What kind of damage did you have

 

Has anyone used an attorney to pursue their diminished value claim?

 

Truck bed was damaged. There was some frame damage as well.

 

I had called one who specialized in DV. He said he was impressed I had already gotten a $5K offer from State Farm. Said I could probably get more if I was patient (said time is money for State Farm). But he said if I hired him, he'd take about a third of settlement, plus I'd be on hook for expenses for expert witnesses, etc, and my appraiser was from FL, while I live in OH. So I'd have to pay for him to fly up, his hotel, meals, etc... so I ended up going on my own, and ended up with $7500.

 

Thank you again for mentioning us. I want to dispel a couple of things your attorney said though. First is that I testify via teleconference so there's no need to pay travel expenses. Second is that every time I have been involved in litigation, my client won after which the magistrate awarded the appraisal and expert witness fees as well. Your award of $7,500.00 was fair, I'd say. Kudos, my friend.

 

I worked as a claims adjuster for several years, recovering money for a car rental company.

I always thought DV was a scam, but the customer instisted I pursue it, so I did. Sometimes I got it, sometimes I didn't. Most important thing to take into consideration is the law of the state.

Let's say you bought a brand new 2017 GS and are involved in a non-fault accident. The cost to repair the damage is $5,000. If you try and sell the car the next year, of course you will not get the normal price because the car has been damaged, even though it was repaired so well that no one could tell it was in an accident, other than the fact that it appears on CarFax.

You absolutely love the car and hold on to it for 20 years, when you try and sell it. The fact it was in an accident back in 2017 is of little importance, and the DV in reality, is non-existent.

Point being, you don't actually suffer any loss, at any time, unless and UNTIL you try and sell it. Certainly, after a number of years go past, there is no diminished value.

This concept was created by plaintiff's lawyers trying to inflate the claim, hence, more money for them.

The courts held that DV is NOT covered under YOUR policy, but is recoeverable from the responsible third-party. Adjusters are judged on their ability to promptly close a claim. Otherwise, the claim has to be kept open, and reported as a possible future drain of assets. So rather than keep a claim open until the car is actually sold, and the diminished value is actually realized, they go ahead and pay you now.

It's only logical that insurance companies are hesitant to pay these bogus claims, but do so for the least amount possible. Remember, an insurance company is NOT an eelemosynary institution - don't expect them to act like one. Most are NOT out to screw you, as is widely believed. They adhere to the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, and if you don't know what those are, that's YOUR problem.

 

Bogus claims? Insurance companies are not out to screw you? On what planet do you live?

 

Sorry but DV is not bogus claim. Most people don't keep their car 20 years and why should the person who was not at fault, suffer monetary loss because of another's negligence?

Had it happen to me twice (no fault accident and then car valued 10%+ less than book value due to the reported accident). I did not fight for DV on one of them but you better believe that if it happens again I will. Especially with a sports car. Good luck selling your gently used Corvette 1-5 years after a reported accident/damage. People who buy sports cars like Corvette are super picky and likely would not even consider your car. A dealer knows they will have a much tougher time selling it so they will rape you on trade-in with low ball offers because, in reality, they don't want a Corvette that had a reported accident sitting on their lot either.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I'm very grateful for your help. One of the best calls I ever made was to your office!

 

Wow, unsure who you'd sue for DV since you stated there was no damage to vehicle and the car fax ding was because you called police to report. That's a tough case to prosecute!

 

I think you missed my point; it's not that the car has not diminished in value after an accident, it's that you don't suffer a loss (if any at all) UNTIL you sell it. Insurance companies should not be paying out until that happens, but that's not practical.

When I was trying to collect for the damage to rental vehicles, the client always started the discussion with the MSRP, which almost no one pays - this begins the false premise. The fact that they bought thousands of vehicles from Chevrolet every year (and that the owner of the rental company was a significant Chevy dealer) gave them deep discounts from MSRP, which was never factored into the equation either. So they just loved it when I managed to collect on the so-called DV, because it was pure gravy - they made a lot of profit on it. I always felt that the DV really came about because the vehicles were rental cars, not because they had been in an accident.

You're exactly right, the dealers rape you on the trade-in value, but they do that on every car they take in trade. Most cars they take in trade are immediately sent to an auto auction. That's why I never put up my cars as a trade in - I sell it to the public myself.

 

I'm a resident of Earth, and have 40 years experience in the insurance industry as an underwriter, broker and adjuster. I dealt with multiple companies, and yes, a few were unscrupulous in the claims handling, but 99% were not.

Your insurance policy is not a pay-for-everything maintence agreement, it's a contract with terms and conditions both parties must adhere to. Have you even read your auto and homeowner's policies?

I adjusted a lot of Katrina claims in the lower 9th ward of New Orleans. People lost everything, but flood was specifically excluded. Did I screw the insured over by denying their claim? No, I don't think so, but you probably think I did. At every company I ever worked with, it was the adjuster's job to FIND coverage, not deny it.

On the flip side, you wouldn't believe how many fraudulent claims I handled. I had one where the insured owned 3 houses, and he submitted Hurricane Ike claims on all of them. Two of the buildings were covered under my client's policy, but the third one was insured by a different company. Well, hell, he just sued anyway and rather than incur the cost of litigation, my client paid him $80,000 to just go away. You tell me: who was the screwer, and who was the screwee?

I told one woman her policy did not provide coverage on a replacement cost basis for her fence, and that depreciation would be taken. No, I was wrong ... she had talked to a friend of her third cousin, twice removed, and he told her she had replacement cost. Even when I read the policy out loud to her, she told me I didn't know what I was talking about.

It's attitudes and statements like yours ... YOU are part the problem.

I suggest you go buy a couple of fine brushes before you paint your house. Throwing buckets of paint at the wall is ludicrous.

 

Simple question. You are in the market to buy a used Corvette for under $45k.

You find two cars near you that are nearly identical in terms of color and options and mileage. One has a Carfax report of being in an accident and repaired. The other comes back clean. Both are the same price.

Which car do you buy and why?

 

Simple question. Have you ever had a car that was involved in a fender bender? Did you have it fixed and keep driving it, or did you discard it because it was in an accident and therefore so inferior as to be unacceptable to you?

I had a C6 where I got distracted and merged into a lane that was already occupied. I caused no discernable damage the other car, but my left front fender was dented and the chrome rim was scuffed up a bit. I had it fixed, and when I went to the C7, I sold it to an individual who lived 250 miles away. He didn't seem to mind the fact the car had sustained some minor, but repaired, damage. Did my car suffer any diminished value? I think not. Would he have paid more had I not disclosed the accident? I think not.

No two cars are identical, so in the hypothetical you posed, I would buy the car I liked best, and not be put off by a prior accident, unless the frame was bent or the car was flood damaged.

If you have researched the issue of DV, as I have, it was invented by a plaintiff's attorney in Georgia and was sustained by the court there. Like any good bottom feeder, lawyers in other states picked up on it and exploded the problem. In Texas, the courts found that your policy covers only on an actual cash value basis, and DV is not recoverable. They did allow it to be a liability of a responsible third party, so there you go.

Everyone who complains about insurance companies who raise their rates largely have plaintiff's attorneys to thank for that.

On a related matter, Texas is in the midst of trying to curb hail claims that have gotten out of control. The adjuster who does the estimate gives an equitable amount to repair the roof. Then the insured sees a billboard or tv ad from a lawyer who tells them they got screwed by their insurance company and they can get them more money. The hire a public adjuster who writes an estimate to completely gut and remodel the whole house, and then they file suit. Literally, they sue every single person whose name appears in the claim file. The insurance companies settle to avoid the cost of litigation. That raises your premiums.

My boss was hired by an insurance company just to drive by a house, take a picture to confirm the roof had been replaced, and he was sued for $400,000 for his role in the claim. Sound fair to you? Who was the screwer and who was the screwee?

Appelate courts rarely mention an attorney by name in their decisions, but Steve Mostyn in Houston has been singled out several times for his egregious mis-use of the courts. He has a pleading template that he uses, and just changes the names and amounts before he files. He sued me several times. He had one service of suit sent to an apartment in Baltimore, and I live in Dallas - his second-rate associate didn't change the template from the last bogus suit he brought, that's their attention to detail. Whatever he gets for the insured, he takes 30% after he pays himself all his legal fees and expenses. Most people, especially all of you who say the insurance company is only out to screw you, have no idea of what the business of insurance is all about.

To someone who does, y'all sound like ignorant dumbasses. Just sayin', is all.

 

Determining what the diminished value of a car is after an accident is like asking, "How long is a piece of string?"

There is no one right answer - go to 10 different companies who are in the business of writing those reports, and you'll get 10 different answers. It's like hiring an "expert" witness. Lawyers keep shopping around until they find one who will testify the way they want them to. The other side also hires an "expert" witness, who will testify to the opposite.

Which cup is the ball under?

 

Did I read this right?You basically got 10,900 dollars to fix a door?

 

You don't understand diminished value. Maybe this will help you understand it.

Diminished value is the automatic loss of value from a auto collision. Almost every vehicle that has been in a wreck will have some form of inherent diminished value.

It has been estimated that 55% of consumers would not buy a car that had been in an auto accident. 81% would not have a car that had been in a wreck unless they were given a large discount. the stigma may be even higher.

 

You may not be far off in that you'll get different answers from different independent appraisal companies but let's say, for arguments sake, that all ten appraisers came up with a diminished value of $10,000.00.

Now pay attention.

One of the appraisers used a sound methodology to arrive at his figure while the other nine appraisers used formulas or simply expressed their "expert" opinions.

The insurance claims supervisor or defense attorney looks at an independent appraisal and makes a decision whether to honor it based solely on their chances of losing in court. The one appraisal that was done based on sound methodology will be paid while the other nine will receive little or no respect even though their figures were identical.

 

Just read this thread--a car accident and DV is how I ended up in a new Corvette.

I special ordered a Subaru STI last year--5500 miles and less than one year later, some guy cuts me off (he admitted fault) and did >$10K of damage to the front my car.

Perhaps its just me, but I am not ok with owning a car that I took impeccable care of now having $10K of damage, fluids drained, lines replaced, etc.

So I took it to CarMax to sell it. They said that they wouldn't even sell the car on their lot since they could see obvious clamp marks on the pinch welds indicating it had been on a frame machine and that the cross member had been repaired.

No such thing as diminished value?

Lucky for me, I had ordered the car at the biggest Subaru dealer in the US and got an excellent deal. Had I bought it at a local outfit, I would have taken an absolute bath due to the accident.

Traded it in on a new Stingray and couldn't be happier!

 

I am the ignorant dumbass for getting hit by someone else and being upset with losing $5-10k on top of normal depreciation because my sports car is damaged goods to anyone who wants t buy it?

The only ignorant dumbass in this thread is the person willing to take it in the rear end for something that was not their fault.

I don't feel bad for insurance companies. They make billions of dollars a year in profits off the back of people like me.