Dimished Value is covered under the liability coverages… so therefore no one should be worried about accidents you don’t have any control over. The coverages in question were collision coverage. At least this is how it works in Texas, anyway.
All consumers of automobile insurance should breath a sigh of relief. Premiusms could have gone through the already high roof had this or other diminshed value cases prevailed.
– I do not know how the suit was pled, however the fact that the insured is not placed in pre-loss condition, tells me that the basic indemnity principal has been defeated; unless diminsihed value has been specifically excluded.
– This is a real component of damage that if not rated for, should be.
Curt wait until you take a $2,000 bath from a car dealer because the accident you could not avoid damaged your vehicle and then look up the definition of indemnity and see how you feel …
Hooray for Allstate! It is about time some sense was adjudicated in our courts. I, for one, would never take part in a class action lawsuit. The lawyers win millions while each class member gets a $0.16 check or a redeemable certificate toward a product of the loosing company. I hate to think what a victory would have done to auto rates.
I learned that indemnity has more to do with not profiting from a loss and not restoring the insured to the same financial position as before the loss. It is not always possible to restore an insured to the same financial position as pre-loss because policy limits are often inadequate.
Read the promise made with regards to collision and other than collision coverage. I believe you will find no promise made for paying of diminished value. The cost to repair or replace or Actual Cash Value, whichever is less.
To place a dollar amount on diminished value is an inexact science. If the suit had not been defeated, how would each class-action plaintiff state their claim?
– I agree with the unjust enrichment on any claim adjustment, where betterment was not rated for, like replacement cost value or “RCV.”
– The founding principle on which all property insurance was based upon is the concept of indemnity; thus like, kind, and quality (“LKQ”), repair, replacement and actual cash value (ACV) are all components to establish the nature and amount of the economic damage incurred by the insured.
– When the insured is not placed in this position, by defeating the real diminished value of the repaired vehicle, then part of the loss has been improperly avoided by the carrier.
– As one of the settlement options, consider the concept of replacement with a “LKQ” car or “ACV” of the car, then there is no issue, as the insured is made whole pursuant to the concept of indemnity.
– It is only when repair is involved that the insured is currently being forced (by whichever is less) to accept a partial payment for their loss.
– I am in agreement with the class action approach, as the lawyers are the only one’s who really gain and I would not join a class action either … I suspect they were greedy and did not do their homework … unfortunate as the case law would have value in places other than Georgia.
– Check back after you get screwed out of a few thousand dollars on an accident where the at fault party is judgement proof and uninsured.
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.
RAC-
Dimished Value is covered under the liability coverages… so therefore no one should be worried about accidents you don’t have any control over. The coverages in question were collision coverage. At least this is how it works in Texas, anyway.
Which states were included in the case?
How will this impact Guaranteed Auto Protection (GAP) programs in the short term? Will we see a spike in fees and a reduction in coverage options?
Please respond.
All consumers of automobile insurance should breath a sigh of relief. Premiusms could have gone through the already high roof had this or other diminshed value cases prevailed.
– I do not know how the suit was pled, however the fact that the insured is not placed in pre-loss condition, tells me that the basic indemnity principal has been defeated; unless diminsihed value has been specifically excluded.
– This is a real component of damage that if not rated for, should be.
Curt wait until you take a $2,000 bath from a car dealer because the accident you could not avoid damaged your vehicle and then look up the definition of indemnity and see how you feel …
Hooray for Allstate! It is about time some sense was adjudicated in our courts. I, for one, would never take part in a class action lawsuit. The lawyers win millions while each class member gets a $0.16 check or a redeemable certificate toward a product of the loosing company. I hate to think what a victory would have done to auto rates.
I learned that indemnity has more to do with not profiting from a loss and not restoring the insured to the same financial position as before the loss. It is not always possible to restore an insured to the same financial position as pre-loss because policy limits are often inadequate.
Read the promise made with regards to collision and other than collision coverage. I believe you will find no promise made for paying of diminished value. The cost to repair or replace or Actual Cash Value, whichever is less.
Just my thoughts…
To place a dollar amount on diminished value is an inexact science. If the suit had not been defeated, how would each class-action plaintiff state their claim?
– I agree with the unjust enrichment on any claim adjustment, where betterment was not rated for, like replacement cost value or “RCV.”
– The founding principle on which all property insurance was based upon is the concept of indemnity; thus like, kind, and quality (“LKQ”), repair, replacement and actual cash value (ACV) are all components to establish the nature and amount of the economic damage incurred by the insured.
– When the insured is not placed in this position, by defeating the real diminished value of the repaired vehicle, then part of the loss has been improperly avoided by the carrier.
– As one of the settlement options, consider the concept of replacement with a “LKQ” car or “ACV” of the car, then there is no issue, as the insured is made whole pursuant to the concept of indemnity.
– It is only when repair is involved that the insured is currently being forced (by whichever is less) to accept a partial payment for their loss.
– I am in agreement with the class action approach, as the lawyers are the only one’s who really gain and I would not join a class action either … I suspect they were greedy and did not do their homework … unfortunate as the case law would have value in places other than Georgia.
– Check back after you get screwed out of a few thousand dollars on an accident where the at fault party is judgement proof and uninsured.