Cash pay-out

by whatsyurprob » Thu Mar 27, 2008 01:23 am

I'll try to make this as short as possible.

I'm the victim of a parking lot rear end accident. The guy who hit me has admitted all liability. I've gotten an estimate at a shop of my choosing. His insurance company (AAA) sent out to my house an independent appraiser. She did her report but failed to include pictures of the most expensive damage (There's a difference of $500.00 comparing her report and the body shop that I took my car to). After I received the appraisers estimate I called AAA and they said that if I wanted a cash pay-out I would be the one responsible for getting the proof that the part the appraiser 'conveniently' left out was really damaged. This would be at MY expense. AAA, says that my bumper has to be completely dismantled to prove this. I say, BULL!!!

U see, the problem is, it's my car that got hit. If the other party has admitted all liability I shouldn't have to pay a dime, not to mention that it's none of AAA's business if I get the car fixed or not. Am I right?

BTW, Totaling the car out is not an option seeing as though it's worth much more than the damage caused. This is not in dispute.

I live in California.

Thanx in advance.

Total Comments: 83

Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 03:12 pm Post Subject: You are funny Lori, and not funny Ha Ha!

Keep on harping there is no DV and I'll keep playing my violin to your tune. I do enjoy reading your fiction.

However on further contemplation, I think my work is accomplished here. I think I have planted enough fruitful seeds and if someone searches DV on the forum they may find some truthful facts they can use when contemplating seeking their loss in value that are not insurer twisted and spun.

Most people with an IQ sufficient to obtain a GED understand diminished value. It must just be insurance employee endoctrination that keeps you and T from comprehending. I don't want to be responsible for you flying off the deep end on this subject, afterall your shops need your oversight to know how to run their businesses and I am taking that precious time away from you.

If they don't find the answers they need here, all they have to do is a little googling and they may find someone who gets it to help them.

As you were, keep up the good work. You guys do offer some good advice and help occassionally. And as long as people still seek my help I am willing to help them even if it isn't profit driven but out of sincere desire to help people who are run rough shodden over by coporate greed.

Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 06:01 pm Post Subject:

Keep on harping there is no DV and I'll keep playing my violin to your tune. I do enjoy reading your fiction.

I don't know that _anyone_ has stated that DV does not exist. Just that it does not apply. I think two things are being spoken of:

1) DV is a _perception_. Everyone, including yourself, agrees to that. That is, it's not a _real_, physical depreciation of value in the item.

2) Since it's _perceived_ it _only_ exists when it's acknowledged. Here is the kicker... if it's not acknowledged, it does not exit, so no one is harmed/suffers the loss. Read that again. It's important.

So why should an insurance company acknowledge that it applies? It serves no purpose but to cost _every_ more money. I can see only one reason why anyone would want it to apply. So they can make money off charging people for 20 page reports.

Now I'm not questioning your right to make a buck. More power to you. But you seem to be of the opinion that the insurance companies are trying to rip everyone off. As mentioned above, this could actually be seen as the insurance companies simply trying to make it so no one loses money when they sell a vehicle, resulting in a win/win situation where no one loses. Also in this scenario there is really only one type of person who makes money when DV is applied. Want to guess who that is?

Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 06:18 pm Post Subject: I am sorry I disagree

1) DV is a _perception_. Everyone, including yourself, agrees to that. That is, it's not a _real_, physical depreciation of value in the item.

2) Since it's _perceived_ it _only_ exists when it's acknowledged. Here is the kicker... if it's not acknowledged, it does not exit, so no one is harmed/suffers the loss. Read that again. It's important.



Insurers don't pay for losses based on perceptions, they pay based on proven damages, so why would you ever pay for the loss. The courts have detemined it is real and not perceived. The public perceives based on market indicators that their property is no longer worth the pre accident value. I have had customers take their cars in for trade the same day they picked them up in an attempt to establish their loss in value. Some actually sold their cars for a loss with documentation and the insurer still claim it was invalid, because they will claim that the customer did not negotiate adequately.

Most people grasp the concept that a damaged object is not the same value as one that has never been damaged or repaired. Why do three states recognize that is not a perception on first party losses?

You just can't seem to get past the legal definition of DV that I have already posted and that the courts recognize. You actually believe there are people with the skill to repair to this imaginary pre-loss condition and I won't be able to convince you otherwise so I am no longer going to try. Consumers and owners of vehicles do get it. It is obvious insurance employees are never going to make a statement that DV exists where their acknowledgement may come back to bite them by their management and be used against them at some point. I get it!

T, thanks for at least being civil in your discussion.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.