wow kevin is a piece of work im guessing he is an agent who makes his clients believe he is an adjuster when they have a claim.
if kevin’s logic was true then all TLF states would be TLT because all the TLF states only total a vehicle when the cost.to repair exceeds 100% of the ACV so its a TLT state
I do, however, know California law. California law clearly says that the “uneconomical to repair” standard in vehicle code 544 is when the cost to repair exceeds the predamage value of the vehicle. This was decided in Martinez v. Enterprise Rent A Car (2004), and it was reinforced in Carson v. Mercury Insurance (2012). Therefore, you’re the piece of work.
Kevin can you please e mail me I have an urgent matter concerning a vehicle declared “totaled ” by insurance company that I had only had one week, insurance devalued car by $1000 in the 8 days I had it I believe so they didnt have to repair, now Im out about $6000 , downpayment, warrenty, etc etc
Jose, give me your email address and phone number and I will send you my contact info.
Yes, I know I’m the man, lol. The author of this article, however, is definitely NOT the man lol, because he has the wrong total loss standard for California, and I had to correct him. I am not even a lawyer and I am correcting the author of this article who IS a lawyer. What a joke lol.
James, I totally agree. Most lawyers do suck. Bad. Real bad. I don’t like lawyers or insurance companies. I agree that it is funny he appears to be wrong. The funniest part is, I’m not even a lawyer! HE’S the lawyer, which means he’s supposed to know the law! He doesn’t even know the law for California! This makes me laugh. 30 years of law practice and he writes a bs article entitled “When is a vehicle considered a total loss?” that’s got the wrong law for the state of California. What a joke lol.
Dear Gary, Thank you for another insightful well written article. As an insurance broker and client advocate, I find your articles very useful. Luckily, most Adjustors I work with know their craft and do a great job. Unfortunately not all carriers invest in hiring, training or retaining seasoned, insurance-educated adjusting professionals. Also unfortunate is when “claim representatives” fall into the trap of “doing it” the way it’s “always been done” but can’t explain why –contractually or otherwise. While there must be a reason, I can’t understand why most public adjustors must be licensed and carriers adjustors are not held to the same standard.
Gary, you have previously said in an email to me that the total loss determination is at the subjective discretion of the insurance company.
I wanted to let you know that the insurance company in my total loss dispute made a motion for summary judgment with that exact argument. They argued that they had the subjective discretion to determine when a vehicle was “uneconomical to repair” under the statute, and therefore when a vehicle was a total loss.
Their motion was DENIED.
So I guess everything you told me about a subjective discretion was wrong.
I have had a vehicle that was worth 17,000 from KBB. When my wife was in a accident my insurance company came out and did a initial estimate on my car. They said they were $3000 away from totaling it. They had to come back out and wrote another check to the auto body shop for $3100,(should have been totaled there). Then they had to put a new transmission in it with labor came out to be $3000 first transmisson they put in was bad had to spend more on labor to put another transmisson in. Auto body shop had my car for 3 months. I got in back a week later went in the shop for 2 more weeks. A total of $21,000 was spent on my car to repair it that they refused to “total” and my car was worth $17,000 Can anyone let me know if you know of any laws broken by this brief summary.
Tim Tabiaz, if this is a California titled and registered car and the damage occurred in California, and if your car was worth $17,000 and the insurance company spent $21,000 to repair it, then yes California law has been violated by the insurance company. The car is “uneconomical to repair” under California vehicle code 544 and is therefore a total loss. The insurance company paying $21,000 to repair a car worth $17,000 is a violation of California vehicle code 544 and its case law interpretation in Martinez v. Enterprise Rent A Car (2004).
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.
wow kevin is a piece of work im guessing he is an agent who makes his clients believe he is an adjuster when they have a claim.
if kevin’s logic was true then all TLF states would be TLT because all the TLF states only total a vehicle when the cost.to repair exceeds 100% of the ACV so its a TLT state
Nick. I don’t know other state’s laws.
I do, however, know California law. California law clearly says that the “uneconomical to repair” standard in vehicle code 544 is when the cost to repair exceeds the predamage value of the vehicle. This was decided in Martinez v. Enterprise Rent A Car (2004), and it was reinforced in Carson v. Mercury Insurance (2012). Therefore, you’re the piece of work.
Kevin can you please e mail me I have an urgent matter concerning a vehicle declared “totaled ” by insurance company that I had only had one week, insurance devalued car by $1000 in the 8 days I had it I believe so they didnt have to repair, now Im out about $6000 , downpayment, warrenty, etc etc
Jose, give me your email address and phone number and I will send you my contact info.
Yes, I know I’m the man, lol. The author of this article, however, is definitely NOT the man lol, because he has the wrong total loss standard for California, and I had to correct him. I am not even a lawyer and I am correcting the author of this article who IS a lawyer. What a joke lol.
209-996-1810
I accidentally wrote your name as “Nick” when it is Rick lol. My bad.
By the way Rick, I am not an insurance agent either. In fact, I hate insurance companies.
Most lawyers really suck, especially plaintiff attorneys. I will defer my judgment on this one, but it is funny he appears to be wrong.
James, I totally agree. Most lawyers do suck. Bad. Real bad. I don’t like lawyers or insurance companies. I agree that it is funny he appears to be wrong. The funniest part is, I’m not even a lawyer! HE’S the lawyer, which means he’s supposed to know the law! He doesn’t even know the law for California! This makes me laugh. 30 years of law practice and he writes a bs article entitled “When is a vehicle considered a total loss?” that’s got the wrong law for the state of California. What a joke lol.
Dear Gary, Thank you for another insightful well written article. As an insurance broker and client advocate, I find your articles very useful. Luckily, most Adjustors I work with know their craft and do a great job. Unfortunately not all carriers invest in hiring, training or retaining seasoned, insurance-educated adjusting professionals. Also unfortunate is when “claim representatives” fall into the trap of “doing it” the way it’s “always been done” but can’t explain why –contractually or otherwise. While there must be a reason, I can’t understand why most public adjustors must be licensed and carriers adjustors are not held to the same standard.
Gary, you have previously said in an email to me that the total loss determination is at the subjective discretion of the insurance company.
I wanted to let you know that the insurance company in my total loss dispute made a motion for summary judgment with that exact argument. They argued that they had the subjective discretion to determine when a vehicle was “uneconomical to repair” under the statute, and therefore when a vehicle was a total loss.
Their motion was DENIED.
So I guess everything you told me about a subjective discretion was wrong.
Good day sir.
I have had a vehicle that was worth 17,000 from KBB. When my wife was in a accident my insurance company came out and did a initial estimate on my car. They said they were $3000 away from totaling it. They had to come back out and wrote another check to the auto body shop for $3100,(should have been totaled there). Then they had to put a new transmission in it with labor came out to be $3000 first transmisson they put in was bad had to spend more on labor to put another transmisson in. Auto body shop had my car for 3 months. I got in back a week later went in the shop for 2 more weeks. A total of $21,000 was spent on my car to repair it that they refused to “total” and my car was worth $17,000 Can anyone let me know if you know of any laws broken by this brief summary.
Tim Tabiaz, if this is a California titled and registered car and the damage occurred in California, and if your car was worth $17,000 and the insurance company spent $21,000 to repair it, then yes California law has been violated by the insurance company. The car is “uneconomical to repair” under California vehicle code 544 and is therefore a total loss. The insurance company paying $21,000 to repair a car worth $17,000 is a violation of California vehicle code 544 and its case law interpretation in Martinez v. Enterprise Rent A Car (2004).