Diminished value and medical claim questions

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 10:25 am Post Subject:

So questions:
1) is $1100 fair for DV? Should I get written quotes from dealers/Carmax, etc. and submit? Can I compare to Nada/Edmunds (that's where the adjuster got $21k)? I want to be fair but not ripped off. (I don't want to deal with lawyers or scam websites)

2) I had minor soft tissue injuries, visit to hospital, doctor, etc. Probably totaling around $1000 (before my medical insurance). Can I claim the full amount or do I have to claim my actual out-of-pocket amount?

Can I claim pain and suffering?

How much is a good rule of thumb?

Definitely not worth calling a lawyer, but again wondering what is fair to me.

3) I assume this will show up on a CarFax, when would it show up? Should I use that to help my case?

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 01:42 pm Post Subject:

Good info. Accident occurred in Texas. I was told by my insurance agent to ask for DV. She said that it is law in Texas for 3rd party claims. Of course the other insurance company never mentioned anything about DV and wouldn't have unless I did my homework...still waiting for them to call me back - might be time to start calling them every day :wink:

What is PIP?

The insurance company asked if I was injured. I told them yes but didn't give them details. They did ask if I was taken in ambulance and if I had any fractures (no on both). I am supposed to fax them the bills. I have not yet as I did not know how to proceed with asking for the injury settlement (this part has not been discussed). So I should ask them to make an offer on injury claim?

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 04:28 pm Post Subject:

I asked about Diminished Value and was told they generally pay 10% of REPAIR total but alluded that there was something else I could do and said a supervisor would call (which they didn't). So about the $1100, in my opinion, that is laughable, but that's why I am on this forum, to find out. The adjuster estimated the car to be worth $21,000 as they were trying to determine whether to total it.

The so-called “17c” formula is extremely erroneous – maximizing the loss of value at 10% is patently
illogical. A $40,000 vehicle with 200 miles, in brand new condition sustaining $29,999 worth of damage
would have severity “multipliers” of 1.0 in all categories according to the calculation method. Therefore, a
new $40,000 vehicle would be multiplied by 10% - resulting in an initial loss of value of $4,000. That
$4,000 would then be multiplied by a factor of 1.0 in all of the subsequent categories, resulting in a final
loss amount of $4,000 – meaning the vehicle should be worth $36,000 after the repairs. Certainly no
rational person would pay that much for a vehicle that had previously sustaining such a severe amount of
damage. Clearly anyone can see the absurdity of this flawed formula.
It is frequently claimed or suggested that the 17c methodology, also known as the “Mabry” methodology,
was approved by the Superior Court of Muskogee County. This is only partially true – the Court approved
that particular calculation in the absence of other evidence as to the amount of the loss.In Mabry v State Farm, the trial court’s order required State Farm to include an evaluation of diminution in
value in its standard assessment of damages, just as it evaluates other elements of damage, and to adopt a
suitable methodology for doing so. Thus, the trial court’s order did not mandate any certain claims handling
procedure, only that State Farm start actually handling its claims in accord with its contract, without
refusing to consider some elements of loss.
While reviewing the case history for diminished value claims in Georgia, the court found that the basic
holding establishing the measure of damages and the effect of a limitation of liability provision appeared
several decades ago in U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Corbett, 35 Ga. App. 606 (1) (134 SE 336) (1926),
where the Court of Appeals held that the undertaking of the company to insure the owner against “actual
loss or damage” must be taken as the primary obligation, under which the measure of the liability would
be the difference between the value of the property immediately before the injury and its value
immediately afterwards.
The reasoning of the Court of Appeals in that case was expressly adopted by this Court in Dependable Ins.
Co. v. Gibbs, 218 Ga. 305, 315 (127 SE2d 454) (1962). The Court of Appeals addressed the issue again in
Simmons v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 111 Ga. App. 738 (2) (143 SE2d 55) (1965), clarifying the
effect of a limitation of liability clause:
“[T]he defendant insurance company here had an option to pay for
the loss in money, to repair the vehicle, or to replace it with other
property of like kind and quality, but the contract requires that no
matter which alternative is chosen, the market value of the property
plus $100 [deductible] after payment must equal the market value
before the loss. This is the rule generally with this type of policy.”
Although the Simmons case clearly held that the measure of damages is based on value, the Court of
Appeals found it necessary four years later in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 119 Ga. App. 447
(1) (167 SE2d 610) (1969), to reiterate that point and to distinguish “condition” from “value.” The Court of
Appeals explained State Farm’s contractual duty and the effect of an election to repair:
The obligation of an insurer under a contract containing such
language as is set forth above, where the insurer elects to repair, is
“to pay for the loss caused by collision and the correct measure of
that loss would be the difference in the market value of the
automobile immediately before the collision and its market value
immediately after being repaired.” Thus an insurer under a
policy such as the one in this case has three basic options, to wit: (1)
To replace the property with other of like kind and quality less
depreciation and deductible, (2) pay the loss in money (the loss

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 04:43 pm Post Subject:

According to that formula, their offer is beyond absurd. They offered me 10% of REPAIR bill, not based on value of my car. The value of my car (pre-wreck) was approx. $21,000, which according to the formula would amount to $2100 (already $1000 over their initial offer). I guess they think everyone is stupid. Sad, that we all have to do so much "homework" just to get a fair deal. I've been more than fair with them. I could have called an ambulance chaser, but that's not my style.

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 08:54 pm Post Subject:

insurance company called, they said since a lot of the replacement parts are new, etc. shouldn't be much loss. Told to wait til I get car back (tomorrow) and see if the body shop did a good job, etc.

Then they want me to send my medical bills in so we can settle this all together. Getting the run-around, aren't I?

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 08:57 pm Post Subject:

The next message after you get your car back, will be,,,,we paid an amount sufficient to restore your vehicle to pre accident condition. Your problem must be with the repairer or bodyshop you selected. I believe your loss of value is more in the 6500 to 10,000 dollar range depending upon considering trade in, retail, or private party sale loss of value regardless whether the vehicle had immaculate repairs.

Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 01:37 am Post Subject:

Then they want me to send my medical bills in so we can settle this all together. Getting the run-around, aren't I?

Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 08:32 am Post Subject:

Not as far as your injury claim is...they will need your medical bills, and they should also request that you sign a medical authorization...

Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 10:48 am Post Subject:

Is there a threshold upto which the bodily injury claim settlement wouldn’t require signed authorization from the claimant to review his medical records?

Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 02:57 pm Post Subject:

The injury thing, I'm not worried about that as long as they pay the bills (again not trying to rip off the insurance company, that does cost us all money in the long run).

I highly doubt I would get anywhere near those amounts that Mike quoted and I don't think I should have to pay anyone to fight for it. I am not trying to get money out of this, just fairness. I just think they are trying to give me nothing which I don't think is fair either. This will be on CarFax, etc., obviously the car won't sell for the amount it was worth pre-accident.

What I'll do is take it to a dealer and see what they quote me, then at least I'll have an idea. Won't cost me anything and will be a real price that I could see my car for. I am actually thinking of trading it in.

What I was really wondering is what the insurance company would need as proof for DV and they are not forthcoming on that issue. They have already said there shouldn't be any DV if the car was fixed properly, but I'm talking "inherent value" not low quality repair.

thanks for all the good advice so far.

Oh one more q, I do have an extended warranty (in fact car is still under manufacturer warranty). I'll ask if that is void, although part of it should be still in force, should I ask insurance company to compensate me for that (even if only part if void)?