Avoid Internet Scams Offering Free Diminished Value Reports

Popping up on websites all over the Internet are offers to provide free diminished value reports on cars and trucks after collision damages have been repaired.  Generally speaking, a consumer inputs some basic  information about their repaired car and the amount of crash damage it sustained,  and receives in return an e-mail that states their diminished value claim is worth between $x and $x. 

On the surface it seems a noble enough service for people to pursue who don’t have money to waste – similar to the free consultations lawyers might offer to prequalify clients who have suffered personal injury.  But there is a downside to free diminished value reports on the web.

1) Free diminished value reports on the Internet are worth exactly what they cost - nothing. They can’t be used to substantiate a claim for diminished value because these sources have no specific knowledge of the consumer’s car, their accident or their insurance claim aside from information that’s been provided to them. If consumers want to be paid for diminished value, it is their responsibility to prove the amount of loss. Courts have established guidelines regarding how this should be done and the credentials of experts. It is imperative that an expert have hands-on knowledge of the car in question in order to provide a diminished value number that will withstand scrutiny.

2) The numbers on these reports are not reflective of a specific car and accident. They are generalized and artificially low in comparison to what consumers will find they are truly owed after their car has been inspected by a legitimate diminished value expert. Without seeing the car first-hand Internet companies cannot compute losses consumers are entitled to be paid for such as unrepaired damage, poor workmanship, aftermarket parts, and a host of other things that may make the car unsightly or unsafe to drive. Internet sources must assume a car is perfectly repaired and must avoid diminished value due to anything other than Inherent diminished value.

3) The report and information consumers receive from Internet diminished value companies may be used against them if and when they pursue a legitimate diminished value claim against an insurance company.

Consumers have everything to lose and nothing to gain by providing information to obtain  free diminished value reports from Internet sources.  Most legitimate vehicle inspection and valuation experts will honestly tell consumers upfront when the cost for pursuing a diminished value claim is outweighed by the potential recovery one might expect to receive.   For help in finding a legitimate diminished value expert in your locale contact dvexpert@safecollisionrepairs.com

Diminished Value Directive to Georgia Insurance Companies

I know you would probably find it hard to believe that an insurance company would provide less than factual information to claimants.  But, today, the Georgia insurance commissioner issued a directive to insurance companies operating in the state - even threatening penalties for noncompliance - if they continued spreading the word, even implying, that the Georgia Insurance Commission has endorsed a particular formula or method to determine diminished value after an auto accident.  It is simply not the case. 

Since 2001, Georgia insurers have been required to consider diminished value in first and third party cases and pay appropriately when losses are proven.  The method, however,  was not set by the Mabry court as some insurers in Georgia and other states contend, in an effort to get consumers to accept less than they are owed on diminished value claims

Effective immediately, any insurer disseminating information and/or appraisals to their insureds shall cease using any language which implies the Department has endorsed a particular formula or method to determine diminution of value.  Specifically, any insurer disseminating information and/or appraisals to their insureds shall cease using any language which implies that the Mabry decision or any other requirement of the Department supports the proposition that the diminished value result obtained by a carrier’s use of a particular formula or method constitutes the definitive determination of the carrier’s liability to its insured. Any insurer not complying with this Directive will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

Our thanks to the Ken Shigley, Shigley Law Firm, LLC., Atlanta, GA

Diminished Value: The Secret Your Auto Insurance Company Hopes You Never Learn

Diminished Value is the best-kept secret your auto insurance company is likely keeping from you, and one it probably hopes you will never learn.

To consumers the term, diminished value, may be a relatively new one.  But, after having paid claims to both insureds and claimants for more than eighty years, you can bet insurers are well aware of its existence - even if they won’t readily admit it.

Diminished Value Defined

The term given to the loss in market value a vehicle loses as a result of an accident and repair is Diminished Value. It is a simple concept - one that insurers try to talk their way around to prevent paying.  Diminished value is rooted in the foundation that once goods become damaged they are never as valuable as they would be had they never suffered injury.  The majority of people believe this and it is the underlying argument driving diminished value claims.

For example, you go to purchase a used car and find two identical vehicles sitting next to each other on a car lot.  They are both beautiful down to the last detail; the price tag is $20,000 each.  The cars are equipped with the same amenities, the odometers’ mileage readings are equal, as is the wear and tear on the vehicles. The salesperson tells you that the only difference is that the car on the left has been involved in an accident at some point in its history.  The choice is yours, the price is Continue Reading >>

Diminished Value Recoverable in Ohio - July 24, 2007 Opinion

In Rakich v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1067, 2007-Ohio-3739 the 10th District Court of Appeals held, in a 3-0 decision, that Plaintiffs may recover for the diminished value to their car after repair.

The Rakich Court noted that the traditional measure of property damage was either the cost of repair or the difference in value between the time immediately before and after the damage, but not both. Rakich argued that while she had been compensated for the cost of repairs, she still had not been made whole. The Court’s ruling followed the common-sense argument that a wrecked-and-repaired car is not worth as much as a car that has never been wrecked, and held that this difference in market value is a compensable damage. The Rakich Court found that allowing recovery for diminished value was consistent with the standard measure of damages in a tort case: the amount which makes the plaintiff whole. Therefore, the Court permitted Rakich to recover for diminished value if she could show that the repairs were insufficient to restore her car to its pre-crash value. Continue Reading >>

Diminished Value: State Farm’s Waffling Position

“I don’t see a lot of inconsistency [with State Farm’s position on diminished value]”, said Dick Luedke, media relations expert for insurance giant, State Farm. “The bottom line is that whatever our position on diminished value is, auto insurance policies don’t generally cover claims for diminished value…In most instances, skilled repairers can restore a vehicle to its preaccident condition and market value.”Hogwash! I thought to myself. I knew Dick Luedke knew better than that, and I suspected that he knew I knew he was just preaching the party line. Understanding he was just playing around with words to sidestep uncomfortable facts as media people so often do using oratory skills that make crafty politicians envious, I knew I had to ask pointed and direct questions to get to him.

“What does State Farm consider to be preaccient condition? If we had a metallurgist take a look at a crashed vehicle that has been repaired, I am certain he would find metal fatigue [and other similar conditions that would result in a weakening of the structure]. Are you saying this damage can be restored as well?” I asked.

“I don’t understand the intricacies of the stability of metal,” confessed Luedke. “So, I’m not the guy that can answer that for you.”

“But at the same time you are telling me you have repairers that can fix that kind of thing?” I queried.

Luedke responded, “I’m telling you that is our company’s position,” referring to State Farm’s contention that inherent diminished value doesn’t exist.

Is metal fatigue taken into consideration in State’Farm’s position?” I asked.

To my surprise Luedke answered quickly, perhaps too quickly,“I’m sure it is.”

When one discusses diminished value with insurance company personnel it always makes for interesting conversation, partly because insurers are usually talking so far over their heads that they often don’t make sense. And more notably, because the party line they hold is so skewed and inconsistent it is nearly a joke. Let’s face it, it’s hard to defend a wrong or inconsistent position for a long period of time. Moments earlier in the conversation Luedke played dumb about the loss of factory transferable warranty coverage that accompanies crash damage, coming across as if it were the first time he ever heard of consumers losing the benefit of the warranty they paid for as part of the sticker price on a car.

But it wasn’t warranty I really wanted to discuss. It was an obvious inconsistency in State Farm’s position on diminished value that prompted my most recent inquiry days earlier. Does State Farm believe diminished value is a rare occurrence or an everyday occurrence? Even if Dick Luedke can’t, or rather chooses not to see State Farm’s inconsistent statements regarding the frequency with which diminished value claims occur, I’m certain the discrepancies will stand out to you, just as they did to me, as you read my e-mail to the insurer in the paragraphs that follow: Continue Reading >>

Diminished Value Gets Bum Rap in Media

When consumers inquire about their right to file diminished value claims (DV) after their cars have been damaged and repaired, they often hear opinions that dishearten and discourage them. The opinions come from a wide variety of sources, but mostly from people they know and trust – coworkers, friends, relatives that have had car accidents, family mechanics and body technicians, even insurance agents and adjusters.

Despite the fact that we want to believe these people know what they are talking about and have our best interest at heart, their opinions regarding diminished value often miss the mark. This flood of misinformation puts consumers seeking diminished value facts at a great disadvantage, making it unjustifiably hard for accident victims to finalize insurance claims and collect money they are due.

Earlier this past week I was surprised to find that one truth-seeker went outside the normal circle of influence and sought an opinion on the legitimacy of diminished value from Yahoo Answers, an Internet question and answer forum. Of the six who posted responses including one 10 year claims veteran of Farmers Insurance, nearly all suggested that diminished value might not be a legitimate claim welcomed by the courts in the poster’s home state. Talk about misinformation!

In this article, we examine the primary misstatement presented by nearly all of the Yahoo posters including the Farmers claims guru, and expose accurate facts that can be shared when one encounters consumers looking for truthful diminished value information.

Click here to read, “Diminished Value Claims Get Bum Rap in Media,” an informative feature article on www.SafeCollisionRepairs.com. As always, we welcome your comments and look forward to a dialog that will enlighten and entertain our readers.