| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see Fred's rationale as reasonable. Books, data bases, and historical records do not set the current market value of a commodity. He who holds the commodity sets the value or price. If there were two identical vans and one was less, the ability to purchase the lesser one would set the value if it was in all terms equal.
| Quote: | | "Fair Market Value" is defined as the amount which would be agreed upon as a fair price by an owner who wishes to sell, but is not compelled to do so, and a buyer who wishes to buy, but is not compelled to do so, presuming all relevant facts are known. |
Currently used car prices are on the rise, but I would bet that that data has yet reflected that in total loss settlements. Normally prices tend to fall but used car vehicle values are currently up and the higher prices for certain vehicles fluctuate, especially Hondas.
One company's slogan is getting you back to where you were, which is the definition of being made whole. If this vehicle owner is given anything less than an amount to buy a vehicle exactly like the one that was wrecked and in identical (not less) condition, with all the bells and whistles he hasn't been made whole. A total loss payment for what you should be able to purchase the same vehicle for because that is what data shows it should sell for is irrelevant if that vehicle is available just not at a price that is congruent with statistics and published data. The market prevails.
_________________
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
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 479
Location: in the missouri ozarks
165.10 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I see Fred's rationale as reasonable. |
It's unreasonable because you are under the assumption that because the owner found a similar vehicle he should have the necessary funds to purchase from his property loss to replace it even though it was the only vehicle he could find. When an acv evaluation is conducted, the insurer is not looking for a vehicle for the owner to replace the damaged property. They are comparing similar vehicles in the market from vehicles that are being sold today. It is based on books, and the current market value. The insuer is required to pay you the current market value, minus deductions for the amount set by the market. In the owners case, his damaged property could be purchased for the current market value. I don't know why this so difficult to understand or that it sounds unreasonable? He is being put back in the same position that he was before the accident. His vehicle was worth $14k in the current market before the accident, and he is being reiumbursed that amount after the accident. The fact that he can't find a vehicle similar to his at that price is not the responsibility of the insurance company. |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 618
Location: Kansas City
107.50 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
.
Trench, [this may read a little harsh, but its not intended that way]
Spin??? Easy now, no offence but I've been responding to spin from a few posts..!
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
| Quote: | | The bottom line is that you are only owed for the property's value at the time of loss. |
I think everyone agrees with that part Trench. Gee, that's what everyone has been saying. The problem, and from what I can see, the only problem ---- is how that is being determined.
Insurer sends Comparables that don't exist, reject the only one that matches and exists, and make an lower offer. Then on top of that the insurer makes a statement like this....
| Quote: | | 2) Their vehicle replacement service will find me a similar one around $13000. But I have to settle for $14600 first and then I could talk to that service and get the van. |
What in the world is that all about?? Talk about BS silly baseless unrealistic Spin.!!
If they know where to find comparable cars __ NOW__ then give jwu223 the contact info so they can go and take a look at these automobiles before they settle?? These automobiles must exist... right... how else could they honestly state they can get one later for around $13,000.oo if they didn't exist??
Hey...! didn't you tell me in an earlier post that insurer's don't replace automobiles, they only pay the value. So why do they have a replacement service??
Beside all that.... Trench, you know as well as I, that if they had comparables for around $13,000.oo they would not offer a Dime more.
And as far as jwu223 getting confused... don't count on it.
_________________
.
.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ ) 
FK, |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 262
Location: Pa.
35.26 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In the owners case, his damaged property could be purchased for the current market value. I don't know why this so difficult to understand or that it sounds unreasonable? |
Trench........ That's Not The Problem.
The problem is..... No one can find a comparable "" 2004 silver Honda Odyssey EX with DVD system with 51K miles"" that can be purchased for what the insurer is offering. If truly comparable vehicles were available for the price offered I'm positive the OP would have been driving one for at a week or better by now.
And the OP (Original Poster) would have never felt a need to submit that first Post
_________________
.
.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ )
FK, |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 262
Location: Pa.
35.26 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is absured. It is what it is. It's not the insurers job to find him a vehicle. The vehicle does not matter, whether it exists or not. The owner has chosen a vehicle that he selected to purchase, because he cannot find a vehicle that meets his needs is not the insurers problem.
| Quote: | | The problem is..... No one can find a comparable "" 2004 silver Honda Odyssey EX with DVD system with 51K miles"" that can be purchased for what the insurer is offering. If truly comparable vehicles were available for the price offered I'm positive the OP would have been driving one for at a week or better by now. |
This means nothing. He wants to purchase a Honda Odyssey etc. fine. He is being paid for the value of the property, not what the property is. It's just a problem only for him that what he wants is unavailible.
| Quote: | | Hey...! didn't you tell me in an earlier post that insurer's don't replace automobiles, they only pay the value. So why do they have a replacement service?? |
You are correct, I did. Which is the same thing I am telling you here. They are not replacing the vehicle, they are replacing the value of the vehicle. What the owner does with the settlement money is completely up to him. Read the fine print of the "replacement service" portion of a policy. It doesn't promise you that you will end up with the exact same vehicle, again only the value of the property. What if in that persons case the vehicle isn't availible then either, again how is that the insurers fault? My SF policy doesn't recognize my wife's RX and my F150. It only stated that in event of a total loss, my policy will pay me for the value of the vehicles. If my F150 is worth 26k and it totals, I am only expecting to get 26k. If I want the same exact F150, I hope that I can find one for 26k. If not, thats my problem not my insurance company's.
| Quote: | | Spin??? Easy now, no offence but I've been responding to spin from a few posts..! |
I know you have, and you have handled that quite well. But don't become the spinner 
| Quote: | | A total loss payment for what you should be able to purchase the same vehicle for because that is what data shows it should sell for is irrelevant if that vehicle is available just not at a price that is congruent with statistics and published data. The market prevails. |
Bingo Mike. He is being made whole, because as you pointed out he is being reimbursed for the market value of his vehicle. He is getting x amount of dollars based on the data of the same vehicle in the market. However, he has been unable to locate-which maybe only temporary the exact same vehicle that he lossed. Because he can't find one, is the irrelevant part. What your essentially saying, is that the insurer should be obligated to make up the difference so that he may purchase a vehicle that he chooses that is obvioulsy more than his vehicle was worth at the time of loss, because he could not locate a vehicle at that price. Insurance does not work that way. If he was awarded the amount of money to purchase that vehicle at the Carmax price, it would put him in a better position he was before his loss. |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 618
Location: Kansas City
107.50 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If he was awarded the amount of money to purchase that vehicle at the Carmax price, it would put him in a better position he was before his loss. |
Trench........How can using the entire amount given by the insurer to buy a near identical automobile with a 1000 more miles on it than the one they had be putting jwu223 in a better position??
_________________
.
.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ )
FK, |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 262
Location: Pa.
35.26 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fred, seriously? This is the point you are missing. The insurer is not "shopping" for a vehicle. They are replacing the property value of his vehicle. What he does with the money is of no concern to the insurer, as long as they pay him for what is owed. An x amount of $ was destroyed so the same amount of $ is owed. He is getting back what he has lost. Obviously giving him more money would put him in a better position than he was before the accident. Fred I have been doing this for a while as have others here on this forum, even longer.
What eventually happens to a 3rd party claimant when they won't accept the settlement is that he/she has a choice of sueing the at-fault party for the difference or their insurance company will inform the claimant to go to his carrier to see if he can get a better amount. I don't know what the claimant in this case has done as far as research to locate a similar vehicle besides internet searches.
My advice would be for him/her to go and talk to some dealers to see if they can locate what the claimant needs. Dealers have resources to pull all sorts of availible vehicles that they can negoiate over price that cannot be found on the internet. Like I said before, since Carmax doesn't negoiate on price, another dealer may take
the settlement money amount or suprise, take less. |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 618
Location: Kansas City
107.50 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One Question..
Was there an answer to the direct question that I ask of you anywhere within your last response??
I was unable to find one.
Would you be so kind as to 'Highlight it'
Thanks in advance.
_________________
.
.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ )
FK, |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 262
Location: Pa.
35.26 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, I'll look into it. But let me eat dinner first. |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 618
Location: Kansas City
107.50 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| About the actual Carmax vehicle, that is something that he wants to buy. Thats fine, theres nothing stopping him from getting it. But his investment was only worth x amount of dollars. It's his dilema that the value of his investment doesn't cover the new investment he is interested in. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am getting the impression that you believe that because the only van he could find that closely matches the one that was totalled, and is the one that he wants to buy, somehow the insurer owes him the additonal funds so that he can go buy it. He found that van, miles and all-thats his deal. He's settled on buying it. But then since the amount exceeds his investment, that would put him in a better position. Thats not the concern of the insurer. Conducting a comparable vehicle search doesn't have to produce a vehicle that actually exits. The vehicle isn't the subject of the claim, only it's value. |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 618
Location: Kansas City
107.50 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well you know the old saying.....
If a Lie it told often enough and long enough it will eventually be accepted as a Truth.
Kind of Sad isn't it.
But.... Money Talks and..... ummm errr well, that's it Money Talks, and talks, and talks.
_________________
.
.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ )
FK, |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 262
Location: Pa.
35.26 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Well you know the old saying.....
If a Lie it told often enough and long enough it will eventually be accepted as a Truth.
Kind of Sad isn't it.
But.... Money Talks and..... ummm errr well, that's it Money Talks, and talks, and talks. |
What's this suppose to mean?  I hope you are not accusing me of being a liar. If you don't want to take my word for it, I encorage you to read your auto policy and speak to your agent. No offense again, but your idea of how you think insurance works and how it actually works in claim like this is just wrong. But thats okay, I would rather you get the facts and understand the terms, because like many that I and others who have sat down with to settle on an amount had a complete misunderstanding of how the process works. |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 618
Location: Kansas City
107.50 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have been an agent and have owned my own agency for more the 20 years. FK, Trench is 100% correct.
The insurance company does not owe this guy a dime more than what his vehicle is worth. The replacement
Service on a policy is for the replacement value of the property not the property itself. It is also correct
that when conducting an evaluation, that an actual vehicle does not have to be located in order to settle
the claim. The information that is needed, is what a vehicle matching the vehicle would value in a particular
market. The insurance company's job is not to look for a vehicle for the insured to buy. FK you are like
many of the uniformed people my office sees on regular basis.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the insurance company could provide some real comparable sales in the analysis, I would be persuaded. But they couldn't find one that is at all comparable to my totaled van, so I had to go out and find a few, mostly at Carmax, which they won't accept as comps. Unless they could produce one comp that is really comparable, they couldn't convince me otherwise.
By the way, how do insurance companies come up with 4.5 cents per mile adjustment? |
|
jwu223
New member
Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Posts: 5
3.28 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Define what you mean by real. As previously stated before, you are under the impression that the insurer is shopping for a vehicle similar to yours that you can buy. You need to forget the word "vehicle", and start thinking value. Your settlement is based on what you would expect to pay for your van in the market. What is the acv of not a similar vehicle, but your van?The fact that you cannot locate a similar van for the amount of your settlement is not the insurers problem. You can complain all you want, it's not going to change anything. As a 3rd party claimant, what other things have you considered to collect from the at-fault party insurer that may assist you with coming up with the extra cash to close the gap between your settlement and the new vehicle? They won't even bother trying to convince you that not their job.
| Quote: | FK you are like
many of the uniformed people my office sees on regular basis. |
Although I appricate you backing me up, Fred is far from uninformed. Perhaps on this subject maybe. But he is quite knowledgable and I have learned many things from him. If you all you want is to insult others about what they know, do it some place else.  |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 618
Location: Kansas City
107.50 Dollars($)
|
|
Previous 1 2 3 Next 
