Mike, you are in the wrong conversation as that is a different subject matter. However, diminished value – if any – is a subjective amount and has never been paid on any model vehicle whose trade may have been reduced by possible problems. Besides, these vehicles are not worthless. I love my Prius and it is worth everything I paid on it and more. No problems! I’ve had several customers trade in their Toyotas that were on the recall list for other makes of cars and got a fairly good trade in values toward their new cars. Look at the Ford Exployers – Toyota will soon find a fix – if one is necessary – and this thing will blow over just like the Exployers rollover problems and the Cadillac electrical fire problems. Percentage wise – there have been far less problems with Toyotas than Exployers rolling over and Cadillacs bursting into flames.
I wonder if QBE’s Unigard, Farmer’s Union, and Generous Casualty brands are looking at recouping paid claims? (maybe not, that would require somebody to work)
Since these claims were on auto insurance policies and the insurers are being reinbursed for their losses. The insurers should be required to reimburse the clients for the points added on their insurance policy from the date of loss until the points are removed.
In North Carolina, someone is always at fault or negligent. In these cases the negligence was not the vehicle owner or insured driver but Toyota. The Safe Driver Incentive Program (SDIP), required by law and enforced by the North Carolina Department of Insurance and filed by the North Carolina Rate Bureau on behalf of all admitted auto insurers in North Carolina, requires insurers to charge insurance points for at fault accidents.
These insurers should be required to refund the excess liability and physical damage premium resulting from these Toyota claims back to the insured.
Let’s see the Insurance Commissioners get off their knees from bowing to our current Federal Administration and watch out for comsumers.
it’s not that easy; some insurers will probably recover some funds, and deductibles will be refunded to insured on a ‘pro-rata’ basis, but it’s highly doubtful there will be 100% recovery from Toyota; remember, even if an accelerator sticks, there are things the driver can do: downshift; turn the ignition off; slip the car in neutral and brake; all of which are preferable to striking another vehicle or running into a tree, ditch, etc.
I know that Farmers subrogated to Ford when they had the rollover problems with Exployers. Farmers subrogation department has been very active the past couple of years and I would expect them to subrogate if they have a decent case. However, you can bet that Toyota will not pay 100% based on the conclusion the driver made a “faulty evasive action” when attempting to get the vehicle under control. Chad is correct, there are ways to get the car to stop without colliding with something – just don’t panic.
With the carriers subrogating and probably recovering a significant portion of their losses, as well the States and the Fed will be grabbing some money as well, what about the insured’s who vehicles are now worth less because of the now widely reports problems associated with this issue…I wonder who will, if anyone, will make they whole..
Wrong again Mike – this conversation is about subrogation – not diminished value mainly because it doesn’t have anything to do with subrogation. Customer loyalty – this is the first Toyota I’ve owned in 25 years – it was the best car I had ever owned. I’ve been driving Mercurys since 1979 and still own one. Like everyone I don’t have the same confidence level in Toyota but, I also am aware that many other makes of cars are experiencing problems that simply not being seen in the press. Reference: This month’s issue of Consumer Report magazine – it compares all of the vehicles. All the press has been great for GM. Funny you don’t see much about the Ford hybrids in the news and they bought their hybrid technology from Toyota.
However, some of the things you mentioned could effect the statue of limitations on subrogation. That is, if Toyota is found guilty of hiding information courts may extend a carrier’s right to subrogate even though it may be past the statue of limitations in that particular state. Most states have document retention requirements which may be a problem. I know State Farm was chastised by the TDI for not coming forward with documents in some lawsuits. State Farm successfully challenged the TDI when it was brought out that the documents which were being required to submit were older than the time period required for a carrier to retain them. I still think SF was in the wrong but, a technicality got them off the hook. Considering the topic would be engineering specifications and products liability Toyota should be required to keep those type of documents forever. In fact, those are documents which Toyota would want to keep forever. It is my understanding that Japanese law allows them to not disclose engineering secrets but, they will be in US courts.
The most interesting aspect will be if Toyota’s attorneys say the customers made ‘faulty evasive actions’ when the accidents occured.
Yes, it is easy! The insureds are entitled to the return of excess premium for the points charged that increased the insureds liability and physical damage costs from the not-at-fault accident. I never stated the insurer should pay any of the proceeds from the settlement to the insureds.
Strict liability from a defective product lays with Toyota and the insurers should be reimbursed for subrogating the claims on behalf of their insureds. And since the insurers are be compensated, the insurers should not benefit by also collecting additional premium from the insureds.
One writer wrote a stupid comment, that the driver could turn the ignition off. In older vehicles, all major functions were direct hardware controlled by cables etc. The accelerator was mechanically controlling the trottle by a cable. The braking system used hydrolics. Pumping the brake pedal applied pressure to the master cylinder that caused the brake calipher to be applied pressure on the brake disc. The steering mechanism was not “powered steering” as in newer vehicles. In older vehicles turning off the ignition switch would have been fine.
Turning off the ignition switch in newer vehicles shuts down the computer and many functions. Some of these functions are needed by drivers depending on the physical abilities such as power steering and power disc brakes.
What’s next, the insurers collecting additional premiums for an insured who were involved in a UM/UIM claim?
Many states do not recognized diminished value once a vehicle has been appropiately repaired. The insurers should have paid the insureds or claimants the diminished value as part of the claim settlements.
Some national insurers intentionally do not inform the claimants of diminished value.
In North Carolina adjusters must be careful to disclose diminished value or be in violation of several insurance laws. North Carolina does recognize diminished value.
The insurers should collected their losses for diminished values from Toyota.
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.
Mike, you are in the wrong conversation as that is a different subject matter. However, diminished value – if any – is a subjective amount and has never been paid on any model vehicle whose trade may have been reduced by possible problems. Besides, these vehicles are not worthless. I love my Prius and it is worth everything I paid on it and more. No problems! I’ve had several customers trade in their Toyotas that were on the recall list for other makes of cars and got a fairly good trade in values toward their new cars. Look at the Ford Exployers – Toyota will soon find a fix – if one is necessary – and this thing will blow over just like the Exployers rollover problems and the Cadillac electrical fire problems. Percentage wise – there have been far less problems with Toyotas than Exployers rolling over and Cadillacs bursting into flames.
I wonder if QBE’s Unigard, Farmer’s Union, and Generous Casualty brands are looking at recouping paid claims? (maybe not, that would require somebody to work)
Since these claims were on auto insurance policies and the insurers are being reinbursed for their losses. The insurers should be required to reimburse the clients for the points added on their insurance policy from the date of loss until the points are removed.
In North Carolina, someone is always at fault or negligent. In these cases the negligence was not the vehicle owner or insured driver but Toyota. The Safe Driver Incentive Program (SDIP), required by law and enforced by the North Carolina Department of Insurance and filed by the North Carolina Rate Bureau on behalf of all admitted auto insurers in North Carolina, requires insurers to charge insurance points for at fault accidents.
These insurers should be required to refund the excess liability and physical damage premium resulting from these Toyota claims back to the insured.
Let’s see the Insurance Commissioners get off their knees from bowing to our current Federal Administration and watch out for comsumers.
it’s not that easy; some insurers will probably recover some funds, and deductibles will be refunded to insured on a ‘pro-rata’ basis, but it’s highly doubtful there will be 100% recovery from Toyota; remember, even if an accelerator sticks, there are things the driver can do: downshift; turn the ignition off; slip the car in neutral and brake; all of which are preferable to striking another vehicle or running into a tree, ditch, etc.
I know that Farmers subrogated to Ford when they had the rollover problems with Exployers. Farmers subrogation department has been very active the past couple of years and I would expect them to subrogate if they have a decent case. However, you can bet that Toyota will not pay 100% based on the conclusion the driver made a “faulty evasive action” when attempting to get the vehicle under control. Chad is correct, there are ways to get the car to stop without colliding with something – just don’t panic.
With the carriers subrogating and probably recovering a significant portion of their losses, as well the States and the Fed will be grabbing some money as well, what about the insured’s who vehicles are now worth less because of the now widely reports problems associated with this issue…I wonder who will, if anyone, will make they whole..
Wrong again Mike – this conversation is about subrogation – not diminished value mainly because it doesn’t have anything to do with subrogation. Customer loyalty – this is the first Toyota I’ve owned in 25 years – it was the best car I had ever owned. I’ve been driving Mercurys since 1979 and still own one. Like everyone I don’t have the same confidence level in Toyota but, I also am aware that many other makes of cars are experiencing problems that simply not being seen in the press. Reference: This month’s issue of Consumer Report magazine – it compares all of the vehicles. All the press has been great for GM. Funny you don’t see much about the Ford hybrids in the news and they bought their hybrid technology from Toyota.
However, some of the things you mentioned could effect the statue of limitations on subrogation. That is, if Toyota is found guilty of hiding information courts may extend a carrier’s right to subrogate even though it may be past the statue of limitations in that particular state. Most states have document retention requirements which may be a problem. I know State Farm was chastised by the TDI for not coming forward with documents in some lawsuits. State Farm successfully challenged the TDI when it was brought out that the documents which were being required to submit were older than the time period required for a carrier to retain them. I still think SF was in the wrong but, a technicality got them off the hook. Considering the topic would be engineering specifications and products liability Toyota should be required to keep those type of documents forever. In fact, those are documents which Toyota would want to keep forever. It is my understanding that Japanese law allows them to not disclose engineering secrets but, they will be in US courts.
The most interesting aspect will be if Toyota’s attorneys say the customers made ‘faulty evasive actions’ when the accidents occured.
Yes, it is easy! The insureds are entitled to the return of excess premium for the points charged that increased the insureds liability and physical damage costs from the not-at-fault accident. I never stated the insurer should pay any of the proceeds from the settlement to the insureds.
Strict liability from a defective product lays with Toyota and the insurers should be reimbursed for subrogating the claims on behalf of their insureds. And since the insurers are be compensated, the insurers should not benefit by also collecting additional premium from the insureds.
One writer wrote a stupid comment, that the driver could turn the ignition off. In older vehicles, all major functions were direct hardware controlled by cables etc. The accelerator was mechanically controlling the trottle by a cable. The braking system used hydrolics. Pumping the brake pedal applied pressure to the master cylinder that caused the brake calipher to be applied pressure on the brake disc. The steering mechanism was not “powered steering” as in newer vehicles. In older vehicles turning off the ignition switch would have been fine.
Turning off the ignition switch in newer vehicles shuts down the computer and many functions. Some of these functions are needed by drivers depending on the physical abilities such as power steering and power disc brakes.
What’s next, the insurers collecting additional premiums for an insured who were involved in a UM/UIM claim?
Yeah, just keep repeating that mantra over and over and soon you’ll begin to believe it.
Many states do not recognized diminished value once a vehicle has been appropiately repaired. The insurers should have paid the insureds or claimants the diminished value as part of the claim settlements.
Some national insurers intentionally do not inform the claimants of diminished value.
In North Carolina adjusters must be careful to disclose diminished value or be in violation of several insurance laws. North Carolina does recognize diminished value.
The insurers should collected their losses for diminished values from Toyota.