I never implied anything. I only stated that you had no negotiating skills. How in the world you derived that you are an idiot from that is beyond me.

Again, I posed the question, IF, you got the market value for your car would you give the money back? If indeed you did, then you would not have lost anything and therefore the money you received is unwarranted. If you were truly after only what you will are projecting you will lose, then would you not think it to be unethical to keep the money should you end up not losing anything afterall?

That's fine. I look at Total Loss valuations on a very regular basis. You would expect to see several of the cars that are used to establish the market value in each report to show a distinctly lower cost based on prior damage. The biggest factors in cost have been options, mileage and condition. The exception here is with vehicles that have salvage titles, in which case it makes sense as it would not be economically feasible to properly repair the car when it can simply be replaced for less. In cases where salvage cars are restored, it's likely that the repairs are compromised. It would also be another situation when the repairs done are of poor quality. Having seen vehicle after vehicle that have been repaired after accidents, it is quite hard to tell when a shop does a good job. But the real fact here is that every car has reasons a particular buyer doesn't want it at a given price. Some will argue to try and get the price down just to save money. But when it comes down to it, most people will actually buy the car they like the most with consideration to the total cost. People who are buying a used car are not as picky as you might think. If they were, they'd likely be buying a new car. Interestingly, many total loss cases I deal with have owners who do not want their car totalled because they would rather their vehicle be repaired. They would choose not to buy a used car, but be stuck with getting a new car instead. But they do not necessarily want to start over with the payments.

Either case, I've stated my point and opinion about diminished value. We will see how this evolves in the future. If it does indeed become the norm, I'm sure it won't be hard to lobby to have titles branded with diminshed value figures so that if the car is totalled at some point after a repair with a diminished value settlement, they will deduct the diminished value. The next buyer will then also become aware of it.

Actually it does. Of course it depends how you use it, but in any debate, you try to strengthen your argument, and weaken the opponent's. Consider for a moment that you had stated that because a dealer said they would pay you less if the car had damage, that you are simply taking their word. Based on my 2 prior trade-ins, they never asked or checked. Would it be a great way to negotiate by saying, the car has been wrecked? And would you consider a good negotiating skill to accept the first offer, or simply take someone's word? Of course not. Therefore, you got the comment about being a poor negotiator. I have no idea if you really are or not. But it was to point out the weakness of your argument. If you took offense to it, that is not my fault. And if you say you didn't, I do not believe you. Unless you make it a habit of calling people jackasses and morons for no reason all the time...(btw, this is some more sarcasm for you)

 

I'm not sure if I would get into an argument, face to face or over the internet with CKwik regarding insurance claims. He knows his stuff, its his business.

At any rate, although I'm not in this business, I too agree that claiming diminished value is a very grey area at best. How does one come up with a fair quantitative value on a depreciating asset?

Every car reaches at one point in its value life cycle a wholesale price. 500$, 1000$. It depends on the make and model. But realistically, wholesale dealers are the only ones willing to pick these cars up as major dealerships will not hold on to the older market cars for their used car lots. Thus Wholesalers sweep in and establish that price. So lets say the G gets a wholesale price of 2000$ after 12 years on the market. It's clear that if an accident is published on the G and the car was to be sold after 3 years on the market, one would expect to get less out of that sale. In this case the figures might show that the G was worth 20K but due to its diminished value then 19K. You have a cause for the claim. But lets say you hold on to that same car for 12 years. Wholesale dealers are not going to shave off 1k from 2k (using the example above). In fact the accident might all together be ignored after 12 years. In other words the claim for diminished value was a claim that you actually never monetarily realized during the ownership of the car.

How do we expect insurance companies to compensate for this? I for one would rather see claims like this go away. Fraud and frivolous claims are what drive our rates up.

 

Yeah...I traded two vehicles in on my pre-owned coupe....it was 100 miles away from where I live....I drove one vehicle, made the deal and drove my G home....It wasn't until 5 days later that I brought them the second vehicle....so they actually sold me the car (completed the sale including negotiating trade amounts) without even seeing one of my trades outside of a digital photo....and the second vehicle had been wrecked and nicely repaired, but still wrecked nonetheless....

and on a side note, the carfax report on that car had no reflection of any accidents at all...but I know it had been in at least two before I owned it....so to those that rely on car reports alone, it's advisable to have a used vehicle inspection service to check the car out prior to negotiating price rather than waste $10-20 dollars on a car history report that could not be 100% accurate....(I learned this the hard way)

 

I already answered this question for you. Simply look above in my previous response to you before repeating the same question all over again.


I was not speaking about cars that were a total loss or have salvage titles. Ferraris with even minor accident history RARELY sell for 'full value.' This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Even minor repaints diminish market value. Feel free to browse some of the online Ferrari forums and do some searches on the subject, you will find the diminished value effect to be quite real.

Makes sense to me.


Well the comment was misguided to begin with. I never said that when negotiating I accept the first offer. You ASSUMED that part.

Again, you are assuming parts of my arguement. Which invalidates your reason for the comment entirely.

Also, why are you avoiding what I stated about the dealer's remarks on diminished value being seen at auction? It shows that diminished value is very real and is affecting prices. Re-read what I said about that issue and get back to the point.

 

Reread my last reponse again. I was explaining that I had posed the question again with an enphasis on the "IF". Since you stated that your claim for DV was "ethical" then would the purpose of your DV claim would be to gain what you had actually lost. But if the value was not lost, you've lost nothing and since you are keeping money that is not rightfully yours, under the premise of an actual loss, then your credibility on your ethics is pretty much out the window.

The valuations done for total loss claims are based on cars for sale that do not exhibit damage. Why in the world would I base a car's value on cars that have damage to them. All I was saying is that I see these reports and none distinguish whether or not a car has had previous damage. With all the cars on the road today and all the vehicles I see repaired from losses, I'd suspect a measurable portion of these vehicles to be included in the valuation reports. Yet no distinction is made. I do see in these reports vehicles of the same year and model selling at different prices, but the biggest factor I see in them are mileage, condition and options. If you made adjustments for these conditions, you'll find most are within a fairly narrow range.

This is exactly my point. The basis of your original argument for DV here was that a dealer TOLD you they would pay less. This does not mean that is what is settled on. In order for your argument to have been valid, you would have to assume you are just taking what they gave you. If you negotiated a higher trade-in value, you would not be accepting what the dealer told you they would give you in the first place. And this was exactly why I said you'ld be a lousy negotiator.

Did you not say this:

I mean if you did indeed negotiate a higher cost, would that not invalidate this argument completely? There was no factual basis in this argument if that is the case. Otherwise, I must assume you are just accepting the dealer's offer.

Who is avoiding anything? I told you how I see total loss valuations. These probably give the clearest view of what happens on the consumer end, which is where it matters. Auctions really have no merit as the savings are not necessarily passed onto the consumers based on auction costs. The real question you need to deal with is how much would these previously damaged cars sell for to the consumer buying from the dealer. If the car shows no signs of damage(which it should not if the shop repaired it correctly), then I'll have to say it probably will sell at the market value of a comparable vehicle.

I'll have to speculate that auctions will arouse suspicions about previously damaged cars from a bidder as they get limited time and no test drive to confirm the vehicle is mechanically sound. There is a certain amount of risk involved there. But once bought, if the car runs like it should, I'd again expect they will reap the additional profit by selling at market value without breaking a sweat. I'm sure I see plenty of these cars in my valuation reports as well.

And I won't mention the dealers that sell cars that you can see were previously damaged. I went to a hole-in-the-wall dealer with a friend once and found nothing but cars that were not repaired correctly at all. I've been to small dealerships many times that had gret cars, but this one seemed to only pick put the worst cars. This is not the norm when it comes to repairs. If this was the type of work body shops were producing on a regular basis, then I think I'd have a lot of angry people calling me regarding this issue. But it rarely is. I'm sure the valuation reports exclude these dealers and the cars on them. Keeping in mind the company that does the valuations actually inspect many of the cars they include in the reports.

 

I didn't find out about DV until I went to trade in my leased BMW M3 a few years back...the accident (some moron rear ended me) was about 1 1/2 years before this so I thought I was screwed. The dealership was only offering me about 3k less than actual trade in value because of the DV.

Did some research and found out that, at least in Texas, you can file a DV claim up to 2 years after the accident...so I dug up the original accident information and called Allstate (the other guys insurance) to file another claim for DV and they connected me to their DV claim office. I followed their procedures and ended up getting a check for $2500 (more than I thought I'd get)...my only out of pocket was the DV independent appraiser, cost was in the neighborhood of $250....not bad...It all worked out for me

Morale of the story is that it's best to file the claim right away and at least find out what the laws are in your locale....

 

CKwik

Let's just agree to disagree. I don't like arguing with you because you chop up my statements and try to use them against me while leaving out key parts. It's impossible to win an arguement like that from my standpoint.

Cheers

 

I rather not get extra cash and have my car wreck free though...

BTW if it did happen to me and I got 50$ a day for rental, HELL id buy myself a bicycle and pocket the 50$ daily!