It dosent seem to be a problem when the insurers limit what kind of proffet a bodyshop can charge. Tell them to use some of those record earnings thev’e been posting for the last two years to cover it!!!! Or sell a few jets or get rid of some of those high paied CEO’s. If you would play fair in the first place we woulden’t have this problem!!!!
The sad fact is that without diminished value worked into the damage equation, the insureds are being denied the basic concept of indemnity.
All of the arguments about raised pricing is a smoke screen for the duped and ignorant redergitating prior carrier spin.
The insured is entitled to full recovery period, based on the current value. The issue of incurred is surfaced, when the insured refuses the totaled out the diminished value of the car afer the unforseen value altering hit.
If they do not take that option, then they forgo the diminished value as being unincurred. Siomple concepts that have been around for a long time … just takes a little more time and effort on the part of carriers, more and more unwilling to fulfill their promise presented in the contract.
The days of more customer no service are beginning to end … the industry should wake up and smell the coffee.
That viewpoint seems to lack the very basis for how premiums are calculated. If carriers are forced to pay diminished value on 1st party claim, you can guarantee there will be sizeable rate increases for CP/CN coverages. If more is going out, why shouldn’t more go in? I am not familiar with the contract wording for this carrier but it will simply mean a specific exclusion will be on the horizon.
I agree that the very basis of indemnity would require that insurance companies pay for diminished value. If this is the case however, people need to realize that premiums need to increase. The insurance companies are not charities, they need to make a profit just like any other company.
If the industry does not want to indemnify insureds for diminished value, why change the contract to define and exclude diminished value. Those carriers that so choose could offer their insureds the choice of buying diminished value coverag, or offer policies that cover diminished value and offer the insured the opportunity to reject the coverage in writing.
Diminished Value Is the neck brace of collision repair. This is just a way for the parasite lawyer to crawl to to our bizz. Don’t fall for the big let’s stick it to the insurance company line. After the class action we all will get squat. The snake will slither off with billions like the did in the tobacco law suit. Now my smokes are 3 times as much. That is just what will happen here. I will wreck my car and get paid six bucks more, the title will be branded junk, with a note that it may have been repaired properly. ( that will be good for resale )
It has been my position that an insured does not suffer a diminsihed value loss at the time of the collision, but only at the time that he is about to sell the vehicle. With that in mind, I wopuld say that the insured actually profits when an insurer pays diminshed value. In essence, How much difference would you pay for a vehicle that had body panel damage that was fully and properly repaired 3 years ago, than one that did not have body damage? How about if it occured 6 years ago? Here in Georgia, where an elected judge granted that insureds are eligible for D.V., i have seen several claims in which the DV amt. = up to 50% of the cost of repairs, based on the formula approved by the state. Talk about a “fortunate accident”.
Another example of a state legislature not doing their job.
The policy language is quite clear, Meridian’s policy language explicitly limits its liability to either the vehicle’s actual cash value or the amount necessary to repair or replace the vehicle’s damaged parts with repair parts of like kind and quality, whichever is less.
The legislature should pre-empt the judiciary and save their residents millions of dollars by either allowing diminished value or not but it shouldn’t be a judicial fiat.
We live under the thumb of judicial tyrants who have difficulty interpreting simple english contracts.
I think rchorak needs to go back to English 101 and maybe go to school to understand class action bullying or Business 101. The plaintiff bar wants to open up prior claims, get the carriers to pay DV for new ones, and pocket a nice chunk of attny contingecy fees, just like they’ve done time and time again (smokers/asbestos/breast implants/etc…….). The real injustice is the few hours they’ve spent on this – which is how they should be paid – hourly! If you want DV, fine, just don’t cry about your premiums going up. If you’ve read the news lately, there is a record number of carriers going belly up – and its not because of lucrative CEO contracts, or Enron misdealings – its because of Construction Defect, asbestos claims w/out proof of injury, mold, and other frivolous litigation. Again, you want DV, don’t cry about the premium increase infant rchorak.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It dosent seem to be a problem when the insurers limit what kind of proffet a bodyshop can charge. Tell them to use some of those record earnings thev’e been posting for the last two years to cover it!!!! Or sell a few jets or get rid of some of those high paied CEO’s. If you would play fair in the first place we woulden’t have this problem!!!!
Hopefully, the Indiana Supreme Court will rule in favor of the insurers on this particular case.
The impact of the decision going the other way could have far reaching ramifications to our industry.
The sad fact is that without diminished value worked into the damage equation, the insureds are being denied the basic concept of indemnity.
All of the arguments about raised pricing is a smoke screen for the duped and ignorant redergitating prior carrier spin.
The insured is entitled to full recovery period, based on the current value. The issue of incurred is surfaced, when the insured refuses the totaled out the diminished value of the car afer the unforseen value altering hit.
If they do not take that option, then they forgo the diminished value as being unincurred. Siomple concepts that have been around for a long time … just takes a little more time and effort on the part of carriers, more and more unwilling to fulfill their promise presented in the contract.
The days of more customer no service are beginning to end … the industry should wake up and smell the coffee.
End…
That viewpoint seems to lack the very basis for how premiums are calculated. If carriers are forced to pay diminished value on 1st party claim, you can guarantee there will be sizeable rate increases for CP/CN coverages. If more is going out, why shouldn’t more go in? I am not familiar with the contract wording for this carrier but it will simply mean a specific exclusion will be on the horizon.
IMHO of course….
I agree that the very basis of indemnity would require that insurance companies pay for diminished value. If this is the case however, people need to realize that premiums need to increase. The insurance companies are not charities, they need to make a profit just like any other company.
We may be debating the wrong issue.
If the industry does not want to indemnify insureds for diminished value, why change the contract to define and exclude diminished value. Those carriers that so choose could offer their insureds the choice of buying diminished value coverag, or offer policies that cover diminished value and offer the insured the opportunity to reject the coverage in writing.
Diminished Value Is the neck brace of collision repair. This is just a way for the parasite lawyer to crawl to to our bizz. Don’t fall for the big let’s stick it to the insurance company line. After the class action we all will get squat. The snake will slither off with billions like the did in the tobacco law suit. Now my smokes are 3 times as much. That is just what will happen here. I will wreck my car and get paid six bucks more, the title will be branded junk, with a note that it may have been repaired properly. ( that will be good for resale )
It has been my position that an insured does not suffer a diminsihed value loss at the time of the collision, but only at the time that he is about to sell the vehicle. With that in mind, I wopuld say that the insured actually profits when an insurer pays diminshed value. In essence, How much difference would you pay for a vehicle that had body panel damage that was fully and properly repaired 3 years ago, than one that did not have body damage? How about if it occured 6 years ago? Here in Georgia, where an elected judge granted that insureds are eligible for D.V., i have seen several claims in which the DV amt. = up to 50% of the cost of repairs, based on the formula approved by the state. Talk about a “fortunate accident”.
Another example of a state legislature not doing their job.
The policy language is quite clear, Meridian’s policy language explicitly limits its liability to either the vehicle’s actual cash value or the amount necessary to repair or replace the vehicle’s damaged parts with repair parts of like kind and quality, whichever is less.
The legislature should pre-empt the judiciary and save their residents millions of dollars by either allowing diminished value or not but it shouldn’t be a judicial fiat.
We live under the thumb of judicial tyrants who have difficulty interpreting simple english contracts.
I think rchorak needs to go back to English 101 and maybe go to school to understand class action bullying or Business 101. The plaintiff bar wants to open up prior claims, get the carriers to pay DV for new ones, and pocket a nice chunk of attny contingecy fees, just like they’ve done time and time again (smokers/asbestos/breast implants/etc…….). The real injustice is the few hours they’ve spent on this – which is how they should be paid – hourly! If you want DV, fine, just don’t cry about your premiums going up. If you’ve read the news lately, there is a record number of carriers going belly up – and its not because of lucrative CEO contracts, or Enron misdealings – its because of Construction Defect, asbestos claims w/out proof of injury, mold, and other frivolous litigation. Again, you want DV, don’t cry about the premium increase infant rchorak.