diminished value

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 05/25/2009 - 00:08

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: 25 May 2009 01:59 Post Subject:

I know that I have received a diminished value settlement from State Farm Auto Insurance in the past, but I was not the insured. It was their insured's fault and they almost totalled my car. I received a couple thousand dollars, and truth be told...I was like you. It never crossed my mind until someone at the body shop made a comment about how unfortunate it was that I had a nice vehicle and now would have a harder time selling it!

Posted: 25 May 2009 11:57 Post Subject:

she vounteered that I could call back when repairs were complete to discuss "diminished value.

Texas must be one of the few states that either are allowing first party DV claims or since it's being paid under UMPD, although technically still first party (your policy) since it's caused by another their policy language must be different...well good for you! :wink:

It all depends on the yr/make/model, type of damage etc...Mike, is a regular poster with a lot of knowledge about DV I'll send him a note to see if he will jump in this thread...hold tight, in the meanwhile, post yr/make/model/mileage, and 'type' of damage.

Posted: 25 May 2009 01:24 Post Subject:

Thanks. It's a 2008 Nissan Frontier with about 35,000 miles on it, bought new about 14 months ago. Seems like the "drive off" price was about $24,000. There's a dent maybe 10 inches in diameter in the far left corner of the bumper. The quarter panel was slightly buckled in and, further toward the cab, slightly bowed out. There's a very small dent in the cab, where the uppermost part of the bed was shoved into it. I'm concerned about what kind of bumper they're going to put on it. Seems to me you would have to have an engineering background to fully appreciate the differences between oem and aftermarket bumpers. As for "dv," maybe I'll ask the adjuster how much the fact of this accident would reduce her assessment of acv, were the truck to be stolen, heh.

I'm a former adjuster, but I don't know beans about physical damage.

Posted: 25 May 2009 06:13 Post Subject:

I'm concerned about what kind of bumper they're going to put on it

Depends on the state, as well as the individual ins. company's guide lines...likely will either be used or a/m...personally if a/m and is capa certified, and the shop and/or the carrier will back the work, I (personally) would'nt be concerned. Are you having it repaired at one of State Farm's preferred, (service first) shops?...I'm finding tons of new (oem) 'take offs" while doing parts searches lately so that or a used bumper are possible as well..

As for "dv," maybe I'll ask the adjuster how much the fact of this accident would reduce her assessment of acv, were the truck to be stolen, heh.

:lol: that won't help, because she'll tell you if the repairs were done correctly there will be none...

There are differing thoughts on DV, personally for the most part I think their bunk, UNTIL the sale or trade is has been done, to 'prove' the loss...but although that's my personal opinion they do (DV claims) exsist..so I've sent a pm to a semi regular poster is has a lot of knowledge about this...he's pretty good about popping in on these types of threads especially if asked...so hang on a couple of days and see if Mike doesn't give you some information...

I'm a former adjuster, but I don't know beans about physical damage

Well, this has been my 'speciality' for the past 12 years or so...I'm sure we can figure this out...doesn't sound like too terribly much damage...

Posted: 25 May 2009 08:15 Post Subject:

What has aroused my curiosity is that they brought up "dv" in the first place. Having sifted through some of the legal argumentation, I'm left with the impression that the policy language relied on by insurers in first-party cases may be inapplicable to third-party claims. This seems acutely problematic when aftermarket parts are placed on the vehicle of a third-party claimant who is insisting on his common law right to be "made whole." On the other hand, it's not immediately apparent how third-party claims might be cobbled into monster class action lawsuits. Except, maybe, umpd claims. I suspect that may be the only area where State Farm is being so "proactive."

Posted: 25 May 2009 08:57 Post Subject:

Here's the skinny of DV in Texas first party with uninsured and underinsured property damage coverage.

COMMISSIONER´s BULLETIN NO. B-0027-00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 6, 2000

TO: ALL COMPANIES, CORPORATIONS, EXCHANGES, MUTUALS, RECIPROCALS, ASSOCIATIONS, LLOYDS, OR OTHER INSURERS WRITING PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND TO OTHER AGENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PUBLIC GENERALLY

RE: PAYMENT OF DIMINISHED VALUE TO POLICYHOLDERS

The purpose of this bulletin is to clarify the position of the Texas Department of Insurance (Department) to admitted insurers writing private passenger automobile insurance and to the public on the issue concerning first party claims for diminished value.

When an automobile is completely repaired to its pre-damage condition, there is sometimes a question of whether an insurer is obligated to pay the first party claimant for the diminished value of the automobile. A policyholder may claim that the automobile´s market value after complete repair is less than its market value before the damage. The policyholder then claims that the insurer is obligated to pay for the difference in market value, which is referred to as diminished value.

The standard Texas policy for private passenger automobiles, adopted by the Department under Texas Insurance Code Article 5.06, provides that an automobile insurer´s contractual liability for first party claims for a loss to a covered vehicle under Collision or Other Than Collision (Comprehensive) Coverage is the lesser of the following three options, less any applicable deductible:

Actual cash value of the stolen or damaged property;
Amount necessary to repair or replace the property with other of like kind and quality; or
Amount stated in the declarations of the policy.
Option (1), to pay the actual cash value, applies when the insurer elects to declare the covered automobile a total loss. Option (2), to repair or replace, obligates the insurer to pay the total cost necessary to repair or replace property with parts of like kind and quality, minus any applicable deductible.

The position of the Department is that an insurer is not obligated to pay a first party claimant for diminished value when an automobile is completely repaired to its pre-damage condition. The language of the insurance policy does not require payment for, or refer to, diminished value.

This bulletin is not intended to preclude the use of loss of market value as a measure that an insurer and first party claimant may use to settle other disputes. For example, if an automobile was repaired properly but the vehicle still does not function as it did before the accident, the insurer and policyholder may agree to use loss of the automobile´s market value as a measure of damages to settle the dispute.
An insurer also may be obligated to pay a third party claimant for any loss of market value of the claimant´s automobile, regardless of the completeness of the repair, in a liability claim that the third party claimant may have against a policyholder. Further, an insurer may be obligated to pay a first party claimant under the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provisions of the policy, for any loss of market value of the first party claimant´s automobile, regardless of the completeness of the repair.

Questions regarding this bulletin should be directed to the undersigned at 512/322-3430.

Sincerely,

David Durden
Associate Commissioner
Property & Casualty Program, MC104-5A

DD:dh



Found this post on another discussion forum about 1st party DV. While the price they paid for the assessment seemed a little higher than I have seen, it supports the fact that proper documentation of the loss of value will aid you in recovery with or without an attorney. My opinion is that the documentation is 75 percent of the work and filing the suit to make an obstinate insurer respond by an attorney is 10 to 25 percent of the balance. However, with a Department of Insurance with consumer interests in mind such as Texas, you have some sound support without the aid of an attorney it seems.

I was able to file a diminished value claim here in Texas only after I paid a certified appraiser $500 to render an opinion on the actual loss in value. The event that necessitated the claim was a hit and run at 60mph on a freeway here in Houston. The police were never able to find the *&%%$ that hit my wife. The Uninsured/Underinsured part of the policy covered all damages to the car ($14,450+...nope it wasnt a Max) and medical claims, but I had to remind the insurance company that indeed they were going to payout on the diminished value. One hitch to all this was that any and all claims could only total the maximum amount of coverage for property damage...in this case it was 25k, so I was able to recoup about another $8500 in diminished value. I now carry no less than 100k for property damage. What is really sickening about the whole event is that even the BMW dealership that preformed ALL the repairs would NOT take the car as a trade in!!! Now THATS diminished value!!!

Posted: 26 May 2009 12:11 Post Subject:

Thanks. There's an interesting discusion of Texas authority on this business, including the reg you reference, in a note by Kevin McGillicuddy of Parker & Associates. (I've met Kevin a time or two, and I think he's a lawyer.) (Google "Parker diminished value".)

I I can't put my hands on my policy, but I seem to recall that the collision and comp coverages were recently endorsed to permit aftermarket parts in repairs.

There's a note on fatwallet.com (Check Arrived!) where a Texas lawyer is complaining, in a comment dated 5-9-09, that State Farm, whose insured rear ended him, "flatly denied" his "dv" claim. I surmise from this that State Farm has not swung the gate open to all third-party claims.

Posted: 26 May 2009 12:17 Post Subject:

Slipped my mind to mention that CAPA, according to its website, doesn't "certify" metal bumpers.

Posted: 26 May 2009 09:18 Post Subject:

Hi flint,

This seems acutely problematic when aftermarket parts are placed on the vehicle of a third-party claimant who is insisting on his common law right to be "made whole."



Flint, there are quite a few repair shops which do pretty good repairs and hence need not be concerned about DV resulting out of substandard repairs. These shops would have teams that are either certified under the National Institute of automobile service excellence or have been trained under I-CAR. The disclosure laws are actually meant to let you know more about the parts that these shops use for repairs. But yeah, if the shops use inferior aftermarket parts they'd need to face the DV claims.

On the other hand, it's not immediately apparent how third-party claims might be cobbled into monster class action lawsuits.



See, DV claims are permitted and acknowledged across all states. Are you asking about "who" the lawsuit would actually target in order to obtain the payment?

I I can't put my hands on my policy, but I seem to recall that the collision and comp coverages were recently endorsed to permit aftermarket parts in repairs.


Did you come across any journals?

Steven

Posted: 26 May 2009 10:52 Post Subject:

I can't put my hands on my policy, but I seem to recall that the collision and comp coverages were recently endorsed to permit aftermarket parts in repairs.

Flint I'd be surprised if it wasn't in your policy and if it were 'recent...most policys will have this flying high and proud.. :roll: however I'm not 100% of where Texas stands on a/m parts. I'll check and post results...but would bet they allow them...only a couple of states don't unless written permission given by owner (which only happens to save a total) I know Minn is one. I'll let you know...what I find...re: bumper...no way for me to know if you have/had a metal or urethan cover over metal bar :wink: ....check the capa web site for that...

Posted: 26 May 2009 11:34 Post Subject:

but would bet they allow them

Looks like I might've lost that bet! :lol:

Very interesting...on the Dept of ins site for Texas I find this...

27. CHOICE OF REPAIR SHOP AND REPLACEMENT PARTS. You have the right to choose the repair shop and replacement parts for your vehicle. An insurance company may not specify the brand, type, kind, age, vendor, supplier, or condition of parts or products used to repair your automobile. The insurance company must provide you notice of the above requirements as follows:

· claims submitted by telephone – written notice within 3 business days or immediate verbal notice, followed by written notice within 15 days;

· claims submitted in person – immediate written notice at the time you present your vehicle to an insurer or an insurance adjuster or other person in connection with a claim for damage repair;

· claims submitted in writing – written notice must be provided within 3 business days of the insurance company’s receipt of the notice.



From what I've been able to find, it appears that Texas too, requires prior consent...(June 2008)...so you might want to ask about that when discussing repairs....





:) Thanks Mike for the assistance :)

Posted: 26 May 2009 01:43 Post Subject:

Thanks to all. My bumper is chromed metal, with a plastic cover only on the top. I guess I could live with a salvaged oem replacement. What would I look for? Wouldn't want one that had been marinated in salt water.

No "aftermarket parts" language in my current policy. Guess my memory cells have too many miles on them.

Reg 27 is most interesting. But, lori, I'm not so sure it's easy to finesse the argument that the recording of collisions on Carfax reports results in an immediate loss of market value.

Steve, I think the Texas Supreme Court has rejected "dv" in the first-party context (see Kevin's note.) The policy language applicable only to first-party claims is crucial. My "class action" comment goes to the fact that it's not so easy for third-party claimants to show a common violation of a duty owed directly to them under the policy.

Posted: 26 May 2009 04:13 Post Subject:

With regard to first party DV under umpd, here is one suggested reason that they are more willing to settle DV claims

In a third party setting, the insurer can delay, deny, stall … the whole routine, with little or no repercussions. In a first party claim, with the contract in force, the insurer is forced to walk a tight line, or face breach of contract and potential bad faith charges (and lawsuits).



I would assume you may also have the appraisal clause in umpd disputes for resolution of them. Makes coming to the table to bargain in good faith the prudent thing to do.

Posted: 26 May 2009 05:26 Post Subject:

Well, they must be "running scared" of something. I'm sure it goes against the grain to feel obliged to initiate discussion of "dv."

Just got back from the shop. They're using all oem parts, even the quarter panel. I guess metal straightening is out of style. So, no Hurricane Ike parts to worry about.

I'm rather disinclined to press a "dv" claim at this point. I'll probably just invite them to make an offer. (Gee, Mr. Fast Track, what would you request if you were me?) I'll see if I can find out what their policy is.

Posted: 26 May 2009 06:43 Post Subject:

Here is the Georgia 17C formula that most insurers and independent appraisers hired by insurers use. You can calculate what they will offer based on it. A diminished value appraiser would not use this formula because of it's inherent flaws and would take each vehicle and judge it according to various elements based on knowledge and expertise of the collision repair process and how it would affect the resale value, trade in value, private party values.

Here is the actual formula and explanation:
ELEMENTS OF LOSS OF VALUE FORMULAS
ACV - For purposes of our calculations, we will use the NADA retail value, including additions and
subtractions for options and mileage. The NADA edition applicable at the time of loss of value claim is
presented should be used.
BASE LOV - As is the case in most loss of value formulas, we will use 10% of the ACV as a starting point
in our formula.
DAMAGE SEVERITY MODIFIER - This is the subjective decision which must be made by the adjuster.
The nature and extent of damages should be based on the actual physical damage sustained by the vehicle,
without using the cost to repair as a basis. The modifier can be from 0.0 to 1.0 with 1.0 reflective of
extensive damages. It should be stressed that in some minor accidents the 0.0 modifier is appropriate as no
loss of value would have been sustained. A basic guide for the damage severity modifier is as follows:
MODIFIER EXTENT OF DAMAGE
1.0 Severe damage to the structure of vehicle.
0.75 Major damage to structure and panels.
0.50 Moderate damage to structure and panels.
0.25 Minor damage to structure of vehicles.
0.0 No structural damage and replaced panels.
As this is subjective decision, the modifier can be adjusted as necessary to fit the damages. (EXAMPLE 1 -
No frame damage, a replaced bumper and repaired body panel may call for a modifier of 0.1.
EXAMPLE 2 - Heavy frame damage to the front with moderate additional damage to the rear may call for
a modifier of 0.85.)
MILEAGE MODIFIER - Generally, when a vehicle reaches 100,000 miles, it no longer has a realistic
market value. There may be some cases where that is not so, but for most cars this figure should be
accurate. The modifier is a factor of the actual mileage of the vehicle and the mileage where the vehicle no
longer would be considered for retail resale by a dealer. The modifier can be from 0.0 to 1.0 reflective of
zero miles. A basic guide for the mileage modifier (based on 100,000 mile limit) is as follows:
MILEAGE MODIFIER
0 1.0
20,000 0.8
40,000 0.6
60,000 0.4
80,000 0.2
100,000 0.0
The modifier should be adjusted to reflect the actual mileage based on the following:
MODIFIER - MAXIMUM MILES FOR RETAIL SALE - ACTUAL MILES
MAXIMUM MILE FOR RETAIL SALE

Posted: 26 May 2009 11:13 Post Subject:

I saw a formula like that the other day. It was on a blackboard in a documentary about the Manhattan Project.

Here's what Little Birdie tells me: State Farm will not, based on the language of the comp and collision coverages, entertain first-party claims for "dv." They will raise the potential of a "dv" claim "up front" only under the umpd coverage.

Posted: 27 May 2009 09:58 Post Subject:

Actually in most states 3rd party DV is easier to get...no policy language to the contrary...clearly something has 'happened' in the great state of Texas that is requiring the reps to mention this...don't think for a second that was not a part of the required script...(somebody must've got themselves into some trouble :wink: )....

I'll be anxious to hear what their offer is...also happy for you re: the a/m parts....I'll have to try and keep in the old bean that TX too is a 'permission' state regarding same...

Let us know how it goes Flint....

Posted: 27 May 2009 10:12 Post Subject:

Mike no offense, but I hope MO never adopts 1st party DV, all that 'mathy' stuff makes my pretty little head hurt.. :roll: :wink: (ok ok I have other reasons too :wink: )

They will raise the potential of a "dv" claim "up front" only under the umpd coverage.

and there we go! i knew there had to be something that was required...I don't know if TX allows first party (other than UMPD) dv or not....interesting logic however...although it's still truly 1st party (your policy)...since it's actually a liability coverage...that must shift it to '1st-3rd party' necessitating the info...interesting.

Posted: 27 May 2009 04:58 Post Subject:

Here's another can of worms: I'm examining, literally under a magnifying glass, the fine print in my Enterprise rental agreement. I quote: Damages for which renter is also responsible include. . .diminishment of value. . . .

There's a discussion of this by one Jim Hunt of Bell-Anderson Insurance, What You Don't Know about Renting a Car Can Cost you!, (3-30-08.) Mr. Hunt comments, with respect to "diminished value" claims, "Those few companies still covering damage to a rental car under the liability section of the auto policy may be obligated to pay the entire bill. However, when coverage is found only under the physical damage section, most insurers will not accept responsibility."

Disturbingly, Mr. Hunt claims that rental companies, reluctant to return repaired cars to the fleet, will typically dispose of damaged cars as salvage, and try to whack you for the difference between pre-accident acv and salvage value.

Posted: 27 May 2009 08:08 Post Subject:

I have a friend who owns and operates a Hertz rental business. He shared with me that when Ford supplied their vehicles, they had an automatic buy back provision for trade ins on new upgrades. That value went out the window and they would not offer to buy back cars with accident histories. Sorry see u later, no dice, no dealio. Selling it on the open market became the only option or dealer auctions. Most of the program cars dealers use to sell were returned rental purchases that had service records and no accident histories so they could sell them certified.

The public perception has always been that a wrecked vehicle would never be as good as it was before. I think there was a time in the 80's pre front wheel drive era when most shops acquired frame repair equipment that became old history. But as vehicles have emerged with new technology and precise fitting parts and unibodies, the public has a new perception that the technology has surpassed the average shops or techs ability to repair to preloss condition additionally hampered by third party interference that is looking for cheaper and faster repairs. Not always the case, but too many repairers are cutting corners while insurers are cutting costs and it is the consumer that is harmed unless they monitor their repairs and contractual promises, in my opinion.

Hence many things contribute to the loss in value of used cars that have accident histories. I believe one solution would be third party certified inspectors that have the experience and training to ascertain that the car has been contractually repaired per contract of insurance to as near pre-loss as humanly possible and to grade the quality of the repair.

Posted: 27 May 2009 11:04 Post Subject:

I'm examining, literally under a magnifying glass, the fine print in my Enterprise rental agreement. I quote: Damages for which renter is also responsible include. . .diminishment of value. .

. .
They typcially want (or contract will say) 'loss of rents' as well..which is different...

ERAC and Hertz (IMO and area) are two totally different animals, although in the same biz....If I could I'd thru ERAC out of the state and let Hertz take their place...in my area anyway ERAC has got too big for their britches and have totally forgot about customer service, on the other hand (again in my area, I realize local management makes a difference) Hertz couldn't be better....

.

I believe one solution would be third party certified inspectors that have the experience and training to ascertain that the car has been contractually repaired per contract of insurance to as near pre-loss as humanly possible and to grade the quality of the repair

Any idea's who might apply for that job Mike? :wink: Who would pay them? Then if you graded the repair let's say an A+ (A-F scale)...then would that mean no DV claim? And if an 'F-' would the shop be responsible for any of the DV claim? (assuming the owner chose the shop and not a drp of course)? I'm not argueing with you I might apply for that job too.. :wink: Just wondering how far out you have thought this out is all.

Posted: 27 May 2009 11:24 Post Subject:

They're cutting you off at the pass, Mike:

To clarify that actual cash value does not include market value reduction, at least 38 states. . .have approved policy language that expressly excludes coverage for diminution of value (Janet L. Kaminski, Associate Legislative Attorney, Insurance Claim for Car's Diminished Resale Value, OLR Research Report, 1-3-07.)

Posted: 28 May 2009 12:10 Post Subject:

That's on first party ONLY flint...(of course)... :wink: doesn't stop them from being forced (in many/most instances and states) to consider, then pay (albeit not as much at most claimants want :roll: ) DV claims to third party claimants.

Posted: 28 May 2009 12:58 Post Subject:

Any idea's who might apply for that job Mike? Who would pay them? Then if you graded the repair let's say an A+ (A-F scale)...then would that mean no DV claim? And if an 'F-' would the shop be responsible for any of the DV claim?



Just a notion and a thought.

I would apply for that job! The inspectors should have a minimum of twenty years actual hands on experience repairing vehicles with regard to all aspects of the repair process. I have been led to believe that the courts consider a person an expert in their field if they have been functioning in that capacity for at least twenty years.

As far as who would pay for it, I would submit to you that a sales tax apply to collision repair parts and a tax collected in the sale of every insurance liability policy sold in the state to contribute to the inspectors salaries and expenses. The inspection stations should be put out for bid by those who qualify just as drivers license and tags renewal offices are.

As far as who sets forth the qualifications, a commission made up of licensed shop owners, technical instructors, certified welders and paint manufacturors should comprise a portion of the panel and a balance of attorneys and insurance people to consider the legal and contractual obligations only and members of a consumer advocacy group to complete the commision panel to set forth the criteria.

While third party diminished value would not be affected, issues of bad faith, and poor repairs could be addressed and if it can managed to be ran without graft and corruption by either side, maybe the public's faith in the repair process could be restored so that in the consumer's knowledge all was being done to restore vehicles to as near pre-loss as contractually and humanly possible further reducing the notion that the perception of a wrecked vehicle's value might not be so diminished.

Posted: 28 May 2009 01:52 Post Subject:

Well, until we get a New World Order here, I can't see third-party being lucrative enough to quit a day job for.

Let's say your shop has completed repairs. They won't release the car without being paid. The adjuster won't make payment without a release agreement. He also lets you know that you need to return the rental car by 1:00 pm. You protest that you have a right to the rental car pending resolution of the "dv" claim. (Maybe you need time to work up a settlement brochure.) He says sorry, but he's not authorized to do that. Or maybe he throws in $100 or so. Whaddayagonnado?

Posted: 28 May 2009 02:42 Post Subject:

If you selected the repairer then your contract is with the shop, you owe the shop the cost of repairs. The insurer owes you or indemnifies you for loss and reasonable cost of repairs unless they take control of repair, take liability for repair, and guaranty the repairs and pay the repairer for the repairs that they authorized as per their private and possibly unethical, illegal agreements.

You can not prove the shop has not fulfilled contract for repairs, and you can not hold the insurer liable unless they fail to pay all reasonable costs of repairs until you can obtain another professional expert opinion and inspection of the repairs to either invoke your appraisal clause or sue in court for the difference or the amount necessary to re-repair and make you whole under the insurance contract of repairs.

You should be able to sign the release under protest to avoid any storage fees that could legally accrue and be charged to you. Not sure in Texas but I am not aware of any release unless a third party claim is underway. You have statutory and contractual limits of time to remedy any poor repair or bad faith issues.

If you can prove, without taking possession of your vehicle via pictures and inspection on the premise of the repairer, you may be able to avoid the storage issue if you feel you can prove the shop has not fulfilled the contract of repairs. Too many shops believe it is the insurer that they have to please and not the vehicle owner who should be made whole and the repairer should be the advocate for a proper and complete repair and not an extension of the insurer.

An attorney would probably go after the shop for negotiating your insurance contract with the insurer rather than contracting with you all without benefit of a legal license to do so. Negotiating on behalf of vehicle owners could land a shop owner in hot water with exception of Massachusetts that requires shops to negotiate on behalf of vehicle owners as I understand it.

As far as the car rental, I would look to my policy and see if there were a limitation on the number of days rental use is allowed or any exclusions. I've never seen a policy of insurance that limits the number of days allowed for rentals based on the number of days an insurer feels is required for the repair process. It's always based on an amount for rentals per occurence or an amount per day allowed until the maximum is reached.

Posted: 28 May 2009 02:48 Post Subject:

As far as who would pay for it, I would submit to you that a sales tax apply to collision repair parts and a tax collected in the sale of every insurance liability policy sold in the state to contribute to the inspectors salaries and expenses. The inspection stations should be put out for bid by those who qualify just as drivers license and tags renewal offices are.



Great idea Mike. :shock:

Obama already owns two car companies and is going into the direction of telling me what type of car I have to drive, and now you want them to put an additional tax on my policy that I legally by state law have to purchase?

Posted: 28 May 2009 02:59 Post Subject:

Who would you propose to be the party that should pay for the inspections. The state mandates liability coverage for driving on it's highways. They require or mandate vehicle coverage by statute. Perhaps the vehicle owner could anti up and if the inspector finds fault then the guilty party pays, repairer or insurer who failed to pay for proper and complete repairs. Those who determine the costs and limitations of repairs should be liable for the inspections in my opinion. :roll: Ultimately it will be the consumer who pays because insurers either pass on the costs to policy holders or seek concessions from repairers to reduce repair costs and expenses.

In actuality, the insurer should provide upon request by the vehicle owner, an inspection to ensure proper repairs and accept some liabilty. It is they by contract language who now deem themselves the expert at determining the amount necessary to restore to preloss based on prevailing rates and industry accepted data bases. Have you read a policy language lately with regard to the amount paid by an insurer for a collision loss from a multitude of insurers policies? They seem to have been allowed to co-mingle options (take control of the repair or pay for repairs) and dump all the liability on the repair shops by stating we have determined the amount necessary by virtue of skippy who may possess a whole two weeks of training and expertise, while advising shops on what should be repaired and for how much.

Posted: 28 May 2009 04:29 Post Subject:

Goodness, Mike. I thought we had narrowed the discussion to third-party claims. Your background is property, right?

Posted: 28 May 2009 05:22 Post Subject:

Hey if you really seeking help ask, if you're playing Columbo (oh one more thing) case solved. If you're riddling me this, send out the bat signal. Exercise over.

Posted: 28 May 2009 05:33 Post Subject:

Our man Flint? You're diaglogue sounds vaguely familiar. Ad? Sorry meant no disrespect, thought you were really looking for solutions, but seems you already have the knowledge to solve the questions you pose.

Posted: 02 Jun 2009 05:59 Post Subject:

Dear Flint,

I'm rather disinclined to press a "dv" claim at this point. I'll probably just invite them to make an offer. (Gee, Mr. Fast Track, what would you request if you were me?) I'll see if I can find out what their policy is.



Would you please tell me what followed after this??
I guess from here the discussion had narrowed down to a different topic and I couldn't relate it to what it began with.

Steven

Posted: 02 Jun 2009 06:09 Post Subject:

Steve, when I confirmed that the shop was using new oem parts on my pickup, I kind of lost interest in pursuing it. Reading between the lines, its looks like they were accomodating me because I've been with them for 18 years, and I thought it might be somewhat ungracious of me to press it.

Posted: 03 Jun 2009 08:06 Post Subject:

I thought it might be somewhat ungracious of me to press it.



I do not follow your logic. You paid for coverage gambling that you would never have to use it. DV is factored into the actuaries as a loss required to be placed in reserves and paid when a claim is presented and you simply chose to allow the insurer to keep funds that are owed to you under the contract of insurance in your state only because they specified oem parts in the repair?

I have a customer who has 6000 in damage due to a comprehensive claim where a dear impacted the vehicle. The senior vehicle owner is afraid of filing a claim for fear that they may lose coverage if they use what they have paid for. They chose to pay out of pocket for their loss because of a fear factor instilled by the insurance industry designed to control costs and ensure profits at the expense of the very people they have promised to protect. I guess I just don't get it.

Posted: 03 Jun 2009 09:12 Post Subject:

They chose to pay out of pocket for their loss because of a fear factor instilled by the insurance industry designed to control costs and ensure profits at the expense of the very people they have promised to protect.

Did the insurance company threaten this insured in some way? Perhaps these people have heard that insurance companies may increase rates if a claim is filed. Is that illegal? If they are worried about their rates increasing, that is one thing. But please don't act like the insurance company is to blame for this "fear". To be more clear, its the nature of any insurance that rates are based on the pool of people and the amount of money paid out toward that pool. The more claims paid, the hire the rates. The insurance company keeps a portion of those funds (as would any company). So if this insured feels that not filing a claim and staying in a better pool is worth it, then that is _their_ choice_. Don't blame the insurance company for the concept of insurance.

I do not follow your logic

It would appear that flint is applying his moral values to the insurance process and thinking the transaction was fair. Each person makes their own decision on this. Personally, I think he has a good point (new OEM parts were put on in place of old OEM parts so the vehicle is better then it was before the accident).

What I fail to understand is how you can say that someone should get ever last nickel and dime from their carrier but then also complain when the carrier increases their rates based on claims being paid out. If Flint is happy with state of the claim, then it's his choice to consider the matter settled.

Posted: 04 Jun 2009 12:04 Post Subject:

Did the insurance company threaten this insured in some way? Perhaps these people have heard that insurance companies may increase rates if a claim is filed. Is that illegal?



In this case they only feared uninsurability, certainly they were not afraid of a rate increase as he can easily afford paying 6000 out of pocket even though most of us can't. Older people fear the ability to obtain coverage more than they fear increases. It was a use it and you lose it instilled fear.

So if this insured feels that not filing a claim and staying in a better pool is worth it, then that is _their_ choice_. Don't blame the insurance company for the concept of insurance.



The original concept of insurance was to share the risk, "not if you use it, you're out of the group or penalized as it is today". The concept today is tthat risks are managed with micro precision computers to the point that there is little risk and guaranteed profit and the unlucky people are just out of luck and can't join.

Posted: 04 Jun 2009 01:49 Post Subject:

In this case they only feared uninsurability, certainly they were not afraid of a rate increase as he can easily afford paying 6000 out of pocket even though most of us can't. Older people fear the ability to obtain coverage more than they fear increases. It was a use it and you lose it instilled fear

When did they tell flint that they were going to increase his rates if he filed a DV claim? I missed that post. Did he mention that they threatened him in some way? Was that in the same post?

Insurance companies _do_ increase rates when claims are filed. When your costs go up do you just continue to absorb the expenses or do you eventually charge more? Should an insurance company (a business) be a different? If a carrier increases rates they usually do so because a claim was filed and more then a minimum amount was paid out. I've never heard of one rating the increase based on the larger amount paid (I also think that might even be illegal). So please, point out where Flint's carrier threatened him into not filing a DV claim. From his post it seems like the opposite happened... they treated him so well that he's not really interested in pursuing a DV claim. Not _THAT_ I did read him post!

The original concept of insurance was to share the risk, "not if you use it, you're out of the group or penalized as it is today"

That is only one part of it. Another is insurability and risk. Carriers have always adjusted rates based on risk. They also have always pooled insured's into similar risk groups. You really think 100 years ago that carriers did not increase rates of those that filed many claims? They did.... it was just not as easy to track this information as it is now.

there is little risk and guaranteed profit

Oh, you know as well as anyone that there is no guarantee of provide for an insurance company. Many have been loosing their butts as of late. There has also been a steady amount of them closing their doors and being bought out by more profitable companies.

Posted: 04 Jun 2009 11:29 Post Subject:

I have a customer who has 6000 in damage due to a comprehensive claim where a dear impacted the vehicle. The senior vehicle owner is afraid of filing a claim for fear that they may lose coverage if they use what they have paid for. They chose to pay out of pocket for their loss because of a fear factor instilled by the insurance industry designed to control costs and ensure profits at the expense of the very people they have promised to protect. I guess I just don't get it.

I don't get it either, (re: this elderly customer of yours) Mike have you told or shown her (MO unfair claims practice regs) that she CANNOT be rated up or dropped for a comp claim? (if you need a link let me know)...I get older folks like this all the time, they're just scared (often) of being 'dropped' by their carrier. I also agree with Todd how is this the carriers fault? If the insured would educate themselves they would see that in most cases this is against the law and doesn't happen. They are also afraid that they dmv or their doctor will make them give up driving, again, that 'irrational' fear is no ones fault but the one with that irrational fear. If you explain to her there are laws and regulations that prohibit carriers from doing so maybe that will help...

If Flint is happy with state of the claim, then it's his choice to consider the matter settled

I couldn't agree more with this statement Todd...it's individual...and who are we (or Mike) to insist he push a DV claim thru when he doesn't want to...I have people all the time, that don't want use their medpay (they have health coverage) and although double dipping is allowed in our state, they don't think it's ''right'' or the right thing (ethically) to do...I always explain to them, 'hey you are entitled to this you paid for the coverage' but if they are satisfied and don't want to pursue that then so be it...

Insurance companies _do_ increase rates when claims are filed.

SOME claims...(i know you know this todd, just adding this for those who do not)...Most states have in their fair or unfair claims practice statutes that you cannot suffer a rate increase if a claim is not your fault, if it's a comp claim (unless there is a 'pattern' then you'll likely be non-renewed)...NO carrier can automatically increase rates for any claim that comes to a policy...it depends on the 'type' of claim...that being said, some carriers may have a 'no claim' disoount that you (i'm assuming) could lose if you file a claim regardless of it's impact to your premium..but that is not a premium increase.

Posted: 04 Jun 2009 01:43 Post Subject:

See, tcope, matters of high principle are frequently drawn into clearer focus through hypothecation. As for my particular situation, well, being an adjuster, I have ever in mind the Greater Good.

Posted: 04 Jun 2009 02:13 Post Subject:

Many have been loosing their butts as of late. There has also been a steady amount of them closing their doors and being bought out by more profitable companies



The ones that are losing their butts are the not in the auto insurance sector, those were companies that insured loan risks. The only other companies who's stocks are poor performing these days are the same ones not living up to the promises they failed to deliver or customer satisfaction that they failed to deliver.

As a business owner, it was suggested to me by one of the leading proponents of DV that, the repairer should manage the consumer expectations. Deliver to them what they expect and are owed by the shop's contract and nothing less. I don't wear an "S" on my chest and I don't negotiate or fight for any vehicle owner. I merely give them resources for them to come to their own conclusions and they fight their own battles as I am not a party to their contract of insurance.

As far as our man Flint, I am not pushing for him to collect DV. In fact, I think there is little damage there that would harm his resale value. That's his choice. I told someone who contacted me just yesterday on a three thousand dollar claim with all bolt on parts that the claim would be insignificant enough to hire an appraiser or an attorney and that they should use small claims court or statements from dealer trade ins to make their case if they chose to pursue it.

Our man Flint made a decision that he was satisfied with and was appeased by the use of oem parts and replace in lieu of repair processes. This is the only reason I even began assisting people with DV claims. If some insurers insisted on repairing things that should be replaced and using inferior parts, then I believed they had a significant argument that their vehicle would be devalued because of repair decisions out of the vehicle owner's control and if asked, I offered assistance.

It is the concept that vehicles can't be repaired as good as before a loss(whether because of innept repairers or insurers failing to pay for pre-loss or a first rate repair owed under contract) that have fueled DV claims, not people marketing the concept. Diminishment of value has been documented well before the turn of the century among the earliest of court cases involving settlements of some actual cash value policies and virtually all third party claims under the restatement of torts.

The choice to be appeased rather than compensated for additional losses that could be owed is a personal decision and not a moral decision in my opinion.

Posted: 04 Jun 2009 03:11 Post Subject:

The ones that are losing their butts are the not in the auto insurance sector, those were companies that insured loan risks. The only other companies who's stocks are poor performing these days are the same ones not living up to the promises they failed to deliver or customer satisfaction that they failed to deliver.

Very few carries only write auto policies... most write at least auto and home. It's all premiums from P&C policies. Companies are not doing well because of property losses (storms) but also because the market is so bad. Many companies spend $1 for every dollar they take in. They make their money by investing that money in the meantime. We all know how the market is right now so many carriers are losing money. It has nothing to do with service.

As far as our man Flint, I am not pushing for him to collect DV

I'll let your own posts speak for themselves:

I do not follow your logic. You paid for coverage gambling that you would never have to use it. DV is factored into the actuaries as a loss required to be placed in reserves and paid when a claim is presented and you simply chose to allow the insurer to keep funds that are owed to you under the contract of insurance in your state only because they specified oem parts in the repair?

They chose to pay out of pocket for their loss because of a fear factor instilled by the insurance industry designed to control costs and ensure profits at the expense of the very people they have promised to protect.

This was in response to Flint saying that he did not want to pursue a DV claim.

Our man Flint made a decision that he was satisfied with and was appeased by the use of oem parts and replace in lieu of repair processes. This is the only reason I even began assisting people with DV claims. If some insurers insisted on repairing things that should be replaced and using inferior parts, then I believed they had a significant argument that their vehicle would be devalued because of repair decisions out of the vehicle owner's control and if asked, I offered assistance.

I'm not sure I follow that.... but here is something that I've never understood....

It is the concept that vehicles can't be repaired as good as before a loss(whether because of innept repairers or insurers failing to pay for pre-loss or a first rate repair owed under contract) that have fueled DV claims, not people marketing the concept

I'm glad you posted this as it makes a response much easier.... it's simply incorrect. You say that carriers should only use new OEM parts in place of old parts and that they should not limit, in any way, what a shop does or charges for the repairs. In this case new OEM parts were used to replace old parts, there is no indication that any limitations were put on the repairs, _and_ the owner appears to be please with the results. Yet you still say that the vehicle is not as good as before. I'll ask... why not? This all leads to what I've said many times before.... DV is a _percieved_ drop in value. That is, the vehicle really _is_ in the same condition (really better) then before the accident and people just thing they can buy a damaged/repaired vehicle for less. Now, where do they get that impression from?

I merely give them resources for them to come to their own conclusions and they fight their own battles as I am not a party to their contract of insurance.

Oh, yeah. Now I remember.

The choice to be appeased rather than compensated for additional losses that could be owed is a personal decision and not a moral decision in my opinion

I guess if you throw morals out of the equation it's much easier to agree with your point.

Posted: 04 Jun 2009 03:47 Post Subject:

DV is a _percieved_ drop in value. That is, the vehicle really _is_ in the same condition (really better) then before the accident and people just thing they can buy a damaged/repaired vehicle for less. Now, where do they get that impression from?



Two thoughts, Market and availability drive pricing. What a willing buyer and what a willing seller agree to in an open market sets the price. So the value of anything is determined by what the market or people determine it's worth or value to be.

So according to your logic, and your belief that a repaired vehicle is just as good as one that has never been in an accident and given the opportunity to select from two identical vehicles (one with an accident history of 4000 dollars, and one that is pristene and no stigma of accident history) you believe the average buyer would pay an identical price for the vehicle with the accident history. Not even likely.

Our man Flint was pushing for justification of DV owed to him as I interpreted his posts and was only appeased when instead of a/m parts and puttying a panel they were replaced with new oem. Good for him, he got what he was owed and deserved. If all claims were handled like that, the DV perception would diminish itself. The public perception that some insurers pay only for cheap repairs contribute to drive the values of repaired cars down.

It all depends on the yr/make/model, type of damage etc...Mike, is a regular poster with a lot of knowledge about DV I'll send him a note to see if he will jump in this thread...hold tight, in the meanwhile, post yr/make/model/mileage, and 'type' of damage.


I was inquired of my opinion of DV in this situation and I gave it, I didn't jump the post to urge anyone to demand DV.

The similarities in the post about the older couple that feared uninsurability and Our man Flint, was that I simply was making a correlation of you pay for coverage and you are entitled to it and you should not feel guilty for asking for what is owed you under the terms and conditions of any policy. Leaving money owed to you on the table for the insurer wasn't, in my opinion, a matter of ethics as much as it was just a personal choice, just as the older couple made in not filing a claim.

Posted: 05 Jun 2009 10:57 Post Subject:

I told someone who contacted me just yesterday on a three thousand dollar claim with all bolt on parts that the claim would be insignificant enough to hire an appraiser or an attorney and that they should use small claims court or statements from dealer trade ins to make their case if they chose to pursue it.

Just as a matter of curiosity only...what is the yr/made of this vehicle and what would you think this owner is owed on a DV claim, with all bolt on parts, and I am assuming a fair - good repair job, with new oems parts?

So according to your logic, and your belief that a repaired vehicle is just as good as one that has never been in an accident and given the opportunity to select from two identical vehicles (one with an accident history of 4000 dollars, and one that is pristene and no stigma of accident history) you believe the average buyer would pay an identical price for the vehicle with the accident history. Not even likely.

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...

You can't have it both ways...if properly repairing a vehicle STILL causes (in your opinion mike) a loss of value that the owner is to be paid..then when and if that vehicle totals, every repair made to it caused a dimishment in it's value. I as the adjuster can and should take those amounts away from his vehicles ACV...right? Has to be!! you can't have it both ways...man talk about a can of worms. :roll:

In fact I'd say if DV grows and is paid on nearly every claim, there is no choice, nor would it be right NOT to remove that same amount from the ACV when that vehicle totals...

Posted: 05 Jun 2009 12:30 Post Subject:

So according to your logic, and your belief that a repaired vehicle is just as good as one that has never been in an accident and given the opportunity to select from two identical vehicles (one with an accident history of 4000 dollars, and one that is pristene and no stigma of accident history) you believe the average buyer would pay an identical price for the vehicle with the accident history. Not even likely.

I'll tell you what is unlikely... that this situation would every happen. I've bought a few vehicles in my day and been to a few lots... I've _never_ seen two, exact identical vehicles, one damaged and one not, for sale. People _love_ to use this example to prove their point... only problem is... it never happens. I've also bought vehicles with prior repaired damaged. The prior damage has never been discussed but I've always negotiated a price that was acceptable to both the buyer and the seller. Was this price lower then the exact same vehicle without prior repaired damage? Well, we will never know... as, mentioned above, that situation never happens.

Have people attempted to negotiate a lower price because of prior repaired damage? I'm sure it's happened. Was the selling price lower solely because of this prior repaired damage? You tell me. Please provide examples if you have them. What I can show to you is that no vehicle valuation guide that I know of gives the option of displaying a lower price for prior repaired damaged vehicles. Why is this, if it happens all of the time?

I was inquired of my opinion of DV in this situation and I gave it, I didn't jump the post to urge anyone to demand DV.

Yes Mike, you did. I pointed that out in my prior post. Flint mentioned he was not going to purse a DV claim and why. You then jumped and told him you did not understand why he was not going to and gave some examples of why he should. So you _clearly_ were not responding to a question of "if" a DV claim should be pursued. But to each their own. Your certainly free to post as you wish. I'd have it no other way.

Posted: 05 Jun 2009 04:07 Post Subject:

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.

Posted: 05 Jun 2009 04:48 Post Subject:

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. :lol:

Posted: 05 Jun 2009 05:25 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.

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.

Posted: 05 Jun 2009 05:33 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

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

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.

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).

Posted: 05 Jun 2009 06:34 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.



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.

Posted: 07 Jun 2009 02:30 Post Subject:

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...

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!

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...

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 :roll: )

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...

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...

Add new comment

Restricted HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.