Hehe...I get to do my insurance rant again.

I have yet to see any real validity in a diminished value case. It is however a very greay area. But until I see dealerships getting rid of all cars involved in prior accidents to wholesale or selling them for less than market for an car that had never been damaged, I just don't see where diminished value is an issue. All I see in this mess is that we get charged higher premiums as loss ratios go up.

To answer a previouus question, no insurance policy has a provision for this. 1st party claims are limited to the cost of repair ot the actual cash value, whichever is less. 3rd party claims are actually paid based on the policyholder's legal liability for damages they caused. There is no specific provision. Theoretically, if a court would award it, then the insurance company should pay it.

As far as using diminished value as a negotiating tactic, I think some adjusters are reluctant to deal with it. I've had 3 cases that I handled and none were paid. An attorney couldn't even make a valid argument for it. In fact, he tried to trick me into believing certain California laws made it impossible for him to sell the vehicle at the market value of comparable vehicles. Yet when I looked at the law, he conveniently omitted some key parts of the law that negated his argument entirely. Honestly, if an adjuster is doing his job correctly, there would be little you could do to argue any other portion of the claim using diminished value for leverage. Claims should be paid fairly and based on what is actually owed.

If after an inspection, there is evidence of damage, I'd have more of an issue with the shop for not repairing it properly than with diminished value.

And from the sounds of it, it would be a misdemeanor hit & run. Felony hit and runs involve injury or death. In either case, it does not change the extent of your damage. Any criminal charges would have no bearing on the value of your case. Would your damage somehow had been any less if he stayed and left a note?

I'm not trying to preach on the side of an insurance company. Working for one has given me a lot of insight into the matter. And as a consumer, I'm sick of paying higher premiums because so many people want to make money off of claims. I have few real assets of my own but carry the highest liability limits I can because if I cause damage to someone, then it should be paid. But they should only be paid what they are legally owed.

One final thought here...when you sell your car, if you get what you would have otherwise, will you be sending a payment back to the insurance company???

 

No, because I firmly believe I should be compensated a small amount for the time and trouble this has caused me. Simply getting money for the repairs is silly. It is a major inconvenience.

As per diminished value, the dealer told me that because it was in an accident they would give me less money when I trade the car in. That's all I needed to hear.

 

State Farm definitely pays this out in Georgia. They got in a class action lawsuit here fairly recently and I received a good sum (had 7,000$ of repairs on a Mitsubishi Mirage (!!) and it was essentially worthless when I tried to trade it in). They also cut me a check when I had hit an armadillo (rare in GA, but they are around) and it smashed up my bumper and had to get it replaced. Granted, that check was only 145$, but it paid for the detail job needed since the repair shop didn't clean it up as polished as I would have kept it.

I have a feeling most insurance companies will do this when dealing with clients in the state of Georgia because of the precedent that exists. You never know and it is something to keep in mind if you are in an accident!! Good info and reminder, OP!

 

Think about this for a minute. Of course a dealer will tell you that. The lower the trade-in they give you, the more profit they make. Apparently, you have no negotiating skills. I've traded in two cars, both of which had been involved in several accidents. Hell, they didn't even ask about accidents. But if they did, I can easily take my business elsewhere. Just like lowest cost gets the sale, highest bidder on the trade gets consideration as well. I negotiated both my trade-ins up from what they quoted and that was without them even making an argument for damage or knowing about it.

Certainly, there is a slight inconvenience, but that has nothing to do with diminished value. Claiming something to get compensation for another reason is a version of fraud. If it's the inconvenience you are seeking, then ask for compensation for it. If you have a reasonable claim, an insurance company should pay it. But $1100 for taking you car to a shop, perhaps picking up a rental, dropping the rental off and picking up your car? Is it really THAT inconvenient? At best, that is a couple hours of your time. Do you make $550 per hour?

And as I said, the only real impact this has is on the premiums. Any time the costs of claims goes up, our premiums follow. We are only shooting ourselves in the foot here. Do what you will, but I expect that you should never complain about your insurance rates.

 

I think Georgia was the first state to pass diminished value claims into legislation. It is required now. I don't know the specifics of whther or not it only aplies to 3rd party claims or 1st and 3rd, but it is law there now.

 

A buddy of mine went to court over this and it ended up going to the okla supreme court. He won.

search google for BRENNEN v. ASTON, Jr.

 

I have. Don't know if the person here became a member, but here is my story:

I was (for a long time) looking for a low priced G that may have been a little ratty in order to save some serious cash. I knew that any 03 6MT would yield at least $28-$30K depending on options. The closest (and almost only) dealer near me is Infiniti of Cincinnati. Unbeknownst to me one day on a trip there I saw a coupe sitting out front with $24K on it. Oh **** I thought...this may be the one. Turns out it is an 04 with 20K on the ticker. No way at this point is this believeable.

The car had $8,000 of repaired damage done in an accident and the work was done at an authorized Infiniti repair shop. I looked over it and it appeared flawless to me. I was nervous about buying it with having previous damage, and that weekend a guy from Florida bought the car. Better off, I ended up with a much more pimp G for only a few K more.

I saw an 03 too for $25K and went to look at it...the body work was not done as well on it. However it sold the next week.

With a car like the G I'd bet diminished value is a plausable claim. Would YOU pay $28K for a car that has been wrecked over a car that hasn't been?

 

And apparently you, sir, are a jackass. I never mentioned anything about me attempting to negotiate a trade in on my car. I simply posed to them a hypothetical. The dealer's response to me was that even when they buy cars at auction, they will pay less for vehicles that have been in accidents. And guess what is interesting about auctions, the price is never negotiated DOWN.

So maybe you are the one who should think before you attack me and try to make me look ignorant.

Not a big surprise. It's because they obviously try to lowball you with their intial offer. And yes, they DO know about previous accidents if they run a CarFax, which they do. So you are not as smooth as you give yourself credit for.
Please. My point was simply an ethical point. And no, I didn't claim DV simply because I wanted to 'get paid'. I claimed DV because I deserve to be reimbursed for the lost value on the car. Period.

In fact, I let the insurance company come up with a figure. Then they gave it to me($1100) and asked me if it was ok. I agreed. If I were an A-hole I could have argued with them about this and probably gotten an addition 1k. Especially if I employed your phenomenal negotiating skills. But I didn't, because I am not trying to get money I don't deserve.

Moron, read my above statements. They came up with the figure, NOT ME. They wouldn't pay it to me unless they knew that it was correct for the situation. This is undeniable.
So basically you think my claim is bull****, right? I strongly disagree. My claim is 100% legit. It's the BS claims that raise our rates, not claims like mine that deserve to be paid.

Sounds like you are the one who is whining and complaining about rates, not me.

Next time you flame someone, make sure it is a person who is either in the wrong or is a complete idiot, neither apply here my friend.

 

There are also a number of states that prohibit awards of diminished value by statute. In which case, you are out of luck. The purpose of those statutes is to control the expense of car insurance by limiting claim expenses. It costs money not only to pay the claims but to also determine which ones are valid and which are not. You can decide for yourself whether that makes sense or not.

In those states that allow this damage, its up to you to prove the loss of value. With the advent of things like CarFax we know that people pay attention to whether cars have been in accidents. For most minor fender bender types though, my experience in selling cars has been minimal, if any, differences in price. It usually amounts to explaining what the damage in the accident was, and showing proof of the repair. Thus, there isn't any loss for door dings and minor paint work.

If you have extensive damage, such as frame damage or a significant rebuild, then you probably have a good case. I'd use a CarFax report on my own car as the proof. Tell the insurance agent that every serious buyer will read that report.

 

The problem is it's a hypothetical. Think about it. What do you think they will tell you. Their job is to pay as little for a trade and sell a car to you for as much as possible. Get into the actual negotiation and things will change quite a bit.

The only dealers who really buy from auctions are the ones who only sell used cars. New car dealerships that sell used cars sell trade-ins and lease returns that meet their standards. Cars that do not meet their standards, get auctioned in wholesale.

Who was attacking? When is it wrong to say what I think? Did I call you names? Apparently, you don't know how to make an objectional debate either.


Of course they do not give it away. But they would do the same with a trade-in that has never been damaged. And if they ran a CarFax, I'm sure they would have brought up the accidents as a point of argument. THAT was my point.

The problem is you made an unethical argument to say it is justified because of the "inconvenience". So I'll ask again, if you were to end up selling the car for what it was worth, would you send the money back?

I'm sure they didn't make the offer without you asking for it though. Perhaps they thought it would be easier to pay then to deal with the issue. Doesn't make it right. Plenty of injury cases are paid on the same merit as it can easily cost more to defend a case than to pay it.

Do judges and juries award judgements that are wrong? Absolutely. It's amazing how wrong the big guy will be no matter how wrong the little guy really is. Many insurance companies end up with a "just pay it" type of attitude. I'd personally love to see how the results would differ and attitudes would change if insurance didn't exist and these matters ended up in court all the time. Most of the people asking for the world would end up defending a case against them tooth and nail.

As I've said, I've seen no real evidence that DV truly exists. I think if it was a legitimate claim, then it would be provable so that legislation would never need to be passed. Every argument I've seen for it hasn't held water.

Absolutely, but I am also not claiming what I think should not be.

Who is flaming you? Is it wrong to say what I think, the same way you are now? If I were to start a topic that read, "Don't claim diminished Value", and you disagreed, would that be called flaiming? We can certainly have a healthy debate here, but you just seem to like to call me names. If you've done nothing wrong, then you have no reason to be defensive. We are grown adults. Save the name calling for the 5 year olds in the sandbox. It doesn't add any merit to your argument.

 

This is your attack on me. You don't have to overtly state a derogatory name to qualify a statement as an attack. It is implicit in your tone.

The fact of the matter is that I was never personally talking about me negotiating a trade-in. You insinuate that I am an idiot in your statement. It is very clear. You started the attacking, so don't point fingers and then say you are trying to have a reasoned, spirited, debate.

As for your comment on the issue between a new car dealer and a used car dealer. Ray Brandt Infiniti here in New Orleans sells more new Infinitis than anyone else in the state. They also have a lot of used car related business. The person I spoke with just returned from buying used Infinitis AT AUCTION in Houston. He stated that dealers will pay less at auction for cars that have accident history. And you don't like my hypothetical, thats ok. Because the dealer told me that he just recently bought a used and previously damaged Infiniti(repaint of both doors) for $500 less than the market value of an unmolested car. This is fact.

So there is your proof of diminished value's validity.

And to answer your question, will I return the money if I am paid full value for the car(as if it had never been damaged)?

NO!

It is the job of the dealer I am trading my car in with to do their homework on the car. If they want to buy my car from me for full value it is a mistake on their part. They will have trouble selling the car at full value when they try to flip it because the buyer, with supreme negotiating skills , will exploit the fact that the car now has an accident history.

Rememeber, an object is worth exactly what one is willing to pay for it. So them giving me 'full' value is their choice. Not mine.

 

There is a difference between making an attack and making a sarcastic statement to strengthen an argument. It apparently did it's job. Negotiating is a part of the value of any vehicle. People do it when they sell their cars and when they buy them. Did I say you were an idiot? Nope. If you feel like one, that is no fault of mine. The point of that statement was to point out where your argument was flawed.

Not all dealers will operate the same. New cars offer much more profit and incentive than used cars. As such, if the demand is sufficient, the dealership would prefer to sell new cars. If they are seeking out used cars at auctions, the new car demand is not sufficient to meet the demands of the space on their lots. It might be a logistical issue but certainly not the norm.

Auctions are a different market for one. But the real question then is how much are they selling the car for? I'm fairly certain they will get market value. And $500 less than Market Value? Keep in mind Market Value is a statistical number. Cars sell both above and below this mark. A difference of $500 with a used Infiniti is hardly "proof" as you so call it.

This is precisely my point. You're whole basis of argument is that you actually lost something. Instead you are getting free money for nothing and policyholders pick up the bill. Interesting how fraud has the same effect on policyholders. And was it not you that brought up an argument of ethics? Sorry buddy, but you'ld have more credibility if you stopped contradicting yourself...

 

Nope, I don't feel like an idiot. You simply implied it. You can't run from that.

There is no contradiction. Sorry.

I am not getting 'free money' like you say. I did lose something, the intrinsic value of the car. If you refuse to believe that, then that is your problem. It doesn't make my contention any less credible.

Here is a great example. Many friends of mine are big in the local Ferrari club. I happen to watch the selling prices of these cars quite closely. Cars with accident history sell for thousands of dollars less than those with perfect histories. Why? DIMINISHED VALUE.

Obviously it is much more extreme in the case of exotic cars, but it still trickles down in a smaller way with the types of cars we own.

Basically it comes down to one thing. If given the choice between 2 similiar vehicals, on average, consumers will PAY LESS for a car that has an accident history than one that has no accident history. Case closed.

One more thing, sarcastic comments(so you claim), do not strengthen arguements. And yours, specifically, served to be a cut down. Brilliant discourse my friend.

 

This discussion is so biased there’s actually no point in continuing…beside both parties already made their point, let’s MOVE ON folks.

 

yawn