“…each claim should be evaluated on its own merits.”
So… catch as catch can!
I thought the insurer was responsible for returning the damaged vehicle to its pre-loss condition? Seems to me that the acceptance of DV “reasoning” is an admission that this cannot be done.
so, you are correct, we are supposed to imdemnify. question — do the used car sales folks do? afterall, i had it repaired to like it was, will i actually get the same value for the vehicle? not likely, yet, i am waiting on the day we sue them for value? question is who do we sue? the insurance company or the used car dealership where i sold it to?
No, you see, when you sell a repaired vehicle you TELL the buyer that its value was diminished by a wreck and repair, and you deduct your DV bonus from the sale price. Isn’t that how it’s done?
My problem with diminished value on first-party coverage is that the loss is one that may never be realized.
For example, last year I had a collision claim on my car. It was repaired to my satisfaction. This would, however, cause the vale of the vehicle to be diminished WHEN IT IS SOLD. However, I intend to drive this car until its value is the equal to the cost to tow it away.
Had I been compensated for the diminished value, I would actually have been enriched — and I’m sure I’m not the only one.
When insurers choose the repair method for indemnification they DO take on the obligation to repair to preloss condition. And because a repairer can’t, even with the best quality of repairs, take away the damage history, restore warranties or reinstate manufacturer’s certified preowned status that grant carowners the higher trade-in value that was held before the loss, there will always be diminished value that should be paid to achieve a fair settlement.
But, more often than not there is diminished value for reasons other than these. Most cars are repaired poorly, even at direct repair shops because insurers consistently choose to deal with the cheapest repair shops instead of the best. And also because the best shops recognize that the car owner is the boss and they consider it stupid to take orders from an insurer that has no authority to call the shots on how a car is to be repaired. High quality shops choose NOT to be on the DRP list leaving only second rate shops for inclusion in networks programs.
If you don’t like the fact that repairs can’t restore a vehicle to preloss condition you can always pay the difference in a car’s value immediately before the loss and immediately after the loss. (But that’s diminished value, isn’t it?) Still, it is the fairest method for settlement and is the primary method for determining a loss in Ohio (where I’m from). Cost of repairs is a secondary method of determining the value of a loss and is OK to use IF no statements of value have been provided. (Allstae v Reep).
Does anyone besides me consider it a fraud to have insurers settling claims based on the secondary or substitute measure of a loss without giving consideration to the primary measure of a loss? Aren’t all Ohio insurers commiting a fraud on the public by telling them that diminished value doesn’t exist when in fact it is the primary method for determining a loss?
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.
“…each claim should be evaluated on its own merits.”
So… catch as catch can!
I thought the insurer was responsible for returning the damaged vehicle to its pre-loss condition? Seems to me that the acceptance of DV “reasoning” is an admission that this cannot be done.
so, you are correct, we are supposed to imdemnify. question — do the used car sales folks do? afterall, i had it repaired to like it was, will i actually get the same value for the vehicle? not likely, yet, i am waiting on the day we sue them for value? question is who do we sue? the insurance company or the used car dealership where i sold it to?
No, you see, when you sell a repaired vehicle you TELL the buyer that its value was diminished by a wreck and repair, and you deduct your DV bonus from the sale price. Isn’t that how it’s done?
My problem with diminished value on first-party coverage is that the loss is one that may never be realized.
For example, last year I had a collision claim on my car. It was repaired to my satisfaction. This would, however, cause the vale of the vehicle to be diminished WHEN IT IS SOLD. However, I intend to drive this car until its value is the equal to the cost to tow it away.
Had I been compensated for the diminished value, I would actually have been enriched — and I’m sure I’m not the only one.
When insurers choose the repair method for indemnification they DO take on the obligation to repair to preloss condition. And because a repairer can’t, even with the best quality of repairs, take away the damage history, restore warranties or reinstate manufacturer’s certified preowned status that grant carowners the higher trade-in value that was held before the loss, there will always be diminished value that should be paid to achieve a fair settlement.
But, more often than not there is diminished value for reasons other than these. Most cars are repaired poorly, even at direct repair shops because insurers consistently choose to deal with the cheapest repair shops instead of the best. And also because the best shops recognize that the car owner is the boss and they consider it stupid to take orders from an insurer that has no authority to call the shots on how a car is to be repaired. High quality shops choose NOT to be on the DRP list leaving only second rate shops for inclusion in networks programs.
If you don’t like the fact that repairs can’t restore a vehicle to preloss condition you can always pay the difference in a car’s value immediately before the loss and immediately after the loss. (But that’s diminished value, isn’t it?) Still, it is the fairest method for settlement and is the primary method for determining a loss in Ohio (where I’m from). Cost of repairs is a secondary method of determining the value of a loss and is OK to use IF no statements of value have been provided. (Allstae v Reep).
Does anyone besides me consider it a fraud to have insurers settling claims based on the secondary or substitute measure of a loss without giving consideration to the primary measure of a loss? Aren’t all Ohio insurers commiting a fraud on the public by telling them that diminished value doesn’t exist when in fact it is the primary method for determining a loss?