Diminshed Value Claims

[TonyandLesley]

Ok folks, our first time here, so will try our best.

We recently suffered some damage to our coach, from an 18 wheeler reversing into us, whilst stopped to fuel up!!!
So, we had repairs completed, and are now fighting to claim for Diminished Value!! The whole thing about this is very frustrating, so we are now at a point of asking if anyway on this forum can offer any advise to help us out. We have tried the independent appraisal, and submitted that to the "at fault company's, insurance company" and still they are not accepting our claim.....help!!

[rgatijnet1]

JALLEN4 wrote:

The reality is that those vehicles repaired improperly and presenting a potential structural risk can be discovered by a competent automotive inspector.

Please explain how a consumer is supposed to inspect a vehicle after it has been repaired? Where are these competent automotive inspectors? Determining if a vehicle has been in a accident is easy. Determining if it has been repaired right is not easy and an incorrect repair can easily be hidden by bondo and paint.
I was never talking about a cosmetic repair. I clearly mentioned a unibody with a replacement quarter or rear end when talking about diminished value..
I assume that you have not viewed "my profile" when you decided to call me uneducated and inexperienced when it comes to vehicles.

[JALLEN4]

rgatijnet1 wrote:
JALLEN4:
I'll just keep it simple.....how is a buyer supposed to inspect a "repaired" vehicle and tell if the repair was done properly or if it was just done to look pretty? How can any inspection done by a potential buyer tell if the repair is as strong as it is supposed to be as originally designed?

I doubt if you can tell me how someone can inspect a vehicle after it has been repaired so this is exactly why this has to do with diminished value of an accident repair. With no way to properly inspect a vehicle, a buyer has no idea whether the repair was done by the best mechanic, or the worst mechanic, that was fired the next day. For that reason why would someone pay the same amount of money to buy a "repaired" vehicle when given the chance to buy the identical vehicle that has had no accidents?

Thank you for proving my point. The CarFax reports have opened a can of worms where they have made the vehicles with previous damage suffer unnecessary loss of value. The inexperienced and theoretical consumers, such as yourself, automatically assume the worst case scenario hoping to get an undeserved windfall of either buying the used vehicle at a greatly lower value or diminished value in their pocket in case of accident.

By far the majority of reported accidents involve cosmetic only damage. Very few involve actual structural damage that would compromise the safety of the repaired vehicle if not repaired properly. This number of vehicles of potential concern would be reduced further by the ones that are actually repaired by competent shops. By your uneducated scenario, damaged and repaired unibody vehicles should be summarily destroyed...not sold to an unsuspecting consumer at a reduced price. There is no reduced price that would justify putting lives at danger.

The reality is that those vehicles repaired improperly and presenting a potential structural risk can be discovered by a competent automotive inspector. While it is true that they are not tested for structural rigidity after repair, neither was the vehicle tested after the original manufacturing. The engineering models are tested in the design phase and we all hope running changes in the manufacturing process do not compromise the original design.

But, at the end of the day, folks are entitled to believe whatever ridiculous article they read that was designed to sell views. Negative thoughts always sell better than reality and people just absolutely love the idea that some shining knight will put newly found money in their pocket because they factually know everybody is out to get them to begin with.

[rgatijnet1]

JALLEN4:
I'll just keep it simple.....how is a buyer supposed to inspect a "repaired" vehicle and tell if the repair was done properly or if it was just done to look pretty? How can any inspection done by a potential buyer tell if the repair is as strong as it is supposed to be as originally designed?

I doubt if you can tell me how someone can inspect a vehicle after it has been repaired so this is exactly why this has to do with diminished value of an accident repair. With no way to properly inspect a vehicle, a buyer has no idea whether the repair was done by the best mechanic, or the worst mechanic, that was fired the next day. For that reason why would someone pay the same amount of money to buy a "repaired" vehicle when given the chance to buy the identical vehicle that has had no accidents?

[JALLEN4]

rgatijnet1 wrote:
Actually diminished value came about primarily because the auto industry switched from vehicles with frames to unibody construction. With a vehicle with a frame it was easy to tell if a vehicle was repaired properly. With a unibody type vehicle they will cut off entire sections of the body and ATTEMPT to duplicate the same rigidity that the factory obtained with their robots and in a carefully controlled environment. When a unibody type vehicle is sent to a repair shop, that is working with the insurance company and has time limits and a budget, there is almost a 100% probability that corners will be cut and once put together and covered with body filler and paint, you cannot tell if ALL of the welds were done and if they meet the same(they don't) quality as those that came from the factory.
I am sure there are some here that work at body shops that will swear that their repair is just as good as what came from the factory. That is a myth put out by the insurance companies to convince owners that their vehicle was properly repaired. There is not one single body shop anywhere in this country that can cut off a section of a unibody vehicle and install a new section that is as good as what came from the factory, with the amount paid by the insurance company. There are too many points of contact that cannot be properly attached/welded by a human after the vehicle has left the factory. They can look pretty after the repair but the damaged vehicle will never be the same.

That has exactly what to do with diminished value? If we are going to accept your theory as accurate, which it is not, then at a certain level of damage every unibody vehicle should be destroyed and we start over. While this would be very expensive for insurance costs, it would at least protect the consumer from a potential death event when the car is wrecked the second time... by your theory. The current process of arbitrarily awarding the owner 10% of value would seem to be simply a windfall event for the greedy owner and attorney.

I owned body shops as part of new car dealerships for decades. In the process, I witnessed far more repairs of modern vehicles than most people will ever see. While I absolutely never tested a repaired unibody vehicle to determine its post repair integrity, I also never saw one come back because of the vehicle "strength". To assume that if a body shop repaired it "corners were cut" is to disparage a number of good people. It would be ludicrous to assume everyone but you has no
pride of workmanship. As a warranty provider for a number of manufacturers, we sure did get the opportunity to correct many mistakes created by your revered "robots and controlled environment"!

[rgatijnet1]

dodge guy wrote:

rgatijnet1 wrote:
Actually diminished value came about primarily because the auto industry switched from vehicles with frames to unibody construction. With a vehicle with a frame it was easy to tell if a vehicle was repaired properly. With a unibody type vehicle they will cut off entire sections of the body and ATTEMPT to duplicate the same rigidity that the factory obtained with their robots and in a carefully controlled environment. When a unibody type vehicle is sent to a repair shop, that is working with the insurance company and has time limits and a budget, there is almost a 100% probability that corners will be cut and once put together and covered with body filler and paint, you cannot tell if ALL of the welds were done and if they meet the same(they don't) quality as those that came from the factory.
I am sure there are some here that work at body shops that will swear that their repair is just as good as what came from the factory. That is a myth put out by the insurance companies to convince owners that their vehicle was properly repaired. There is not one single body shop anywhere in this country that can cut off a section of a unibody vehicle and install a new section that is as good as what came from the factory, with the amount paid by the insurance company. There are too many points of contact that cannot be properly attached/welded by a human after the vehicle has left the factory. They can look pretty after the repair but the damaged vehicle will never be the same.

If you take your car to billy bobs body shop in a broken down backyard garage, then yes there will be problems. If you take it to a reputable repair shop the repair will be just as good if not better than the factory! I have worked in a body shop that did things methodical. They took there time but the repair was always better than new. This is where inspecting any vehicle comes in.

And now you tell me exactly how a buyer is supposed to inspect a unibody vehicle, where the entire back half or quarter was replaced? Tell me how he could inspect every weld that is now covered? It is impossible to tell from any type of inspection after a vehicle rolls out of the body shop. The only way to tell if it is as good as it left the factory is with a destructive test, which is what the factory does to insure their vehicles meet government standards.
ALL body shops send out a repaired vehicle and since a complete inspection is impossible they rely on a buyer that thinks it "looks" great and they also hope that the vehicle is not in another accident which may reveal that it is not as strong as it was before the repair.
I hear what you are saying but that is what every body shop owner would say, knowing that their statement cannot possibly be proved. I mean no disrespect but facts are facts. A body shop sends out a pretty vehicle but not one that has been tested to again meet the same crash test standards as a new vehicle.

[dodge_guy]

JALLEN4 wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

lawjohnson wrote:

ItsyRV wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
Diminished value is a joke. So if I had an accident that damaged a front axle on a vehicle or a fender. And it was replaced with new? How is the vehicle worth any less? The vehicle is repaired to how it was before the accident. So how is it now worth less? The only way it would be worth less is if the repair wasn’t done properly and corners were cut.

I don't think you understand the meaning of diminished value.

Try this, you go looking for a vehicle. You find two of the exact same year, make, model, color, miles, etc., etc. They both drive and were maintained in same shape. Now, you pull a vehicle history report and notice that one has an adverse notation of "Accident - Front End - Major" showing. Are you saying you would not value the one without the accident higher and the one with the accident lower?

Take a car/truck into a dealer to trade it in that has had damage that was reported and on a car facts and see what happens. You will not be offered as much as a car with a clean car fax.

That's what I have been saying. Car fax was originally conceived to give a potential buyer a heads up that the car was repaired and to have it inspected before purchase. It is not intended to devalue a vehicle. It is up to the customer to decide if a vehicle is worth any less after it is inspected.

Actually, CarFax was conceived purely to make money. They invented their own market and ultimately exploited the consumer. They have reported damage to vehicles and driven the value of the consumer's cars down drastically with the idea that if there was ever damage it must be worth thousands less. There were laws in place to protect the consumer from flood damaged vehicles, salvage titles, bent frames, etc long before they came along. The intelligent buyer who now uses Carfax is the same buyer who before researched their purchase and had them inspected to make sure the vehicle was worthy of purchase. The careless buyer doesn't look at the CarFax or doesn't do the still necessary inspection. CarFax is far from capturing all the information.

Right behind the CarFax ploy along comes the lawyers selling the diminished value concept as another money maker from the consumer. While insurance companies are the ones writing the checks it takes very naive people to not recognize that ultimately we are all paying for the nonsense with increased insurance premiums. Another case of people inventing their own industry and then selling people on the idea that their $40,000 vehicle loses 10% of its value if it suffers a $1,000 damage and is reported by CarFax. Again, it takes a very naive population to believe that concept is valid and we are the ones suffering the loss.

People are taught that CarFax is protecting the consumer from the big bad dealer. Really? The dealer simply follows the market direction and starts subtracting major money from your value when you show up with a car with reported damage. Since people can't tell the difference between minor and major, every incidence starts costing big money. The only people losing and winning nothing in this deal are you and me.... the average consumer!

Well said. I sometimes do pre purchase inspections and have looked at a car just walking up to it that something isn't right.

A pre purchase inspection is mandatory on any vehicle.
And for those that don't know, there ar many vehicles on the road that have been in accidents with no accident reports!

[dodge_guy]

rgatijnet1 wrote:
Actually diminished value came about primarily because the auto industry switched from vehicles with frames to unibody construction. With a vehicle with a frame it was easy to tell if a vehicle was repaired properly. With a unibody type vehicle they will cut off entire sections of the body and ATTEMPT to duplicate the same rigidity that the factory obtained with their robots and in a carefully controlled environment. When a unibody type vehicle is sent to a repair shop, that is working with the insurance company and has time limits and a budget, there is almost a 100% probability that corners will be cut and once put together and covered with body filler and paint, you cannot tell if ALL of the welds were done and if they meet the same(they don't) quality as those that came from the factory.
I am sure there are some here that work at body shops that will swear that their repair is just as good as what came from the factory. That is a myth put out by the insurance companies to convince owners that their vehicle was properly repaired. There is not one single body shop anywhere in this country that can cut off a section of a unibody vehicle and install a new section that is as good as what came from the factory, with the amount paid by the insurance company. There are too many points of contact that cannot be properly attached/welded by a human after the vehicle has left the factory. They can look pretty after the repair but the damaged vehicle will never be the same.

If you take your car to billy bobs body shop in a broken down backyard garage, then yes there will be problems. If you take it to a reputable repair shop the repair will be just as good if not better than the factory! I have worked in a body shop that did things methodical. They took there time but the repair was always better than new. This is where inspecting any vehicle comes in.

[rgatijnet1]

Actually diminished value came about primarily because the auto industry switched from vehicles with frames to unibody construction. With a vehicle with a frame it was easy to tell if a vehicle was repaired properly. With a unibody type vehicle they will cut off entire sections of the body and ATTEMPT to duplicate the same rigidity that the factory obtained with their robots and in a carefully controlled environment. When a unibody type vehicle is sent to a repair shop, that is working with the insurance company and has time limits and a budget, there is almost a 100% probability that corners will be cut and once put together and covered with body filler and paint, you cannot tell if ALL of the welds were done and if they meet the same(they don't) quality as those that came from the factory.
I am sure there are some here that work at body shops that will swear that their repair is just as good as what came from the factory. That is a myth put out by the insurance companies to convince owners that their vehicle was properly repaired. There is not one single body shop anywhere in this country that can cut off a section of a unibody vehicle and install a new section that is as good as what came from the factory, with the amount paid by the insurance company. There are too many points of contact that cannot be properly attached/welded by a human after the vehicle has left the factory. They can look pretty after the repair but the damaged vehicle will never be the same.

[Bert_Ackerman]

JALLEN4 wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

lawjohnson wrote:

ItsyRV wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
Diminished value is a joke. So if I had an accident that damaged a front axle on a vehicle or a fender. And it was replaced with new? How is the vehicle worth any less? The vehicle is repaired to how it was before the accident. So how is it now worth less? The only way it would be worth less is if the repair wasn’t done properly and corners were cut.

I don't think you understand the meaning of diminished value.

Try this, you go looking for a vehicle. You find two of the exact same year, make, model, color, miles, etc., etc. They both drive and were maintained in same shape. Now, you pull a vehicle history report and notice that one has an adverse notation of "Accident - Front End - Major" showing. Are you saying you would not value the one without the accident higher and the one with the accident lower?

Take a car/truck into a dealer to trade it in that has had damage that was reported and on a car facts and see what happens. You will not be offered as much as a car with a clean car fax.

That's what I have been saying. Car fax was originally conceived to give a potential buyer a heads up that the car was repaired and to have it inspected before purchase. It is not intended to devalue a vehicle. It is up to the customer to decide if a vehicle is worth any less after it is inspected.

Actually, CarFax was conceived purely to make money. They invented their own market and ultimately exploited the consumer. They have reported damage to vehicles and driven the value of the consumer's cars down drastically with the idea that if there was ever damage it must be worth thousands less. There were laws in place to protect the consumer from flood damaged vehicles, salvage titles, bent frames, etc long before they came along. The intelligent buyer who now uses Carfax is the same buyer who before researched their purchase and had them inspected to make sure the vehicle was worthy of purchase. The careless buyer doesn't look at the CarFax or doesn't do the still necessary inspection. CarFax is far from capturing all the information.

Right behind the CarFax ploy along comes the lawyers selling the diminished value concept as another money maker from the consumer. While insurance companies are the ones writing the checks it takes very naive people to not recognize that ultimately we are all paying for the nonsense with increased insurance premiums. Another case of people inventing their own industry and then selling people on the idea that their $40,000 vehicle loses 10% of its value if it suffers a $1,000 damage and is reported by CarFax. Again, it takes a very naive population to believe that concept is valid and we are the ones suffering the loss.

People are taught that CarFax is protecting the consumer from the big bad dealer. Really? The dealer simply follows the market direction and starts subtracting major money from your value when you show up with a car with reported damage. Since people can't tell the difference between minor and major, every incidence starts costing big money. The only people losing and winning nothing in this deal are you and me.... the average consumer!

Thank you. I would have used some select words other than naive and average, but you have hit the nail on the head with your assessment.

[JALLEN4]

dodge guy wrote:

lawjohnson wrote:

ItsyRV wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
Diminished value is a joke. So if I had an accident that damaged a front axle on a vehicle or a fender. And it was replaced with new? How is the vehicle worth any less? The vehicle is repaired to how it was before the accident. So how is it now worth less? The only way it would be worth less is if the repair wasn’t done properly and corners were cut.

I don't think you understand the meaning of diminished value.

Try this, you go looking for a vehicle. You find two of the exact same year, make, model, color, miles, etc., etc. They both drive and were maintained in same shape. Now, you pull a vehicle history report and notice that one has an adverse notation of "Accident - Front End - Major" showing. Are you saying you would not value the one without the accident higher and the one with the accident lower?

Take a car/truck into a dealer to trade it in that has had damage that was reported and on a car facts and see what happens. You will not be offered as much as a car with a clean car fax.

That's what I have been saying. Car fax was originally conceived to give a potential buyer a heads up that the car was repaired and to have it inspected before purchase. It is not intended to devalue a vehicle. It is up to the customer to decide if a vehicle is worth any less after it is inspected.

Actually, CarFax was conceived purely to make money. They invented their own market and ultimately exploited the consumer. They have reported damage to vehicles and driven the value of the consumer's cars down drastically with the idea that if there was ever damage it must be worth thousands less. There were laws in place to protect the consumer from flood damaged vehicles, salvage titles, bent frames, etc long before they came along. The intelligent buyer who now uses Carfax is the same buyer who before researched their purchase and had them inspected to make sure the vehicle was worthy of purchase. The careless buyer doesn't look at the CarFax or doesn't do the still necessary inspection. CarFax is far from capturing all the information.

Right behind the CarFax ploy along comes the lawyers selling the diminished value concept as another money maker from the consumer. While insurance companies are the ones writing the checks it takes very naive people to not recognize that ultimately we are all paying for the nonsense with increased insurance premiums. Another case of people inventing their own industry and then selling people on the idea that their $40,000 vehicle loses 10% of its value if it suffers a $1,000 damage and is reported by CarFax. Again, it takes a very naive population to believe that concept is valid and we are the ones suffering the loss.

People are taught that CarFax is protecting the consumer from the big bad dealer. Really? The dealer simply follows the market direction and starts subtracting major money from your value when you show up with a car with reported damage. Since people can't tell the difference between minor and major, every incidence starts costing big money. The only people losing and winning nothing in this deal are you and me.... the average consumer!

[Walaby]

Carfax is but one tool a consumer can use.

KBB etc that provide valuation based on vehicle condition miles etc, is another.

When you use the two together, the valuation is provided based on the condition and accident record of the vehicle. Together, along with other things, allow the consumer to be more informed.

The fact still remains, vehicles that have been involved in an accident, are typically valued at less than ones that have not. If the consumer wants to ignore that, or over look it because he/she loves the vehicle, that's their prerogative.

Mike

[dodge_guy]

lawjohnson wrote:

ItsyRV wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
Diminished value is a joke. So if I had an accident that damaged a front axle on a vehicle or a fender. And it was replaced with new? How is the vehicle worth any less? The vehicle is repaired to how it was before the accident. So how is it now worth less? The only way it would be worth less is if the repair wasn’t done properly and corners were cut.

I don't think you understand the meaning of diminished value.

Try this, you go looking for a vehicle. You find two of the exact same year, make, model, color, miles, etc., etc. They both drive and were maintained in same shape. Now, you pull a vehicle history report and notice that one has an adverse notation of "Accident - Front End - Major" showing. Are you saying you would not value the one without the accident higher and the one with the accident lower?

Take a car/truck into a dealer to trade it in that has had damage that was reported and on a car facts and see what happens. You will not be offered as much as a car with a clean car fax.

That's what I have been saying. Car fax was originally conceived to give a potential buyer a heads up that the car was repaired and to have it inspected before purchase. It is not intended to devalue a vehicle. It is up to the customer to decide if a vehicle is worth any less after it is inspected.

[JALLEN4]

lawjohnson wrote:
Diminished Value is not a term that insurance companies like to hear unless it is in thier favor.
Example: I had a rebuilt title 98 Buick Riviera that I used as a daily commuter. I bought it at an insurance auction, it had a damaged front bumper cover, left headlight and fender. I repaired it, less than 2K for parts, (this was a few years back). I drove it for years and then gave it to my son who was promply rear ended by someone talking on their phone instead of paying attention to what they were doing. They had no insurance, ours covered it on the uninsured motorist coverage. At the time it was worth about 4500 per the blue book, they paid 2k! The reason?? it had been totaled before! Did they give me a 50% discount on the coverage costs all the time I had it insured with them? NO!!!

Rant over.... Get a lawyer. That is the only way to fight it. IT will not be worth it. The legal fees are going to more than surpass any gains you will get on the diminished value claim.

Did that car not have a salvage title? If you bought it at an insurance auction with a branded title, you knew exactly what you were buying into. The "book" value does not reflect the salvage title. As well, obviously your insurance coverage costs are not based exclusively on the value of the vehicle involved. Liability, comprehensive, and several other factors weigh in to the ultimate cost.

[lawjohnson]

ItsyRV wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
Diminished value is a joke. So if I had an accident that damaged a front axle on a vehicle or a fender. And it was replaced with new? How is the vehicle worth any less? The vehicle is repaired to how it was before the accident. So how is it now worth less? The only way it would be worth less is if the repair wasn’t done properly and corners were cut.

I don't think you understand the meaning of diminished value.

Try this, you go looking for a vehicle. You find two of the exact same year, make, model, color, miles, etc., etc. They both drive and were maintained in same shape. Now, you pull a vehicle history report and notice that one has an adverse notation of "Accident - Front End - Major" showing. Are you saying you would not value the one without the accident higher and the one with the accident lower?

Take a car/truck into a dealer to trade it in that has had damage that was reported and on a car facts and see what happens. You will not be offered as much as a car with a clean car fax.

[lawjohnson]

Diminished Value is not a term that insurance companies like to hear unless it is in thier favor.
Example: I had a rebuilt title 98 Buick Riviera that I used as a daily commuter. I bought it at an insurance auction, it had a damaged front bumper cover, left headlight and fender. I repaired it, less than 2K for parts, (this was a few years back). I drove it for years and then gave it to my son who was promply rear ended by someone talking on their phone instead of paying attention to what they were doing. They had no insurance, ours covered it on the uninsured motorist coverage. At the time it was worth about 4500 per the blue book, they paid 2k! The reason?? it had been totaled before! Did they give me a 50% discount on the coverage costs all the time I had it insured with them? NO!!!

Rant over.... Get a lawyer. That is the only way to fight it. IT will not be worth it. The legal fees are going to more than surpass any gains you will get on the diminished value claim.