Advice on getting depreciation from ins. companies?

In reply to ddavidv:
and
In reply to Klayfish:

OK guys, I'd actualy really like to know your opinion on DV since your in the trade.

yamaha wrote: In reply to crankwalk: Sounds like he was hit by an uninsured motorist..........read past what you bolded.

Well I read the whole post again and I guess we can ASSUME that's what happened but it was never mentioned.

In my situation, the other person has insurance, I'm not paying them (or my ins. company a deductible for that matter) so it's not really apples to apples.

Rare or not, it's a $20,000 + and it is worth LESS because of their insured. The amount less as valued by the estimate and other porfessional opinions will determine the amount I'll ask for. I don't feel I'm being unfair by asking for that back.

For the sake of conversation, let's say a shop fixes the car to exactly as it was prior to the accident. Where does the DV come from? If it exists, it's purely subjective based on a public stigma. How do you put a number on that? Should you? Does everyone feel that same way, especially people who sell cars.

Let me give you an example. Take a 2010 Honda Accord...or Camry...or Corolla... Search Autotrader.com within a 100 mile radius. I'd bet you'll find a car that has a Carfax hit for an accident selling for the same price as ones that weren't. I'm not arguing that this alone proves DV doesn't exist, but my point is that if everyone felt the car was worth less the asking price would be lower. Who decides how much less it's worth...if it is?

It's a purely subjective topic. When I evaluate it, I look at the year, make, model, mileage, damage amount, local market. Any one of these can drastically change my opinion on if it's owed and if so, how much.

Datsun1500 wrote: I hesitate to ask this, but... How come its OK to fix this damage to "better than new" but everyone was screaming about how a Honda dealer owed someone a new transmission, not one that was "as good as new" a few months ago? What's the difference?

Because the Honda dealer was NOT making the transmission "good as new". Wow, just wow.

In reply to Wally:

Sorry Wally, maybe I don't know what a good shop is, or have Superman eyesight or something, but I've never lost a challenge like that. I've been able to spot the repair on every single car out of multiple shops and many that other dealers have missed. Can they be very, very good repairs? Yes, absolutely. Will it look exactly like new to the vast majority of people? Absolutely, yes. Will it pass my inspection? None have yet.

Why do you think I repaired my Mazda5 myself and used a used part in the same color?

In reply to crankwalk:

People don't just get shiney bracelets and a free ride to the lockup for driving and crashing.

Can we stop using bold and caps though, its seriously annoying. We can read afterall.

Klayfish wrote: For the sake of conversation, let's say a shop fixes the car to exactly as it was prior to the accident. Where does the DV come from? If it exists, it's purely subjective based on a public stigma. How do you put a number on that? Should you? Does everyone feel that same way, especially people who sell cars. Let me give you an example. Take a 2010 Honda Accord...or Camry...or Corolla... Search Autotrader.com within a 100 mile radius. I'd bet you'll find a car that has a Carfax hit for an accident selling for the same price as ones that weren't. I'm not arguing that this alone proves DV doesn't exist, but my point is that if everyone felt the car was worth less the asking price would be lower. Who decides how much less it's worth...if it is? It's a purely subjective topic. When I evaluate it, I look at the year, make, model, mileage, damage amount, local market. Any one of these can drastically change my opinion on if it's owed and if so, how much.

I'll bet we find some that are ASKING the same amount but are they getting it? Doubt it. Private sale asking prices on autotrader doesn't seem like the best way to judge what the market is. It seems like a car dealer recording sales prices would be way more accurate but would be harder to look up on the internet in 5 minutes.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Insurance is meant to fix the car, not protect it's value.

This is a very, very good quote. It is probably accurate 95% + of the time. There are some instances where the diminished value of having an accident comes into play, especially with leases and corporate owned vehicles. As for private party? Unless the car was so new it was on the way home from the lot (practically, say about 3-6 months in reality), it's not likely going to make a difference and I'd agree that DV shouldn't even be in the conversation. (For example, even though my 5 went from 0 accidents to 1 with the hit & run, it was already a used car with high miles and wear & tear, no DV claimed or expected). There will be some obvious exceptions (exotics, really rare cars, classics, etc).

Just a thought here: You aren't paying for insurance to protect the value of your car. You are paying insurance to make your car physically whole again. When it is a relatively easy repair (like this), they fix it. If it is too far gone, they replace it.

EDIT: Javelin got the same idea posted just ahead of me.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

actually, the reason thats not true, in Georgia at least, is that a vehicle is taxed as an asset here under Ad Valorem.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: In reply to ddavidv: and In reply to Klayfish: OK guys, I'd actualy really like to know your opinion on DV since your in the trade.

My opinion? Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it's not. Completely depends on the factors I listed before. The point of insurance protecting the value of the car vs. making it physically whole is the crux of the DV argument. The insurance companies obligation is to make someone whole. But what is whole?

crankwalk,
Problem is...how do we know what the car is really selling for? I'd doubt it sells for many thousand less. If it did, they'd sell like hotcakes. If a $20,000 pre-accident car was selling for just $15,000 after full, complete and proper repairs, don't you think a lot of people would be searching for cars like that? I know I would. Maybe they sell for $19,500 instead of $20,000. Maybe it sells for the full $20,000. That's up to the individual buyer/seller.

Datsun1500 wrote:

mtn wrote: Just a thought here: You aren't paying for insurance to protect the value of your car. You are paying insurance to make your car physically whole again. When it is a relatively easy repair (like this), they fix it. If it is too far gone, they replace it. EDIT: Javelin got the same idea posted just ahead of me.

But it's not whole again. It was a one owner, never wrecked car. It will never be that again. Carfax has made a business out of convincing the public that a one owner, never wrecked, well maintained car is the best one to buy used, so why can't he be compensated when that trifecta is broken?

It is physically whole again. He can be compensated for it if he argues it well, but that is not what he is paying for. (Assuming, I don't know his exact policy).

Klayfish wrote: Let me give you an example. Take a 2010 Honda Accord...or Camry...or Corolla... Search Autotrader.com within a 100 mile radius. I'd bet you'll find a car that has a Carfax hit for an accident selling for the same price as ones that weren't. I'm not arguing that this alone proves DV doesn't exist, but my point is that if everyone felt the car was worth less the asking price would be lower. Who decides how much less it's worth...if it is? It's a purely subjective topic. When I evaluate it, I look at the year, make, model, mileage, damage amount, local market. Any one of these can drastically change my opinion on if it's owed and if so, how much.

not telling you anything you dont know, of course....

but for everyone else, a valid DV claim doesn't reflect 'asking prices.' it reflects actual market value when money changes hands, which demonstratively shows collision damaged cars value less than non-collided ones.

people can 'ask' for the sky, doesn't mean their car sells at that price.

I pay my insurance to make myself whole, when it's my fault. I also pay my insurance to make others completely whole if it were my fault. Making somebody whole isn't just replacing the body panels, it's getting them back to where they were before the wreck. If I were at fault, I would want my insurance to do that for the other person because I know I made their asset worth less than it was before I hit it.

People keep mentioning I won't get DV unless i'm paying for it in my policy. Without using caps or bold I will repeat, I am not paying for this, This is not through my insurance. Me getting DV has zero to do with my insurance policy and everything to do with the at fault person's insurance company paying for it.

This is a polarizing thread. It's really interesting to read other people opinions as well. But anyway people are getting irritated by my use of bold to show what I am responding to and some may just think I'm selfish so I'm done in this thread. I didn't mean for it to become an ethical discussion or whatever. I'll go back to asking carburetor questions in the build section.

I don't think anyone here is 'upset' like you might think, so I think you're ok. ;p

the reason its polarising is very simple.

vast majority of people don't read their policies. ;p therefore they get their angriest when they're in a claim situation and their own ignorance comes back to bite them.

they start making unreasonable or uncovered demands to cover up their own deficit. and usually, the handling adjuster is on the front line trying to deal with them and 10 other people at any given time.

Also adding to the problem is that good body work costs money that most insurance companies try to avoid paying at all costs, and want good-enough body work instead. Many people are shocked at how much a body repair can cost, but thats really just a sign of how affordable cars are in North America.

So wait, could we sue MB USA or BMW for DV for the stigma that their S classes or 7 series are hideously expensive to maintain after warranty? Hmm....

Also, after 2 days of folks going back and forth on this, just call the d*** company already. Who cares what who's opinion is or what state has what rules. Call them, explain what your intentions and policies are, and see what they say. Worst case, they say no, and you move on and continue driving your VW.

Let us know how it pans out though, would be interested to hear.

redhookfern wrote: So wait, could we sue MB USA or BMW for DV for the stigma that their S classes or 7 series are hideously expensive to maintain after warranty? Hmm....

Are you being facetious or are you implying my argument is that absurd?

It's hard to tell, but I will update this thread when I get everything resolved and let people know the outcome.

Datsun1500: I'm glad it worked out for you. Your last post is the reason this is in place. I'm not sure if some people in this thread think I'm making up this policy because I'm being selfish or if they know its a real thing and has a real purpose.

I'm being facetious. Just call the company.

redhookfern wrote: So wait, could we sue MB USA or BMW for DV for the stigma that their S classes or 7 series are hideously expensive to maintain after warranty? Hmm.... >/blockquote> That's a different problem, and people that trade in fairly new cars will often take their resale value into account when buying one.

redhookfern wrote: I'm being facetious. Just call the company.

I already have, I have to wait until the estimate is done and comes back. That happens 9/23 when the car goes to the shop. I am preparing.

When the estimate comes in, feel free to shoot me an e-mail. Happy to look at it and give you honest input.

Klayfish wrote: When the estimate comes in, feel free to shoot me an e-mail. Happy to look at it and give you honest input.

I really appreciate it. Thanks!

I don't understand all the controversy, but FWIW I went through this some years ago. Had a newish Maxima. Got rear-ended. Somehow learned about diminished value and asked the insurance company, who happened to cover both me and the crasher. We settled on $750 diminished value, but without any documentation-- just a number we agreed upon. I did learn that insurance companies won't bring this up-- you have to.

Also, FWIW, I had the body repair done at a Nissan dealership. They did a crappy job, twice. The insurance company (USAA) agreed to have another place have a go at it. They did OK, but it still wasn't "as new."

In the end, it didn't matter a whole lot. The ex-wife got it in the divorce (don't cry for me, I got the Jag XJS ) and proceeded to beat the crap out of it until it was finally left a non-running hulk in a parking lot somewhere.

Thank gawd I didn't look in here until this morning.

Klayfish, my soul brother.

HiTempguy...saddens me when people are so mentally challenged.

Going back into hiding so I don't say something that gets me banned.

Datsun1500 wrote: If you were in the market for a car and found 2 cars with same equipment, mileage, color, etc. for the same price, but one was repaired and one was never in a wreck, would you choose the repaired one?

If this was a 2 year old car with 30k miles on it, I may well buy the repaired one. If it was similar to the accident my car had, post repair I now had two brand new OEM headlamps that had no sand balsting from driving down the freeway, no little stone chips on the front of the hood or spoiler etc. All nice and shiney new.

If it was an older car, I'm buying 100% on condition.

If it was a 6 month old car, again I'm buying on condition, but here I'll grant you it may make a difference if it truly was two otherwise identical cars. But in truth how many people trade in 6 month old cars? Yes some, but statisticaly insignificant.