My 1982 Corvette was backed into in my parking lot by a co worker and company vehicle. Besides getting the damage fixed by the company's insurance can I as claim loss of value since my vette was a never wrecked example.
Are corvettes investments and will insurance companies see it as that.
Any other help would be appreciated before I turn my estimates and claim form.
Monte


Ok! Good info on here. Lets stop and let this sit so anyone else can be educated and make a decision on how to go about making a claim on you corvette

 

"can I as claim loss of value since my vette was a never wrecked example"

HUH?!?!?!?! A Vette is just another vehicle, you pay the deductible through your insurance company and have it fixed, then your company goes after the other company and when they recover loss, you get your deductible back............Maybe call your company instead of asking a bunch of dolts (including me) for insurance advice....JMO

 

"dolts"

Hate to tell you, but your Vette is not an investment. Just another car. Get a couple estimates, figure out which shop you want to do the work, and then deal with the insurance companies. The employer's insurance company should cut you a check with no issue.

Nope, your Vette is not entitled to pain and suffering.

 

and how do you measure that loss? what is the price difference in a car that has never been hit vs. a car that has? it is only an intangible, impossible to measure.
just make sure it is fixed right..

 

I'm surprised at the lack of knowledge expressed here... of course you can claim vehicle depreciation. A previously wrecked car is worth less than one that has never been wrecked and the insurance company is obligated to compensate you. You need to take it to an appraiser who will write a report stating the car shows no signs of previous repair, and an estimate for the depreciation. You then submit the appraisal to the ins co. Expect some negotiations back and forth, but depreciation is normal and ins co compensate for this all the time.

 

Good luck on that.

You can "claim" what ever you want. Getting paid is another issue.

 

The real question is what type of insurance do you have? If you just added your car to the 'family car' policy and the damage cost is higher than the "average wholesale" value in the Black Book, you just lost your car to the insurance company. They will write you a check for the Black Book value and the car is then theirs. Of course, if your car is in good condition, they'll fix it up and resell it for a profit.

Hopefully, you have collector car insurance with an "Agreed Value" established. That is likely much higher than the damage you sustained and the insurance company will just reimburse you for the repair [with 'no deductible' loss, if you are with Hagerty].

 

Talk to your insurance agent. The way I see it, your car isn't "wrecked" now, just bumped.

 

http://news.carjunky.com/car_insuran...-cde8621.shtml

 

 

"This information is general in nature and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal or insurance advice. Readers are encouraged to consult specialists in these fields who have an understanding of legal and insurance issues on a local, state, and national level."

Now that you've read the Dear Abby column, maybe talk to an expert in the field. I've been an agent for the past 15 years. For a minor bump in a parking lot, the OP is not going to get any diminished value. Straight repair costs.

 

If there was fiberglass damage (cracked fender for instance) he should either get a proper repair which would mean replacing the entire fender or fix the fender (patch) + diminished value. Ins must compensate for the damage. If you can tell the vehicle was repaired (patch inside wheel well, evidence of crack repair etc) it is not as it was pre-accident and there is diminished value.

 

Thank you for your opinion Dear Abby!

 

Luckily judges in many states agree with me.

 

Any actual legal cases from these judges you could post up for us????


Are you a professional in the insurance industry or just an advice column follower? You want to be realistic or keep dreaming that the OP will/can get more than the repair costs from this bump in a parking lot? I'll take my 15 years in the industry, dealing with auto claims from many companies on a day to day basis over that advice column that clearly even stated it was not legal advice , only hearsay.

In case any one missed it....from the article:
"This information is general in nature and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal or insurance advice..."

 

*sigh* Ok, here's Georgia as an example. Other states have similar cases.

State Farm v. Mabry, 274 GA 498 (Sup. Ct. GA 2001). In this case the Supreme Court of Georgia held that insurance companies are required to pay for the diminished value claims.


In this case the Supreme Court of Georgia Holding: The foregoing review of Georgia case law establishes clearly that value, not condition, is the baseline for the measure of damages in a claim under an automobile insurance policy in which the insurer undertakes to pay for the insured's loss from a covered event, and that a limitation of liability provision affording the insurer an option to repair serves only to abate, not eliminate, the insurer's liability for the difference between pre-loss value and post-loss value.

Not all states hold this view. Some states agree with you that when someone is hit due to no fault of their own they just need to take the loss. Other states are more enlightened.

 

It works like this in Washington state as well. I know of a few people who have been compensated for diminished value after an accident.

 

even after the repairs.....it is NOT the same car/value as before

 

But the Insurance Services Office (ISO), which provides insurance forms and data, authored policy language that insurers can now use in 45 states and Washington, D.C., that officially takes insurers off the hook for diminished value payments in physical-damage coverage claims. The ISO's exclusion for diminished value has not been approved in Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas or Maryland. Massachusetts has not adopted ISO policy language, but a May 2002 "advisory opinion" from the department of insurance states that diminished value is not covered under collision policies in the state. (Hawaii and Massachuetts are both under independent insurance bureaus.)



Here's how car insurance policies sometimes come into being: The ISO submits sample property/casualty policy language to state insurance departments across the country that help insurance companies alter and clarify their own insurance policies. Some state insurance departments must approve the ISO's filings before an insurance company can adopt any policy language proposed by ISO.

One ISO filing specifically excludes payment for diminished value and says: "Diminution in value means the actual or perceived loss in market or resale value which results from a direct and accidental loss." So, if you live in a state where the insurance department has approved this form, called PP 13 01 12 99, and your insurer has adopted the language, you'll have no chance of getting money for the "diminished value" of your car if you cause an accident. If you want to know if this applies to your policy, check near the back of your policy paperwork for this "auto exclusion endorsement."

In addition, auto insurers that use their own policy wording are also now including specific exclusions for diminished value.

For example, State Farm uses its own policy language, not the ISO's, and excludes diminished value claims in all states except Georgia.

"We do not believe that it is automatic or inherent that an auto's value diminishes after an accident if the proper repairs by a skilled professional are made as they should be," says a spokesman for State Farm Auto Insurance.

Progressive says its policies exclude diminished value in all but a handful of states, and the company uses its own policy language where permitted by law.

Courts in states including Texas, Maine, South Carolina and Delaware have agreed with insurers. In past cases, they've ruled against the idea of diminished value. For example, in Carlton vs. Trinity Universal Insurance in Texas in 2000, the court ruled that diminished value "cannot be deemed a component part of the cost of repair or replacement," and therefore an insurer is not contractually liable to cover a loss in value.

http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/...car-value.html

Bottom line, check your own policy before assuming you are entitled to diminished value. Just because an advice column says your entitled does not make it true.

 

Yada...yada...yada. The bottom line is that the insurance companies spend enormous amounts of [your premium] monies on lobbyists who help to get such laws passed so that the insurers minimize their expenditures...regardless of whether that is fair or not.

You "professionals" are no different than the big boys on Wall Street: you cry when you have to pay out; and you pay out as little as required by law {those laws your lobbyists help to get passed to your advantage}.