Quote:
Originally Posted by harrist5683
Pretty sure you can't get awarded diminished value for a totaled vehicle anyway  .
As you can clearly see, I don't live in CA, but I fail to see how simply asking about diminished value can have an adverse effect on your adjustment process? The worst answer you can get is no. I suppose if you're told no, it could be taken to court, but that would be the person's decision to pursue / escalate. Also from my understanding this is something you negotiate with the other party's insurance, not your own insurance or with an attorney.
I discussed this with Geico when I got into an accident a year ago, and it seems like we were told very different things. I just wanted to present the OP additional information that he/she may find helpful (or not). Didn't need a 'fake news' guy to come out of the woodwork.
*Edit* Here's an 'Explain Like I'm 5' resource on diminished value that coincides with my assumptions of the process. I've never heard of someone getting awarded DM for a totaled vehicle (there's no longer a vehicle in the equation to claim on), and of course this all varies from state to state. Definitely not 'fake' though  |
Okay - I'm not going to get into an internet argument.
When the insurance company want's to fix the car and not total it - that's where diminished value comes in.
That's why I did the research. I was after a total loss on both vehicles - which I got at the end of the day. The 4Runner because of the high residual value, the Outback because of policy add-ons for full replacement value.
The diminished value idea you floated does not work in California. Simply does not happen.
I am just saying the OP is in California and yes, like it or not you projected fake news. Each person has to do their own research - but sir, you are wrong.
I threw you on ignore. I have plenty of time to share experience but none to deal with trolls.
For folks looking to California issued on diminished value:
Another limitation on diminished value damages in California is that your recovery is limited to the vehicle’s fair market value prior to the accident, minus the cost of repairs. For example, if your vehicle’s fair market value before the accident is $25,000, and the cost of repairs is $15,000, your recovery for diminished value is limited to $10,000. This is true even if your actual diminished value appraisal is much greater.
So here's the rub. You have a one and a half year old 40k Camaro with 5k of damage. Fair market value is 30k - right there abouts.
So you could sell it now for 25k as is.
Value of vehicle before accident: 30k. The repairs were 5k. So 30k minus 5k equals 25k. Hence no diminished value.
So it just gets worse from there. 30k re crash market value, 15k in repairs, new market value 15k (assuming worst possible case) - well shoot there's 30k pre-crash minus the 15k in repairs - 15k..... No diminished value.
I'm not saying this does not suck. What I'm saying is the auto claims issue here in California has gone the same way as Workers Comp. The regulations and rules have been changed to un-clog the courts and at the end of the day the guy that get's hit is a victim with no recourse.
Look it up and don't get fooled into false hope.
Anyway my suggestion in California is to buy new car replacement (not expensive) and after the first year replace that with better car replacement (still not expensive) and OEM parts replacement.
No all insurance companies write those policies. I use Safeco and they do. I will always file a claim with my carrier and let them subrogate. That is the sensible way with auto claim circumstances. IMHO.