Originally Posted by Wayne O

Interesting thread. "...Georgia's Supreme Court set a precedent with it's decision in Mabry V. State Farm in which they ruled that inherent diminished value is a valid type of loss that insurers are obligated to pay..."

I vaguely recall reading in an old auto insurance policy (of mine) that the carrier does not insure for claims of diminished value. That would not preclude suing an at-fault party for such a loss but if common in the industry, I know insurance companies are loathe to pay for losses they don't insure against. Maybe that's all changed in recent years or perhaps on a state by state basis. I may have to dig out my current policy to see what it says about diminished value, if anything.

Thanks for all the information...it's been a good read!

Originally Posted by Hameister

You're presenting a hypothetical that will never exist. No two cars are ever identical. There are always features, color, mileage, tire condition, optional pkgs., wheels, ownership information, etc., that will cause me to opt for one car over the other, always.

However, let's take a realistic scenario.

Two 2008 'vettes, both with identical pkgs., features, identical color, and appear to be in similar cosmetic condition which we'll describe as excellent. Both are bone stock. Neither car was abused, or raced.

Here are the differences. One of them was a garage queen, only driven on weekends, and clocked only 19,000 miles. It's a one owner vehicle, with all maintenance records available, and was clearly well maintained. The owner just recently purchased a brand new set of Bridgestone Pole Position tires. However, a CarFax report shows that this vehicle was popped in the butt 3 years ago, and was repaired for $4,000. I check on where the repairs were made, and have my own expert thoroughly inspect the car. Everything is on specs, and an excellent repair was made having no detrimental effects on this car.

The other 'vette was a daily driver, that has seen 3 different owners, and has clocked 47,000 miles. Because of multiple owners, there are no verifiable maintenance records available. The car looks very sharp, and the tires are in very good shape with only 3/32 of wear. There is no record of this vehicle having ever been involved in an accident, or having undergone any repairs.

Both owners are asking the same price for their vehicle. I am attracted to the 'vette with less mileage, and new tires, and excellent maintenance records. However, it's got that nasty CarFax report, what do I do? Simple, I buy the car with the previous repair, and I pay the same price. Why? Because I am getting a lower mileage, vehicle with new tires, and maintenance records, and most importantly, I've already verified that the repairs were excellent, and did not degrade the car in any way.

In my opinion, there is no inherent diminished value, simply because it was damaged. At the same price, it's still a better deal than the one with the clean CarFax report.

There is no question that many folks would walk away from the better buy because it was damaged, and that scares the heck out of them. That's ok, it leaves more options for folks like me.

Originally Posted by BLD.70DRIVERMPG-RET.

...
I like the thread however, it has it's merits from both sides. I just like mine better! .

Originally Posted by Hameister

Ok, you certainly have a right to like your side better!

Ever wonder why Michigan doesn't recognize the existence of diminished value as a viable loss? Ever ponder the reasons why DV is such a variable in so many states where it is recognized?

Hey, that's ok, like I've said, I know my opinion is in the minority, that's ok, I can handle it.

Originally Posted by manic mike

Great discussion, gentlemen. If I ever have a problem, God forbid, I will give St Lucie Appraisal a call!