV is now about a buck fifty...





I know of insurers that do this all the time. Progressive for one, has in the past deducted for every scratch and ding on the car to diminish the acv. I just completed a DV assessment on a 2003 M3 with 11,000 in damages. One of the things that was damaged and paid for in a previous 1150 wreck was replacement of the bumper fascia and fog lite. I deducted 500 dollars from the current acv for this accident history.



You could have 2500 dollars in damages on a new chevy truck with all headlamps, grilles, bumpers replaced (bolted on oem parts) and there would be negligible DV albeit some. The replacement of welded on parts distortion of unibody parts, non oem parts (in consumers minds not only mine) used sheetmetal parts from an older vehicle, used suspension and engine cradles, remanufactured wheels, all greatly increase the diminishment of value in surveys conducted of the buying public.



http://www.ican2000.com/dvsurvey/results.asp

http://www.ican2000.com/dvsurvey.html



The diminishment decreases as car values in general decrease porportionally. Ten thousand in damages and a ten thousand dollar loss of value on a car repaired in 2003 would decrease any residual Dv anywhere from 75 percent to 100 percent depending on the quality of the repair, the maintenance of the vehicle, and any failure of non oem parts to hold up under time such as premature rust and failure.


_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:48 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
I know of insurers that do this all the time.
What Lori said was that _in addition_ to deducting for unimpaired prior damage carriers should then deducted for _repaired_ prior damage. Her point is that they don't. You say that they do... but then you go on to mention deducting for _existing_ damages.



No carrier that I know of (and I know a _lot_) takes DV off of a vehicle they are handling as a total loss.



Lori raises a god point... I guess according to you, every carrier should. Interesting. Laughing
tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:25 pm   Post subject:   

I only deal with consumers and I am not involved in assisting in total losses since I am not a DRP and I am not an attorney or licensed adjuster and can not negotiate a loss on behalf of a vehicle owner. I am not privy to their paper work. I only know that I have had vehicle owners inform me that their adjuster is giving them less (as much as 50 percent ) because of prior losses that have been repaired. You may not work for one of these types of insurer, but there are some that notoriously use any means available to lower the acv for the purpose of settling total losses. I simply tell the vehicle owner to ask for, in writing, the methodology in how they arrived at the loss and how they factored it into the settlement. I am not aware of any national database or resource reference that evaluates and allows for DV, it appears to be done randomly by rogue adjusters perhaps.



Quote:
No carrier that I know of (and I know a _lot_) takes DV off of a vehicle they are handling as a total loss.



Lori raises a god point... I guess according to you, every carrier should. Interesting.




I have only seen this attempted on third party losses. If insurers tried to use this on first party losses, they would also have to admit that first party DV exists as well on colllision losses where vehicles are repaired. We already know insurers believe in mythical preloss conditon and that there is no such thing as DV as you say, it's a perception. Likewise insurers can't have it both ways either. It's a double edge sword. If you claim it exists on all losses when you total a car, you'd have to admit it exists when they are repaired.


_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:33 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
I only deal with consumers and I am not involved in assisting in total losses since I am not a DRP and I am not an attorney or licensed adjuster and can not negotiate a loss on behalf of a vehicle owner
Of course not... you'd not want to support your position equally for everyone... only when it benefits you. Laughing

Quote:
I am not privy to their paper work. I only know that I have had vehicle owners inform me that their adjuster is giving them less (as much as 50 percent ) because of prior losses that have been repaired
Does not happen for prior repairs. Sounds like a case of the vehicle having a salvage title. Now insurance companies _do_ lower the value of a vehicle for this reason.

Quote:
Likewise insurers can't have it both ways either
That's part of the point... carriers are consistent. Since we don't normally acknowledge DV claims, we don't take then on total losses. Perhaps in those state, like GA, we should!



(But carriers still don't. Believe it or not, carriers many times pay more then what they need to in order to settle a claim. They understand that they still collect a premium to addresses losses).
tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:34 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
Quote:

I only deal with consumers and I am not involved in assisting in total losses since I am not a DRP and I am not an attorney or licensed adjuster and can not negotiate a loss on behalf of a vehicle owner

Of course not... you'd not want to support your position equally for everyone... only when it benefits you.





I am not an advocate as a repairer for the insurer (first or third party) I am soley an advocate for the vehicle owner and they and I have the right to contract with each other without the interference of any insurer.



I do not negotiate period. It's not my contract and it's not damages owed me based on liability owed under a third party contract. I only repair cars and my contract is with the vehicle owner. While I may reference the insurer estimate or my estimate or DV assessment may be used in a settlement, I DO NOT NEGOTIATE. It simply isn't legal.



In the past when I attempted to negotiate or justify required procedures or costs based on court cases or policy language I was promptly sent a cease and desist letter from an insured's legal department. Insurers want repairers to negotiate only to the point that they agree to what the insurer is willing to pay, nothing more nothing less. For me as a repairer or appraiser to negotiate on behalf of my contracted customer is the unauthorized practice of law. and yes I know it's done every day and the DOI or Attorney Generals look the other way until the repairer attempts to negotiate on behalf of the consumer where an agreement can not be made.



Vehicle owners have every legal right and recourse to sue the very shops that conducted their repairs for failure to obtain a settlement they feel they were owed and the shop could successfully be prosecuted if they acted in the capacity to negotiate a first party claim or third party loss.



The only time I'll discuss my DV appraisal is in a deposition or courtroom with an insurer on behalf of the vehicle owner's counsel. Likewise, just as I received a call from an insurer ten minutes ago attempting to get me to agree to repair based on the insurer estimate of a third party loss and different of my own so that they could tell the vehicle owner I agreed to the amount less any supplement, they could then tell the vehicle owner this is all we owe. Your shop (not even under contract) agreed to our figures and not his.


_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:30 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
know of insurers that do this all the time. Progressive for one, has in the past deducted for every scratch and ding on the car to diminish the acv
Dents, dings and scratches that are incidental to ownership are not deducted, UNLESS let's say it's to a high high end vehicle and they would detract from the value...door dents on an 02 mini van, wouldn't necessary reduce it's value...unrepaired collision or comp damage should be deducted (or a percentage of that damge ) from the value...I fully agree that two vehicles of same make/model/year next to each other, the one without a fist sized dent in the 1/4 and cracked h/lamp and w/s, is worth less than the one with out...duh...Now this related to UNREPAIRED PRIOR damage, NOT prior repairs, however I have deducted for prior poor repairs...



Quote:
would decrease any residual Dv anywhere from 75 percent to 100 percent depending on the quality of the repair, the maintenance of the vehicle, and any failure of non oem parts to hold up under time such as premature rust and failure.
Now wait sec here...you are saying (are you not?), that if a vehicle is repaired, and not sold or attempted to sell for lets say 5 years post the inital repair then the DV disappears? That's always been my point...there is NOT dv until that vehicle is sold...so if it's not sold for five years the DV disappears, and the owner was paid for what? Doesn't he owe that money back? After all he SUFFERED NO DV AT ALL!

Quote:
because of prior losses that have been repaired.
Mike this just doesn't happen UNLESS the prior repair was so bad it would reduce the value...now if they say it was reduced due to prior claims or losses that were NOT repaired, then of course...
Quote:
I simply tell the vehicle owner to ask for, in writing, the methodology in how they arrived at the loss and how they factored it into the settlement.
And they absolutely should....for example, I just wrote an estimae on an 02 lexus, every bell and whistle available on this vehicle, acv was round 12k..i stopped writting the repair estimate at about 11k...HOWEVER this vehicle had about 2k in unrelated, UNREPAIRED prior damage, (about six giant butt dents on the roof), front cover hit in two places, foot long scratch/dent in fender, cracked h/lmp, and more...Now let me say that I ALWAYS write prior damage estimates, 'light' example I put 6hrs repair on that roof, there isn't even a blind shop owner that would touch that roof for less than 12 hours, and most would insist on replacement...most adjusters that I know do the same, (write the prior damage sheets light)...in this case 80% of the cost of repair of the prior damage is deducted from the vehicles ACV, and why shouldn't it be?

NOTHING is EVER deducted for a prior loss, that was repaired, again, unless it was a crappy job, I have written previously repaired vehicles, that look like they used a brush to paint them, runs literally hanging off the panel, that type of thing, I don't ding them for minor, things like small amount of dirt, sand scratches you can see, only 'if' you know what to look for...only things that the general public without collision repair knowledge would see and notice, these reduce the value of the vehicle...clearly we're all in agreement on that...but nnever ever ever have I nor have I seen any deduction for a cleanly prior repaired vehicle...Mike I'd have to see or know what company that is because I will make a call to find out about that...could be too that your customer either didn't understand what was being said to them, and repeating it incorrectly to you, (not like that doesn't happen every day Rolling Eyes )

Quote:
I have only seen this attempted on third party losses. If insurers tried to use this on first party losses, they would also have to admit that first party DV exists as well on colllision losses where vehicles are repaired. We already know insurers believe in mythical preloss conditon and that there is no such thing as DV as you say, it's a perception. Likewise insurers can't have it both ways either. It's a double edge sword. If you claim it exists on all losses when you total a car, you'd have to admit it exists when they are repaired.
Agreed...but in the states that DO allow first party DV...bingo bango, that should come off the vehicles ACV every single dime of it......same with third party...
Quote:
Likewise, just as I received a call from an insurer ten minutes ago attempting to get me to agree to repair based on the insurer estimate of a third party loss and different of my own so that they could tell the vehicle owner I agreed to the amount less any supplement, they could then tell the vehicle owner this is all we owe. Your shop (not even under contract) agreed to our figures and not his.
If you were in agreement, subject to any supplement...what's the issue? You are only agreeing, (if you were on the technical aspect I'm unclear from your post)...that yes, I'm looking at your estimate, and it appears the only differences are, 'blah blah blah'....straighten out that part, get a copy of the revised, agreed estimate, and get down the road...what's the issue dude..??



And please respond, when you get time, to my questions...


_________________

"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr.
Lori
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

Lori
Forum Expert

Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8080

Location: Missouri
287.93 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:58 pm   Post subject:   

Of course I am not an attorney even though my profession has required that I become more familiar with laws and legal issues here to fore not required in simply repairing cars as was always my passion. It is when in the course of repairing cars that, I as a craftsman and businessman, became aware of my potential liability partially impaired and restricted by people outside the contract of repair that precipitated my acquiring of knowledge necessary to my livelihood.



First we have to understand what an actual cash value policy was and now has become. The premise was that all things that had value were insured for the replacement, repair, and yes the value restored. In time, the issue of value has been considered less and less albeit court decisions have determined that losses of value must be considered in the restatement of torts where a party has been harmed. In the contract of insurance, insurers have successfully lobbied to have an obligation to restore value removed from policies through various departments of insurance.



People a lot smarter than I and the courts have determined that the restoration of value in damaged goods is owed and when it can not be, the loss must be paid for in monies in an amount determined at the time of the loss and not when the damaged and repaired goods are sold. A person may make a decision to retain repaired damaged goods and in depreciable items that wear out the amount of that diminishment porportionly lessens in time. As the value in general depreciates with age so does the diminishment of the value. It's not my personal concept, it an argument that has been determined by legal minds not a repairer's mind.



I personally feel that there are many people capable of repairing cars that will prolong the life and use of them if the very best methods are used with the very best available products and resources so long as cost containment implemented by third party does not hamper or diminish the process. However, you take a one year old car and replace a fender and blend a door with quality products, and 6 years later those parts are the shiniest things on the car and they do not age as does the rest of the vehicle, you may as well place a banner on the car that "I've been wrecked, I am damaged goods."



I also dislike having to blend adjacent doo panels for a colormatch knowing that regardless of how well I peform the repair, that everytime a car door opens and strikes that painted panel, it is going to leave a chip instead of a ding. It wrongly becomes a reflection on the quality of the products and the repairer, not the fact that it has been damaged and is forever not as good as new because factory paint would ding and not chip.



Some very recent court losses by insurers have them scurrying to figure out how to pay for DV when it was owed in some losses. The courts determined that just because the third party did not know to ask for it even though the insurer collected it (factored into liability premiums) that it is still owed and the insurer was guilty for not paying it as a part of the claim process. Isn't that a form of unjust enrichment?



The rise in DV payments coincidently have flourished as a result of insurers making the determination of calculating the costs of repairs as per new contract language instead of taking the option of paying for repairs and the advent of direct repair programs which are merely extensions of insurers repairing cars.


_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Mike O' the Ozarks
Guest







PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:55 pm   Post subject: diminshed value ugh!  

I'm a single mother and i work full time and ive been living with no electricity for a couple days due to being behind. 2 yrs ago i rear ended a suped up crysler 300 and the insurance paid 10,500 to fix it. Long behold i just got served at my no electricty apartment to appear in court because this a-hole is sueing me for diminshed value. Accidents happen why do people have to be so freaking greedy! Crying or Very sad


_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
anonymous123
Guest







PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:02 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
Long behold i just got served at my no electricty apartment to appear in court because this a-hole is sueing me for diminshed value.
You need to report this information to your carrier that handled this loss right now. They should ask that you forward that paperwork to them. A delay could mean that you would have to address that loss as opposed to your carrier.
tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:00 am   Post subject:   

Hello Anonymous,



Quote:
Accidents happen why do people have to be so freaking greedy!




The other driver is not being greedy. He is entitled to receive diminished value claim if he has suffered losses in trading the vehicle since its value has depreciated for the accident.
kelvin
Senior member
Leave a quick message

kelvin

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 206


37.92 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:32 am   Post subject:   

Better listen to T and get that paper work into the hands of your insurance company asap. They should provide a defense...

Quote:
I'm a single mother and i work full time and ive been living with no electricity for a couple days due to being behind


You do understand that the DFS will take your kids if they find this out don't you?
Quote:
my no electricty apartment
You have a computer that runs on batterys or somethin'?


_________________

"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr.
Lori
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

Lori
Forum Expert

Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8080

Location: Missouri
287.93 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:34 pm   Post subject:   

uh ya laptop......."You have a computer that runs on batterys or somethin'?"........................i think he is greedy i mean come on the insurance paid 10 grand to fix his car!!! When people get behind the wheel they are taking a risk of something happening. Pretty soon people will sue you because they got a cut in the accident and now they want plastic surgery.


_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
annon
Guest







PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:37 pm   Post subject:   

well luckly i got my lights on and i did forward the case to the insurance and they hired me a lawyer..............And lori you do know laptops run on batteries right? They wont take my kids because i stayed with my parents.....................oh and I think it is real greedy to sue for dimished value exspecially 2yrs after the accident happened


_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
anonymous123
Guest







PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:06 am   Post subject:   

Why he needs plastic surgery?? Of course the accident was severe enough to cause disfigurement and still you think that he is being greedy. I'm sure that you too would have taken every opportunity to collect against other driver's policy if you had been the victim.



Anyway, every insurer offers recovery of DV in a third party claim. IMO you would be fine since the insurer would take care of it.

kelvin
Senior member
Leave a quick message

kelvin

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 206


37.92 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:02 am   Post subject:   

Quote:
And lori you do know laptops run on batteries right?
Of course I do I have one...my point was really that if you can afford a laptop, I'd think you'd be able to keep you lights on 123...you have to be REALLY behind for quite awhile with no effort to pay or make arrangement to get actually shut off...you're the one that brought the 'I don't have lights' into the discussion, although it had nothing what so ever to do with your issue...I sincerely hope that you have taken steps to get your finances in order...
Quote:
They wont take my kids because i stayed with my parents.....................
Good, then you really weren't staying in a home without lights...
Quote:
oh and I think it is real greedy to sue for dimished value exspecially 2yrs after the accident happened
Could be that your state requires that the actual DV occur before a person can claim it, which would mean that the owner of the vehicle had to attempt to either sell or trade it for the loss to occur. If that's the case, I don't blame that vehicle owner a bit.



I'm glad you followed our recommendation and got the suit papers to your carrier. They'll handle it all from here. Do you remember what your Property Damage (coverage) limits are? What was the amount of the demand? Has your carrier warned you of any possibility of an excess limits judgement?


_________________

"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr.
Lori
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

Lori
Forum Expert

Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8080

Location: Missouri
287.93 Dollars($)

All times are GMT
 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  
Page 4 of 5


Get free auto insurance quote
State Auto Insurance Laws in USA

USA Auto Insurance laws
Ask Community Experts

flash plugin

Quick Links

Must See

Community

Hot topics in forums

Latest in blogs

    Connection Error: Connection refused