do we or don’t we repair the vehicle to the value that it was worth at the time of loss? if so, then there shud not be any diminished value based on accident of a vehicle (especially if you have proved that it was repaired for the accident). so yes, if i plan to sell it, i should get the value of the car w/o an accident listed. if not, then whom do i sue? the company or the sales folks whom are trying to rip folks off! I think that the problem extends to the sales folks, whom are trying to get a deal for the vehicle. therefore it’s not the insurance problem — the sueing shud be against the sales folks whom are trying to rip folks off!
Try roundtabling this type of claim at an office, with young and old adjusters alike. Going to get a wide range of numbers, if one can give a number at all. To say this is a gray area is putting it mildly and akin to “pain and suffering” in bodily injury cases. In those very serious car accidents, the vehicle would/should be deemed to be a total loss anyway. It is just extremely difficult to determine which PD claimant should also be awarded diminished value.
Through the years, I’ve had a few attorneys attempt to pursue this type of enumeration for some rather benign and minor auto accidents…
Diminished Value based on assumed sale value? So then the carrier should be able to adjust for “Betterment” when it puts a recently manufactured, properly fitting (but non-OEM) part on a 10 year old car, right? I thought not.
I pay enough for auto insurance already without the courts deciding that “repair” requires cash above repair cost.
OEM parts are equivilent to parts that are manufacturered. so there is no reduced value for the car…that car shud have the value if it was not in an accident, because repair work shud have brought the car back to it’s value at time of loss…
This whole arguement makes no sense. There should be not question. I do not understand why it is even in question whether or not a victim should be entirely compensated. It is ridiculous that people working hard every day for the money that it takes to make car payments should lose money on that vehicle because of something that was due to someone else being negligent or out of control. I’m sorry….but it just seems that it should be so obvious that auto accident “victims” should be totally compensated for the loss of value on the vehicle. Get real…none of us would pay the same for a 30,000 dollar car that had 12,000 in damages as for the same never wrecked. We should not even be having to discuss the issue.
Sorry, but I have to say this. It is like “what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china?” This thing about value loss not know till selling and stuff or how it should really still be worth the same. Silly!!! We have human nature, repaired is repaired. Why are all those lovely diamand rings at the local paw shop so cheap? And not becaused they are used, because they are tainted. like a wrecked vehicle!
Hey A Crock,
That is a crock. Getting behind the wheel should not be a worry for your financial state if you are not at fault. I thought that is why I pay my insurance premiums.
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.
You’re more than welcome to wreck my new car assuming:
You’re going to take care of the rental I’ll need, basic liability currently takes care of that so we should be okay.
I will demand my choice of body/frame shops (a right that’s been upheld time and time again).
I will demand the work to be completed by certified technicians (since I’ll be picking the shop, that shouldn’t be a problem).
I will expect OEM parts (since it’s my hypothetical “new” car that should also be easy).
I’ll send the car back an infinite number of times until I am satisfied with the repair quality.
I want a “new car smell” air freshner so I don’t miss out on the carcinogens while its being repaired.
Once I’m satisfied with the quality of the repair I’ll drive my car happy to have it back in an acceptable manner. That’s what I’m entitled to.
now, here’s the ultimate question —
do we or don’t we repair the vehicle to the value that it was worth at the time of loss? if so, then there shud not be any diminished value based on accident of a vehicle (especially if you have proved that it was repaired for the accident). so yes, if i plan to sell it, i should get the value of the car w/o an accident listed. if not, then whom do i sue? the company or the sales folks whom are trying to rip folks off! I think that the problem extends to the sales folks, whom are trying to get a deal for the vehicle. therefore it’s not the insurance problem — the sueing shud be against the sales folks whom are trying to rip folks off!
Try roundtabling this type of claim at an office, with young and old adjusters alike. Going to get a wide range of numbers, if one can give a number at all. To say this is a gray area is putting it mildly and akin to “pain and suffering” in bodily injury cases. In those very serious car accidents, the vehicle would/should be deemed to be a total loss anyway. It is just extremely difficult to determine which PD claimant should also be awarded diminished value.
Through the years, I’ve had a few attorneys attempt to pursue this type of enumeration for some rather benign and minor auto accidents…
Diminished Value based on assumed sale value? So then the carrier should be able to adjust for “Betterment” when it puts a recently manufactured, properly fitting (but non-OEM) part on a 10 year old car, right? I thought not.
I pay enough for auto insurance already without the courts deciding that “repair” requires cash above repair cost.
OEM parts are equivilent to parts that are manufacturered. so there is no reduced value for the car…that car shud have the value if it was not in an accident, because repair work shud have brought the car back to it’s value at time of loss…
If your car is 100% repaired & then is stolen or totaled is your insurance allowed to pay you less because of diminished value? No.
again, the issue is not with the insurance but w/the sales folks….they are the ones trying to be fiddle diddle with the pricing…
This whole arguement makes no sense. There should be not question. I do not understand why it is even in question whether or not a victim should be entirely compensated. It is ridiculous that people working hard every day for the money that it takes to make car payments should lose money on that vehicle because of something that was due to someone else being negligent or out of control. I’m sorry….but it just seems that it should be so obvious that auto accident “victims” should be totally compensated for the loss of value on the vehicle. Get real…none of us would pay the same for a 30,000 dollar car that had 12,000 in damages as for the same never wrecked. We should not even be having to discuss the issue.
Sorry, but I have to say this. It is like “what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china?” This thing about value loss not know till selling and stuff or how it should really still be worth the same. Silly!!! We have human nature, repaired is repaired. Why are all those lovely diamand rings at the local paw shop so cheap? And not becaused they are used, because they are tainted. like a wrecked vehicle!
Hey A Crock,
That is a crock. Getting behind the wheel should not be a worry for your financial state if you are not at fault. I thought that is why I pay my insurance premiums.