by justdiana » Mon Mar 02, 2009 09:19 pm
I recently totalled my '05 F350 (black ice, but still considered my fault since there was visible frost on the vegetation :( ). Allied Insurance used CCC to determine the total loss of my vehicle. I have read on this site in several places that CCC low balls their estimates - and they have the resources to do so. They valued my truck at 21,002. Blue Book (still missing some additional options) values it at 25,845. I checked their report over very carefully, and I checked the selling prices online. I even had a 3 way call with Allied and CCC to try and figure out what some of the adjustments were.
I live in an extremely rural area in Northeastern California. There is only one car dealership in the entire county. Their comparison vehicles are all in urban areas and most of them are at least 500 miles from my location. It seems to me that a 1 ton pickup would carry more value in a rural community.
I have found that it is extremely difficult for me to find comparison vehicles (and none in my area). It is also seemingly impossible to find the exact same truck as mine (CCC made enormous deductions and additions to the comparables)
Also, how would you go about arguing how much they added/deducted from the comparable for certain options? For example my truck was a SuperCab. They deducted $1,900 from a comparable that was a Crew Cab. KBB shows a allowance of 1,550 for this difference.
Are there any companies that do the same thing for consumers that CCC does for the insurance company? It seems that somewone could make a killing by providing this kind of information to the consumer!
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
I live in an extremely rural area in Northeastern California. There is only one car dealership in the entire county. Their comparison vehicles are all in urban areas and most of them are at least 500 miles from my location. It seems to me that a 1 ton pickup would carry more value in a rural community.
I have found that it is extremely difficult for me to find comparison vehicles (and none in my area). It is also seemingly impossible to find the exact same truck as mine (CCC made enormous deductions and additions to the comparables)
Also, how would you go about arguing how much they added/deducted from the comparable for certain options? For example my truck was a SuperCab. They deducted $1,900 from a comparable that was a Crew Cab. KBB shows a allowance of 1,550 for this difference.
Are there any companies that do the same thing for consumers that CCC does for the insurance company? It seems that somewone could make a killing by providing this kind of information to the consumer!
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:30 pm Post Subject:
You mention that "book" values are higher then CCC and that your vehicle might be worth more as it's more sought after in your area. what I can say is that book values are regional, while CCC is more of a local value.
When CC starts using vehicles that differ greatly from the vehicle in question is when I start to see problems. Allied can ask CCC to perform a manual search and review of your truck. This tends to be much more accurate as a human is now looking over the information. If they are having to adjust the value because the comps are just not out there, I would highly recommend you ask Allied to have CCC do a manual valuation.
There are many companies that provide values for consumers... Kelly Blue Book, NADA, Edmund's, etc.
Have Allied make the request as noted above and go from there.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:34 pm Post Subject:
My truck was totalled on January 15th, 2009. Here is what was on it - in case anyone is interested.
2005 Ford F350 4x2 SuperCab, Single Rear Wheel, Long Bed, Automatic, XLT, V8-6.0L Diesel, CD stacker, air, cruise, power locks, power windows, tilt wheel, positraction, power driver seat, power windows, power locks, power mirrors, heated mirrors, signal integrated mirrors, keyless entry, remote starter, theft deterrant/alarm, running boards, spray-in bedliner, grill guard, soft tonneau cover, trailering package, TowCommand trailer brake computer, aluminum/alloy wheels.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:42 pm Post Subject:
CCC has already run 3 reports. The first one had two comparables of F250's. The second one had six comparables of F350's, and only added 10 dollars. Additions and subtractions were not clear, and after a 3 way call with a CCC manager who went over the numbers herself, the report actually decreased. (I have not yet seen this new report in print).
I tried to run a pricing report on Edmunds, but many of the options are not available. It still came to 20,952 with the missing options.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:13 pm Post Subject:
I forgot to mention that the truck had 57,338 miles on it
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:42 pm Post Subject:
Here is another issue that has been bothering me. California requires that the value be obtained from 2 or more comparison vehicles unless there are none available. I have been paying an insurance premium on the actual value of my truck. With the economy going down the tubes, car dealers and individuals have been selling well below the book values. I didn't notice a significant decrease in my premium! So why should I accept a "recessionized" value for my vehicle?
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 01:28 am Post Subject:
I have been paying an insurance premium on the actual value of my truck. With the economy going down the tubes, car dealers and individuals have been selling well below the book values. I didn't notice a significant decrease in my premium! So why should I accept a "recessionized" value for my vehicle?
Diana, this is a good question. I am going to leave the claim settlement questions to our claims experts like Tcope and Lori, but I think I can take the rating question.
I spent about fifteen years analyzing that data and setting rates, and I never looked at the cost of the vehicle. The answer is that you HAVE NOT been paying a premium based on the value of the truck. You have been paying a premium based on (a) the probability of having an accident; and (b) the average repair costs for accidents. Both of these are based on the company's claims data.
Remember that very few trucks as new as yours are total losses, so the total value has very little effect on the average claim cost. Instead, the average claim cost is based on the cost to REPAIR the truck.[/quote]
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 01:39 am Post Subject:
Very interesting point, Christy. So, why does your premium decrease with time?
Why would the cost to repair a damaged vehicle decrease with the age of the vehicle? It actually seems that parts would get harder to locate and repair costs would increase with age.
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 01:49 am Post Subject:
There are many companies that provide values for consumers... Kelly Blue Book, NADA, Edmund's, etc.
I know about these sources. I was wondering if there are any companies that compile a report of comparable vehicles in my market area for the INSURED instead of for the insurance company....one similar to CCC, but for the average Joe.
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 01:56 am Post Subject:
Good question, Diana. When we reviewed our data by model year, we came up with multiple causes that make the average claim cost go down with older model years.
A portion is driven by the total losses, as mentioned in the original answer, but that is based on actual claims data analyzed by model year--not on value databases. This is evaluated regularly, and the model year rating factors are adjusted in the state rate filings.
However, another portion is based on the complexity of newer cars. A 2009 vehicle costs more to repair than a 1997 vehicle because it is more likely to have side air bags, ABS, DVD systems, and a number of other features that were not in the 1997 vehicle.
Also, depending on your company and your state regulations, an older vehicle might be more likely to be repaired with after-market parts. A newer car might be more likely to be repaired with OEM parts.
Finally, older cars typically are driven less. When a family has multiple cars, they are more likely to drive the newer car when they go somewhere together as a family. Some companies include the annual mileage as a factor--and California requires it--but it is notoriously difficult to measure this accurately. That leaves some of the mileage effect to bleed over into the model year factors.
I have listed several factors--and I know there are more--that affect the average claim size. The most important thing to remember, however, is that these are averages based on large numbers of vehicles. Pricing is based on probabilities, and probabilities cannot predict individual claim values. The pricing is affected by the average claim cost by model year--which is mostly driven by repair costs, not total losses--and it is not based on the values of individual trucks. There are not enough trucks like yours to get enough data for pricing.
I don't know if I have explained this well enough. Feel free to ask about the parts that I have not explained to your satisfaction.
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 02:58 am Post Subject:
Wow, Christy! Who knew? (obviously, not me) Thanks for all of the info - it is much more clear to me now.
So, is it unfair of me to expect an adjustment because of economic factors? I still think that it is a valid argument.
Add your comment