by Guest » Mon May 25, 2009 12:08 am
I reported a hit-and-run claim to State Farm a few days ago. There's maybe $3, 500 damage to the bumper and rear quarter panel of my 2008 Frontier. After I mentioned to a claims rep that I thought this should be handled under the umpd coverage, she vounteered that I could call back when repairs were complete to discuss "diminished value." Truth to tell, this would never have entered my head if she hadn't brought it up. I was under the impression they were resisting such claims. Wonder what I can expect? (This is in Texas.)
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 03:58 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.
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 08:55 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! :cry:
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 09:02 pm Post Subject:
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.Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 06:00 am Post Subject:
Hello Anonymous,
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.
Posted: 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...
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?
my no electricty apartment
You have a computer that runs on batterys or somethin'?Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 07:34 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.
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 07:37 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
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 07:06 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.
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:02 am Post Subject:
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...They wont take my kids because i stayed with my parents.....................
Good, then you really weren't staying in a home without lights...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?
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 04:25 am Post Subject:
Pretty soon people will sue you because they got a cut in the accident and now they want plastic surgery.
This already happens.
oh and I think it is real greedy to sue for dimished value exspecially 2yrs after the accident happened
2 years? My guess is they have been trying to get your carrier to pay for this and finally had to file suit before the statute expired. (depending on the state.)
You have a computer that runs on batterys or somethin'?
I have one that runs on bunny rabbits and sunshine.
Add your comment