skylolow

I think your just being overly cautious on this diminished value of your car from your little issue. Obvious the new system is design to bump out the head rest bags on pretty light hits as your car barely has any damage on the rear. Most people that buy used cars never check a car fax and if they do they talk to you first. So if they ask has it ever been in accident you just say I'm a honest person and the car had very minor accident and show them the pics and say it was only like 2K to fix and explain the system is design to release the head rest airbags. 2K in todays world doesn't get much done when dealing with body shop repairs. Anyone that would be scared off by that little issue chances are will find many other things wrong with your car to not buy it. Some one does a little key job on your front fender and door can cost an easy 1.5K too repair. Respray the front of your car because of chips over the years can run 1K+. I'm sure many of us on here have bought cars that have had body shop repairs(worse then what you have) and never even knew it to this day. I think the insurance company is going to tell you basically the same thing. There just isn't enough damage to pursue any type of dimish value claim.



P.S.: Doesn't Carfax also only report if the damage is above certain amount. I thought I read that at one time in the past. Could be wrong though.

vern

Being that your a insurance,(comerical),broker and have some insight how about listing the States that will Except or will not Except DV claims. I know for sure that Pa. and NJ willnot except DV claims.
TIA
cheers
vern

vern

Your theory is some what right as long as you can sell the car private but what if you can't and have to trade like I had to do.
cheers
vern

lcotts

Here's a brief recap but it is a contentious issue that needs to be addressed in each state at the time of the loss to be certain what may be covered:

The Insurance Services Office (ISO), which provides insurance forms and data, authored policy language that insurers can now use in 45 states and Washington, D.C., that officially takes insurers off the hook for diminished value payments in physical-damage coverage claims. The ISO's exclusion for diminished value has not been approved in Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas or Maryland. Massachusetts has not adopted ISO policy language, but a May 2002 "advisory opinion" from the department of insurance states that diminished value is not covered under collision policies in the state. (Hawaii and Massachuetts are both under independent insurance bureaus.)

advancedlogic

NOT LEGAL ADVICE - The following is just my opinion.

Insurance companies will only willingly pay for actual damages. It will be difficult to recover monies for perceived diminished value, simply because no actual dollar amount of such exists at this stage - it's all speculative. Just for giggles, lets say the law rules in your favor today, awarding you an additional $4000 in perceived diminished value. 2 years from now, you sell the car and get full value. The insurance company for the other party has now paid $4000 in what is now an unjust judgement. You aquired $4000 based on perceived reduced value, when in fact none existed. How does the insurance company recover from this? Of course, the converse could be true and the payout in that case would be fair at the time of resale, when the actual cost of deminished value can be determined. How does the rule of law craft a position that is both fair and equitable to both parties in this situation? Baseline formulas can be drawn up from averages to be sure, but certain scenarios can nullify those. Lets say the owner keeps the car until its useful life has expired - a junked car. At this point, there is no diminished value - full value of the car had been achieved through full use of the car without any adverse affects from the accident. Was the $4000 payout for perceived diminished value fair in this case? There are so many variables that need to be studied to ensure an equitable position is achieved for all parties. Perhaps the most equitable solution is to allow for recourse in a court of law at the time of resale of the vehicle? Actually, there may be a current legal standing against the other driver directly in small claims court if it can be proven a financial loss was taken as a result of their actions (the accident vs diminished value). Again, just a very long opinion...

skylolow

I think your case is very isolated case.

I use to sell cars for awhile back in the day (carfax was around) and still know owners of dealerships, managers, etc. so I stay in the loop on things when we chit chat. We took trade ins all the time that had paint work done on the car. Only time we would ever hold it/use it to are favor against the customer on the trade was if we where dealing with very tight numbers. If they where bulking on the trade in value we would just say it has been in accident and we feel that is fair number(90% of the time the number we give them would be the same either way). Dealers will never pay much more for a trade in then they can get one at auction for. Auction sales are always lower then any source on the net (ie: kelly blue book) and many times thousands less. So many people have unrealistic numbers on what there true trade in value would be. Using an accident exuse for the lower trade in price your showing them is just an easy way to get the customer to understand and hopefully agree that your appraisal is correct.

Body shops don't go out of business to often and many you have to wait to get repairs done. Many many vehicles on the road have had work done. Simple little fender benders really don't effect value of the car for most buyers. Sure there is buyers that would never buy a car with any paint work done on it, but that isn't the norm.


P.S.: Many times when people brought in late model cars like BMW, Audi, MB, etc. we tried to push them to sell them privately and try to not even give them a trade in value. People don't like to to hear that there 60K car they bought 3 years ago is now only worth 30K or whatever. Pretty much kills any chance you have at selling them a car.

M603

if it shows in the carfax it will definitely lower the value of the car

vern

+ 1 You only know the pain when it happens to you. Carfax can be a good thing for the buyer but in my case a bad thing for the seller.
cheers
vern

wantmye90

Advancedlogic, your perspective is well presented and I respect the debate! Here's my two cents: 1. Diminished value can be calculated by adjusters just as repair estimates can be made. It is not 'speculative'. There are outfits that make a business of calculating diminished value and getting these amounts paid. Many DV adjusters were former claims adjusters. It's a science complete with up to date vehicle values and damage formulas. 2. If you get awarded $4000 diminished value and still get full value at the time of sale, this is not an 'unjust judgement' but merely a case where the buying party over paid for the vehicle. The judgement is 'just' because the owner was left to drive a car that was wrecked/repaired/repainted for the next two years - not the perfect cream puff they drove off the lot. 3. All cars have a value, even as they roll down the road; not just when they go up for sale. Dimished value is determined and awarded at the time of settlement for a reason - because at that point in time, the owner of the vehicle is left with a car that is LESS than the car they had before the accident. When the car is converted to cash (sale) is of little consequence.

Appreciate your thoughts!

advancedlogic

I likie!!! That was a beautifuly plausible (and entirely accurate) rebuttal - brought me to tears lol! I stand pleasantly corrected (and educated)