by jwu223 » Wed Oct 21, 2009 02:06 pm
Hi, I would like to seek second opinion regarding my total loss van. My van was 2004 silver Honda Odyssey EX with DVD system with 51K miles. It was totaled by Liberty Mutual two weeks ago. I was not at fault.
Liberty Mutual showed me the comparables they found. Only one is still on sale in the market, which is 98K miles. All the others were already historical data and the lowest miles on the comps was 68K. I faxed them the comps I found in the market and did my calculation including mileage adjustment (I used 10 cents per mile; they used 4.5 cents per mile.)
They did further research for 7 more business days and couldn't find any comparable sales in the market. They provided me an offer of $14600 based on NADA. But I have found a similar van on Carmax (2004 Honda Odyssey EX with 52K miles) priced at $15998. They told me 1) Carmax's price is high. Everybody haggles at buying cars. 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. I am uncomfortable with option 2 and unwilling to take the offer. I want to buy the van from Carmax since it is the most comparable. I am not a haggling person and the loss of my van shouldn't be determined by my haggling ability. The rental will be due this Friday. It's been almost a month after the accident.
Should I ask Liberty Mutual to hire an independent vehicle appraiser? How much will it cost? Should I seek legal action? Will it worth more than the $2000 we are short-changed? Any insights will be appreciated.
Liberty Mutual showed me the comparables they found. Only one is still on sale in the market, which is 98K miles. All the others were already historical data and the lowest miles on the comps was 68K. I faxed them the comps I found in the market and did my calculation including mileage adjustment (I used 10 cents per mile; they used 4.5 cents per mile.)
They did further research for 7 more business days and couldn't find any comparable sales in the market. They provided me an offer of $14600 based on NADA. But I have found a similar van on Carmax (2004 Honda Odyssey EX with 52K miles) priced at $15998. They told me 1) Carmax's price is high. Everybody haggles at buying cars. 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. I am uncomfortable with option 2 and unwilling to take the offer. I want to buy the van from Carmax since it is the most comparable. I am not a haggling person and the loss of my van shouldn't be determined by my haggling ability. The rental will be due this Friday. It's been almost a month after the accident.
Should I ask Liberty Mutual to hire an independent vehicle appraiser? How much will it cost? Should I seek legal action? Will it worth more than the $2000 we are short-changed? Any insights will be appreciated.
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 03:06 pm Post Subject:
.
.
Trench,
It is. It's putting you back in the same position as you were before the accident. Your vehicle was insured for the acv at the time of the accident, minus any deductions-miles, condition etc. Giving you more money for a similar vehicle now is not putting you back in that position you were in before the accident. In other words, knowing that information now, would pay $15998.00 for your vehicle prior to the accident?
What would either of the underlined comments have to do with a third party claim??
Sorry,... Giving jwu223 less than it will cost to replace their vehicle with an equal vehicle IS NOT putting them back in the same position as they were before the accident
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 03:20 pm Post Subject:
Your right Fred, it's not. The inability that a vehicle can be purchased for less money from a seller whose price is high is not the responsibilty of the insurance company. Just because a similar vehicle is located and is for sale at x amount dollars, because you can sell it at whatever price, does not mean that both vehicles are valued the same. The price of the replacement vehicle is irrelevant . It's not the responsibility of the insurer to find a vehicle for the owner. It's to pay him the value of the destroyed property, period end of story.
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 04:35 pm Post Subject:
.
.
Trench,
It's not the responsibility of the insurer to find a vehicle for the owner. It's to pay him the value of the destroyed property, period end of story.
END of Story..!!?? ¿ ¿ Are you trying to make a short story out of this potential Novel? :)
jwu223 has already found a replacement on their own. I don't think they are waiting for the insurer.
Since the insurer hasn't found a cheaper "" 2004 silver Honda Odyssey EX with DVD system with 51K miles"". it would appear that the value of the destroyed automobile is that of the one jwu223 found.
Its like this... if the value of Gold was say $800.oo per ounce a year or so ago and an insured ounce was Totaled this year, would that mean the insurer owes last years cost per ounce $800.oo or this years $1000.oo?
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 05:20 pm Post Subject:
Fred I am sorry but you are mistaken. No offense but please stop trying to spin this, you are going to confuse the OP. The bottom line is that you are only owed for the property's value at the time of loss. Your analogies are just silly and unrealistic :D It's baseless that the vehicle he wants costs more to replace than what his previous property was valued. That is not the puropse of the insurer to provide the owner of the property additional funds to replace something at a higher value just because what he wants is unavailible. This does not matter, but if that vehicle was availible from somewhere other than Carmax, whose to say he couldn't just offer the 14k and they would take it? I can see the insurer counter offering him some more money, but they are not going to give him the farm.
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 05:42 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.
"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.
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 06:24 pm Post Subject:
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.
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 06:43 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..!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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....
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.
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 07:01 pm Post Subject:
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
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 08:40 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.
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.
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.
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 :P
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.
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 01:03 am Post Subject:
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??
Add your comment