Pgr1990

If anyone has read my first posted thread, you will know that one day after buying my car I got into an accident. I am in property insurance so I am very learned in how insurance policies work. The main goal of a policy is to put you back to where you were the second before the loss occurred. In this case my car was worth a certain value before the accident and even after it is repaired it now has a diminished value.

After research I came across this

www.courant.com/consumer/bottom-line/hc-bottom-line-diminished-value-20141103-column.html

If anyone has any first hand experience in trying to recover the diminished value or is in law or auto insurance any help would be appreciated.

liquidneon

I had a similar story to yours: some c**sucker smashed into my car after only 2 months of ownership (other driver 100% at fault). Again, nothing major thankfully and no injuries. However, the value of my car had diminished. So I looked into getting the diminished value recouped, and no luck. In Ontario the driver's own insurance pays for repairs no matter what happens - at fault or not. If you're NOT at fault, they cannot raise your premium... but they still pay for your repairs. That being said, the money comes out of their pocket and they want to spend as little as possible on repairs, rentals, etc... and they sure as F have no interest or responsibility to cover diminished value. I think there are plans/options available for purchasing this (prior to an accident)... but once the damage is done, you're shit outta luck. When I tried arguing this, they said "it's a risk you take on by being a driver". Hate them.

Pgr1990

I am in property claims (completely different animal than auto, but the policies have the same language) and the reason I think my situation is different is that this is going completely through the woman's liability and not through mine at all. Upon reading up more Connecticut is a diminished value state and yes, you are correct if it was filed through my insurance I can't recover anything for diminished value but since it is through the at fault drivers liability I can (even though reports say without an appraiser or attorney they will likely try to deny coverage)

Insurance companies are bastards, for a living I work for the policyholder and negotiate with insurance carriwrs on a daily basis with property claims and they do EVERHTHING in their power to mitigate claims and pay out as little as possible.

liquidneon

Agreed - but yes, seems like you're in a more favorable jurisdiction! Definitely pursue further.

robpp

iTrader: (2)

most carriers require the diminished value claim to go through them...maybe all.

they will then go after the other party for the claim.

Pgr1990

Yes, that is called subrogation and in this situation I'm not contacting my company it's all going through the at fault drivers company. I filed the diminished value claim today myself which is referred to as a third party claim. I now am using my own independent appraiser to determine the value and what I lost which will ensue a negotiation between me and their insurance company.

sockpuppet

This is the right approach. The insurance you're used to is likely standard property insurance, where the insurer's obligation is to protect you from the loss of your property. Auto insurance is different, insofar as it's liability insurance (at least the part we're talking about)...their insurer has an obligation (subject to any potential denials) to protect them from you. In some jurisdictions (commonly no-fault), there is a statutory prohibition against suing the other party, or at least limitations on what you can sue for. In those jurisdictions, the insurer has a lot more power, as they get to determine how much they will cover.

Getting diminution in value may not be impossible in a no-fault jurisdiction, but I imagine it's very tough...but I'm not really an expert in such things. In "normal" jurisdictions, one simply has to be prepared to launch a civil claim (sue) in order to force the insurer's hand. Many aren't prepared to go this far, and the insurers know it.

If you sold the vehicle right afterward, then you'd have pretty good evidence of the quantum or amount of the loss. Enlisting an appraiser is good too.

Pgr1990

It was kind of strange bringing up the claim and filing it, as I was redirected several times but I was set up with someone that works directly with them and it is filed so the ball is rolling on it.

I will update everyone as I continue this process and see if it is a viable option for other people to pursue in the event their car is hit.

liquidneon

Interesting info - please keep the updates coming.
In the jurisdiction I'm in (at-fault insurance I think it's called? Where each driver's insurance pays for repairs regardless of who is at fault... it just evens out for them in the end) I at one point had someone hit me... I took down all his information, as well as his insurance information. But now I'm thinking I did not need to do that at all... his insurance did nothing to benefit me... only he probably got screwed if my insurance contacted his and told them about the accident. Does this make sense? I doubt they even do this! Do I still have a case for seeking this lost value due to the damage he caused my car??? The jurisdiction is Ontario, by the way.
Any help appreciated!

Pgr1990

Yes, The way that works is so stupid. You cannot file a diminished value claim through your own insurance, so in Canada you're stuck in a catch 22. If you car gets damaged you need to go through your insurance, but you cant file a diminished value claim. There is no way to file it just through their insurance at all?

liquidneon

I only inquired with my own insurance company, which said "that's a potential cost taken on by drivers. it's the risk you take with car ownership in Ontario".

So given that I have the insurance info for the bastard who hit me, maaaybe I could somehow pursue reimbursement for lost value. I highly doubt it, but it'd be nice. I don't even know if there is some business or someone I can hire who could pursue this for me. As mentioned my own insurance wont do shit, as any time/cost doesn't get recouped anywhere and they cant raise my premium, so they dont give a shit about me.

aIRpeACE

iTrader: (2)

Depends on your state law and the insurance company

most states do not recognize DV claim to lower the cost of insurance. therefore, the insurances do not have to comply if the state is not enforcing it.

However, some insurance companies ( standard one) will honor DV claim if it's relatively small and they know their insured is full at fault.

My friend was involved in two accidents last year and the other party was at fault for both accidents. The first one the guy hit him had some crappy insurance. it took them 2-3 mos to pay for the damage and they pretty much ignored my friend when he filed an DM claim, stating PA does not have DV law so only way my friend can recoup his money is to take the case to a small claim court.

second time the other party had Allstates and they took care of everything within a week. When they called to follow up with the repairs, my friend mentioned about DV claim and they accepted it right away and offered him almost 1k for the DV ( reasonable in his case).

4GIRLS

Typically, you cannot claim DV against your own company, regardless of fault.I went through this when I smacked a freeway wall in my Ridgeline.

GYac

Good approach, I went through this two years ago. It can be a PITA. There is a formula out there to determine the lost value, its more of a "guide" then anything else. Because most states are different, there is no "set" way to figure it out from what i was told. I had 12k in damage to my old car, they offereded me 2k in value lost. I hired an independent appraiser to look into this out of California, paid him $200. At the end of the day we settled on $3500. The appraiser i hired put the lost value near 4k because of the extensive damage (long story).

The problem I ran into is the insurance company they other owner was using hired their own appraiser to do the same. It can be very objective. It was a 2 month process for me. Its a PITA, but at the end of the day i did recover some of that lost value, enough to cover my difference on a trade and unloaded the car.

GYac

I found it also varies greatly on state. Most use the 17c formula, which after some research i found can be more in the favor of the insurance companies than the customer....go figure....Best advice aside from above, is do your research.

Pgr1990

Well, I'm saying goodbye to the diminished value claim... The plot thickens!

So, The guy fixing my car called me yesterday and said "Peter get down here now, this isn't good." I get there and there are all sticky notes on my car and a man with a little electronic device for the cars paint.

Almost every panel on my car was resprayed and the MIL (thickness of paint) was either super low or super high. The bumper, hood and rear door didn't have a factory VIN on it (OEM parts still, but had the stickers associating with car repair parts) so they were all replaced. The rear quarter panel was bondo'd and welded back. The whole freaking frame is welded in the front under the hood.

Now I was forced to sue the dealership. They gave me an Auto Check report that said the cars never been in an accident before and I had asked. My autoguy noticed the quarter panel within 10 minutes and thought it wasn't a huge deal. Now it has come to light it was in a severe accident with frame damage.

Not only was the damage bad, but the repairs are god awful. The paint was terrible and the welds weren't even sealed underneath and were already rusted and rotting. My guy said in a couple years the frame would be separated. The first thing I asked the dealer was if it was ever in an accident and they claimed it wasn't.

I owned the car for less than a 24 hours before it was hit and I brought it to my guy. (Blessing in disguise that woman hit me) Months down the road they could have said I fixed it myself. They misrepresented the vehicle when selling it to me and committed fraud. The auto body guy said there's no way when they inspected it at the dealership they didn't know.

I took matters into my hands and reamed out the finance manager last night (who was a total dick) and talked to the GM today. The GM was actually a nice guy, but was still lying to my face to cover his ass when telling me they didn't know about it.

The car was owned by an Acura in Maryland and in Connecticut. It was a lease prior so the cars entire life it was owned by Acura. One of these dealers fixed this car and sold it when it was clearly a danger from the half assed structural repairs.

I am having the car replaced by an identical, or as close to, model as per my conversation with the GM. I'm sure I can sue and whatnot, but I really dont want to wait 8 months to make a couple bucks, I dont need the money, I just want to be in the car I had originally intended to purchase. I should have it in a couple weeks. This is a sick world we live in.

4GIRLS

HOLY CRAP!! I would be out for blood man. Please don't let them screw you over.

Pgr1990

Trust me, I've already been screwed over and the last two days have been hell thinking I'd be driving a loaner for 6 months during a lawsuit. I am not looking for anything more than what I purchased and since they are going to compensate me with a car worth more than the car I have now on the same finance plan I am making out well. They claim they can't find a car in the same price range and has the nerve to ask me to pay the difference LOL I just said "Yeah that's not happening" and they didn't even argue it any further.

sockpuppet

Don't jump to a lawsuit too fast. It's possible (however unlikely you might think) that the dealership did not know about the accident and rebuild. It's equally likely that the person leasing it didn't want to get hit with full loss, and so repaired it without the dealer knowing. Again, possible. And in a lawsuit, you would have to prove on a balance of probabilities that they knew. The fact that you bought the car is fairly good evidence that a casual inspection of the vehicle did not reveal anything.

For now, I would keep the lawsuit in your back pocket (being mindful of any relevant time limitations), document the hell out of everything (pictures, videos, appraisals), and negotiate with the dealership. They do not want word getting around that they are selling rebuilds as if they are pristine, so they should take care of you. you shouldn't be paying anything more for the same car...if there's an upgrade at all, then perhaps yes (though the dealer should be willing to throw in some goodwill money as well). Give them the benefit of the doubt but make it clear you're fine with suing and raising a stink.

And good for you in recognizing that sometimes the glass is half full...you sort of got really lucky in that you didn't get hurt, and you found out right away. I'm not suggesting you send the other driver a valentine, but at least you recognize the silver lining here.

Pgr1990

Really a blessing in disguise. If this happened months later I'd be totally SOL.

Miss.Acura

I can't believe through my Google search and acurazine I am reading this. I was hit yesterday. Everyone is ok but my TL, not so much. It was in mint condition just hit 15k miles without a dent on the car. My dealership is always on me to trade in. I finance. Now I know I have diminished resale value.
I'm in CT as well and the other driver is 100% as fault though I know he will try to blame it on hazardous conditions. Lucky for me, it happened in front of my police department so it should be on video. Anyways, how do I go about this. I have a friend who filed a claim after the car was fixed with the other insurance company. She was reimbursed ....? Please help!

SeismicGuy

This is one of those dicey topics for which I am on both sides of the fence. Remember you have not lost anything until the time you actually sell the car--up to that point it is all theoretical on paper.

On another auto forum there was a guy who was bragging that he had gone through this process a few times and practically wrote a treatise on how to go about it (hint--takes a lot of time and effort). In this other guy's cases the cars were already several years old (NOT new cars), had been returned to excellent condition, and he had no intention of selling the cars but just wanted some extra bucks in his pocket. He described with glee the ways to go after those nasty insurance companies and file motions in court, etc. I googled "diminshed value" and came across all kinds of sleazy lawyer websites that were like ambulance chasers. When I suggested this whole thing sounded unseemly and that I came from the school of "stuff happens, take care of it, move on" rather than "stuff happens, who can I blame, who can I sue, how can I make money" the guy got pissed off.

I can understand if you have a new car or some exotic going through this process but, again, there is no real loss until you have actually sold the vehicle.

sockpuppet

This is not entirely true, or at least, it's a bit misleading. Yes, strictly speaking, one is not "out of pocket" unless and until they go to sell, and have to take a reduced amount. However, unlike stocks or tradeable assets, which might go up or down in value, so any loss doesn't "crystalize" until the point of sale, in this case, the vehicle has most certainly lost value (depending on the extent of the damage). Put another way, if I have an accident damaged vehicle, and an undamaged (but otherwise similar) vehicle, a prudent buyer will offer less for the vehicle that's been previously damaged. So although OP may not be out of pocket yet, he has likely suffered a loss. He owns an asset which, once repaired, will "look" the same as 2 minutes prior to the accident, but which will most certainly be worth less.

And sure, there's abuse within the system. I don't blame insurers for being difficult or profit-driven. Firstly, it's their job, and secondly, they need to be suspicious of everyone. I'd bet every contributor here can tell a story about the time they, or someone they knew, pulled a fast one on an insurer.

The point of insurance (and I mean "pure" insurance here, not that "no-fault" abomination) is the same as the function of tort law itself; to put the victim back in the position they had been prior to the negligent (or tortious) act. Not better...but certainly not worse. So I have trouble having any sympathy for the idiot who damages my car because the text he just got was "really important". He should be punished. His rates should go up. He should be deathly afraid of making the same mistake again.

So you can certainly call lawyers "sleazy", or refer to them as ambulance chasers...frankly it means nothing to us. Because we know that in order to make a case for diminished value, there has to be some evidence of a decrease in value. We also know that you won't be casting the same aspersions if and when you need help buying a house, making a will, dealing with a dependant adult, or, God forbid, recovering what is owed you. Or at least you won't do it to their face.

SeismicGuy

Sorry you took offense at this--you're not a lawyer are you by chance? I did not say that all lawyers are sleazy. What I thought I said (or meant to say) was that the legal websites I came across advertising for automotive diminished value consistently struck me as being sleazy.

The specific case I was referring to was some guy that had two cars where he went through the diminished claim process--the first one 9 years old and the next 8 years old. These were not hot desirable models (but were originally expensive) and resale on these was already low since depreciation took its toll (he benefited already from that since these were bought used). The cars were returned to better than pre-accident condition and the guy had NO intention of selling. Even if he had it is doubtful whether the sale price would have been dramatically more or less because of the accidents. Nevertheless he was able to strong-arm $5,000 above-and-beyond from the insurance company (the limit for the small claim action he pursued). His goal was purely to enrich himself and he had no bones bragging about that.

It is this mentality that I object to.