Accident Help

[meenaggie]

Third-Party Claim (You are not at fault): If the accident was the fault of a third person, Connecticut case law holds that the negligent person is responsible for the diminished value of the vehicle. A person whose vehicle is damaged in an accident may submit a third-party claim alleging diminution of value against the negligent driver's auto insurance policy. The policy's property damage liability coverage pays for property damage for which the insured is legally responsible. The measurement of damages recoverable is the vehicle's reasonable market value before the accident minus its reasonable market value after the accident, plus interest from the date of loss.

First Party Claim (You are at fault): In Connecticut, a claim under a person's personal auto insurance policy (“first-party claim”) for diminution of value is typically not covered. The policy language specifies that the insurance covers the cost of repairing the vehicle or, if considered a total loss, the actual cash value. It does not specify payment for lost market value. The policy may even include specific language excluding coverage for diminution in value.

More info can be found at the link below. Have to love google - "diminished value in Connecticut".



http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0011.htm

P.S. I live in Texas and my wife was in a "he said, she said" accident where fault was not established. I ended up selling the car for less than the repair bill becuase I was not able to use the diminished value to total the car.

[Zee]

Diminution of value is very difficult to prove in many states. We all know anyone can sue a third party. Most of the existing case law just gives you a basis for your suit so it does not get dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. However, how do you prove damages? Let's say you buy your car, it get's in a wreck and you get dimished value $$$. Instead of selling the car, you keep it. Didn't you just get paid for a loss in value that was never realized? What if you sell it on ebay buyer beware? What if gas goes to $8/gal and your Excursion becomes worthless anyway?

Maybe an easier way to think of it is like a new cell phone that breaks under warrantee. You go to Verizon or whatever and they swap you out a "new" phone. Turns out, your "new" phone is a refurbished phone that is several months old. Does Verizon owe you $$$ for the having to use a perfectly functional used phone when yours was new. Better yet, they fix your phone, now does Verizon owe you compensation for your phone because you have a repaired phone? What if you trade it in for an I-phone and ATT could care less about your Verizon phone?

I worked for 14 years for the nations largest personal auto insurer, 5 years as a manager for the 4th largest commercial insurer and I can tell you that in IL, I have never paid a dime for one of these claims. Damages do not get proven because no one can prove a loss on property that has not occurred. Even if the car is sold and you actually "see" a loss. Good luck getting the dealer to testify. Typically, that would require an admission that they sold the car to the next guy without such a disclosure which is not a situation most dealerships want to find themselves involved in.

All that being said, most people are advocates for the concept and to some extent, so am I. The reason it is being put into statute in many states rather than relying on case law is to get over the proof of damage issue. I could get behind and support a statute but the patchwork of state by state case law makes it a mess for all involved.

[paulk68]

well the good news is the car is DONE. they are just cutting a check. so it looks like it worked out for us. not that i am going to complain about the money they are paying us but is there any way to dispute it. now we need to start looking for something else. thanks again for all the help guys. what would you recomend a new malibu or impala??

[bretcopsey]

well the good news is the car is DONE. they are just cutting a check. so it looks like it worked out for us. not that i am going to complain about the money they are paying us but is there any way to dispute it. now we need to start looking for something else. thanks again for all the help guys. what would you recomend a new malibu or impala??

If they are cutting a check, I would assume you have accepted their valuation of the vehicle? If that is the case, it is too late to dispute the value.

If you haven't signed anyting yet, then yes you could dispute the amount they claim the car was worth. Be prepared for a possible fight and some delays though.

[WS6]

I sure hope you didn't sign anything saying you accept their offer for the car, especially not the check itself. No insurance company makes a legit offer ever, you have to force them to. You'll need to get NADA info on the car as well as print out other cars in your immediate area that were very similar to your wife's so you can prove the car is worth more than what they are paying you. Make sure mileage and condition match as well as options. You don't have to be 100% matched but the closer the better.

[Zee]

BS WS6. Our industry has more regulations than NASA and we have far more sophisticated real time evaluation databases than you as an individual could ever come up with. Low balling a total loss is nothing but a pain. The problem is more an unrealistic evaluation on the owner's part. Ever try to trade your car into a dealer for the NADA value? You will be lucky to get 2/3rds of the NADA.

Virtually all states have forbidden the poor practice of including release language on a check. Acceptance of a check does not constitute final settlement. Most states have a 5 year statute of limitations for property damage in which you can accept a check and still file suit 4 years and 364 days later. If you sign a release, that's a different story.

[WS6]

glad to know the check thing has changed. I disagree on the low balling though. Yes, there are plenty of times when the customer thinks their car is mint when it's a jalopy(just browse Ebay for proof) but no company is going to pay anything more than it has to to satisfy a customer. The dealer doing a trade in is the same way which is perfectly acceptable. However, the insurance company should be making their client whole. If the client can sell the car outright for x amount in a private party sale, the insurance company should not be saying trade in value is y and that's all we will give you, especially if y is 70% of x. I consider 70% a low ball.

BTW my suggestions come straight from consumer advocates, they aren't my own.

[Zee]

In IL we are required to pay retail market value as determined by at least three similarly optioned, mileage, same model, year etc vehicles that are currently available on the market at the time of the database search. All policies include a dispute provision where if the insured is unable to locate a car for the offer within 30 days, the insurer is required to ID a specific vehicle at that price and has the option of purchasing it for you. It can't get much fairer than that.

Most of the problem stems from and individual seeing a similar car for sale for let's say $12,000. So they take away that their car is worth at least that. I say BS 'cause there is no way a seller (private or otherwise) lists the car at their bottom line AND there is no way most anyone would look at the car and write out a $12,000 check. Reality is that the buyer would offer between $10-10,500 and the seller would be looking for between $10,500 -11,000. The deal get's done @ $10,800 or so. However, such an offer would be a "low ball" if it came from an insurer cause you can print up an add where Joe six pack is listing his car @ $12K. Sorry, it's worth only what it can be sold for and if the insurer offered $10,800, you would be made whole as either you or your insurance company could go out an buy that car for that amount.

Here's the kicker, this goes both ways. All an insurer needs to do is prove the car could be purchased for that amount. Then it is up to you. Either you take the car or the offer. So, it's a cash deal from the dealership perspective from me. If an insurer is a better negotiator than you (which I would bet that we are since we do this for a living) and I can get that car for $10,000, guess how much I owe you if you would rather have the offer? Yep, $10,000.

Trust me. Most reputible insurers have no interest in low balling a customer. We are not interested in overpaying either and the time and money spent fighting over the value of a car is nothing but a hassle from an insurer's perspective.

[wedgehead]

I have been there with the negotiations. remember taxes, registration and title paperwork costs. Should be included to make you whole again.

[WS6]

In IL we are required to pay retail market value as determined by at least three similarly optioned, mileage, same model, year etc vehicles that are currently available on the market at the time of the database search. All policies include a dispute provision where if the insured is unable to locate a car for the offer within 30 days, the insurer is required to ID a specific vehicle at that price and has the option of purchasing it for you. It can't get much fairer than that.

That sounds like a very fair way to come up with a value.

Most of the problem stems from and individual seeing a similar car for sale for let's say $12,000. So they take away that their car is worth at least that. I say BS 'cause there is no way a seller (private or otherwise) lists the car at their bottom line AND there is no way most anyone would look at the car and write out a $12,000 check. Reality is that the buyer would offer between $10-10,500 and the seller would be looking for between $10,500 -11,000. The deal get's done @ $10,800 or so. However, such an offer would be a "low ball" if it came from an insurer cause you can print up an add where Joe six pack is listing his car @ $12K. Sorry, it's worth only what it can be sold for and if the insurer offered $10,800, you would be made whole as either you or your insurance company could go out an buy that car for that amount.

Very true, but in your example, 10.8k on a 12k asking price is 90%. Where as 70% would be 8.4k. Personally, I'd be happy making 90% on an asking price even if the asking price was at NADA and KBB and not marked up any. My response about the ads was to be able to have proof for a counter offer, not necessarily an exact value or proof of value. In cases where market value in a particular area for a vehicle is higher than NADA, which is national, local ads can be very beneficial.

Here's the kicker, this goes both ways. All an insurer needs to do is prove the car could be purchased for that amount. Then it is up to you. Either you take the car or the offer. So, it's a cash deal from the dealership perspective from me. If an insurer is a better negotiator than you (which I would bet that we are since we do this for a living) and I can get that car for $10,000, guess how much I owe you if you would rather have the offer? Yep, $10,000.

10k on a 12k asking price is still 83%. I don't have the source but I remember it being reported that insurances companies on average get away with paying 70% of the value of the vehicle. To me, this is crap and not acceptable at all.

Trust me. Most reputible insurers have no interest in low balling a customer. We are not interested in overpaying either and the time and money spent fighting over the value of a car is nothing but a hassle from an insurer's perspective.

I believe it as it would be foolish to constantly battle over value. Unfortunately, there are way too many crooked insurance companies, Safe Auto anyone? We have no idea what insurance companies are involved in this accident to be able to comment. The agent can play a big part in this as well. Too many stories out there of agents not being on the up and up with their clients as well.


I think the biggest thing that people need to understand and remember is they have avenues available to them to dispute claims, values, coverage, and whatever else. I hate seeing people just roll over thinking they have to accept whatever is given to them. That doesn't mean they are being taken advantage of at all times and should constantly try and take advantage of an insurance company in return. Nothing bothers me more than to see all the new roofs being put on after a slight hail storm(there's no way all of them needed a new roof). Or to hear how so and so got a lot of money for their clapped out ride. People openly brag about it and usually I shoot them down and thank them for screwing me and their neighbors over with potentially higher rates for making the area a higher risk location.

answered in bold

[6'9"Witha69]

My ins company gave me more than I expected even before adding in tax, title, and registration reimbursement. A lot of it comes down to the adjuster as well.

[2yellow69]

Hey guys,

Just looking to add a little fuel to the fire!
When I got rear-ended in our '69 Camaro the adjuster for the insurance company's EXACT words to me were, "Well, the car is pretty old and there is nothing to base a value on it with. I would say it's a total loss. I have a check prepared in the amount of $2500.00. I just need you to sign here." I completely lost it, I thought someone was going to call the cops on me. After I stopped calling him every thing I could think of I pulled out the file I had on the car and slammed it on his desk. He didn't even look at it and called his manager in. The manager was actually very nice AND a car guy. Ended up not having any problems after that.


Matt