Details.. 2010 Honda CRV (owned less than 4 months)middle ca

by karl.owen » Sun May 16, 2010 11:22 am

2010 Honda CRV
#3 vehicle in a 5 car pileup
Last vehicle charged with accident(ticketed)
Front damage(minor)
Rear damage (MAJOR)
Repairs (pending)
Details..
2010 Honda CRV (owned less than 4 months)
middle car in a 5 car pileup
Reside in ..Orange Park, Florida

We have a 2010 Crv, and were the middle vehicle in a 5 car pileup (vehicle 3). The last person in line was charged with the accident and we are taking the CRV to a body shop of our choice. It looks to be mostly front fascia(minor) and rear hatch/bumper damage(MAJOR). The rear hatch hinges are bent really bad, which in turn has torqed our roof skin. The roof skin has minor damage, but its there. My worry is that because of the mostly cosmetic damage, that the roof will not be taken into consideration. We have had the vehicle less than 4 months and now if they do "fix" it, our value will still drop dramatically because of the accident. Not to metion if we ever go to trade it in how this will affect that value too! My question is, if we're not happy with the repairs, is there anything we can do? as in refuse to take delivery? Or fight to have it "total lossed"? I dont believe its right to have to take a "value" loss? Thanks for any help... Karl

Total Comments: 12

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 01:00 pm Post Subject:

Karl, sorry about your accident, glad no one was badly injured.

Doesn't sound like there is any chance your vehicle will total.

Of course the roof repair will be taken into consideration and repaired. You say you are going to the shop of your choice (as you should)...I guess I don't understand why you think you won't be happy with the repair, (before it's begun)? I would assume you've chose a shop with a good reputation that stands behind their work right? I further assume they will give you a warranty in writing...If you are unhappy with the repair (not just unhappy that you had to repair your new vehicle), this/any shop worth their salt should GLADLY address any quality issues.

Is your carrier or the at fault carrier taking care of your damage(s)?

What you are talking about re: resale issues is called a diminished value claim. I don't know if Florida allows first party DV claims, but I doubt it, I think only one or two states do, (Georgia for sure)..a third party DV claim is a different animal. If using your carrier check your policy. If using the at fault party's coverage-(third party)...certainly tell this adjuster your intent.

Since there are so many cars involved, if there is even the 'hint' of a limits issue, the carrier that insures the at fault party will most likely have everyone use their collision coverage, so they can make sure they don't have an excess claim. However, even if you do use your collision coverage you 'may' be able to still file for a DV claim against the at fault party...but you need to make this known NOW.

Admittedly I'm no DV expert, there are those on this board that are. Hopefully they will pop in on this thread shortly.

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 02:36 pm Post Subject:

Mostly what im afraid of is the DV. The at fault party is the one who is paying for the repairs. I just needed the advice on how to go about fileing the DV claim. And yes we have chosen about the best local body shop we could find. They are the only certified Honda body shop in town. And yes they have a warranty. So any more info ANYONE can provide on the DV claim would be helpful. Its just mostly aggravating that the car is less than 4 months old and already has a damage claim filed on it with the likes of carfax,.etc.. And If she decides to trade it in, in the next couple years. Its gonna hurt the trade in value immensly. I spoke with our ins. carrier and she said that alot of people in FL dont file a DV claim, but the way they handle it (esurance) is.. The repairs are made, We take it to a Honda dealer, they appraise the DV and we submit a claim to Allstate. Allstate makes an "counter offer" (which in my opinion is BS) And if we accept it, they cut us a check. Another quick question... Can I ask that the body shop use NO BONDO or other means of fixing it other than NEW HONDA PARTS?? Thanks again for any info.. Karl

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 02:40 pm Post Subject:

Since there are so many cars involved, if there is even the 'hint' of a limits issue, the carrier that insures the at fault party will most likely have everyone use their collision coverage, so they can make sure they don't have an excess claim. However, even if you do use your collision coverage

You probably have no idea what the at fault party's property damage liability limit is, and it could be the state's minimum. But I would do it very differently than Lori recommends . . . force the at fault party's insurer to pay the claim first, and use my UMPD ("underinsured") rather than the collision coverage to pay any damages unpaid by the other party. UMPD is usually written with waiver of deductible, therefore, no out-of-pocket expense on my part.

If you use your collision coverage, then you're going to have to front the deductible and sue the at fault party for your loss. Besides, "collision" coverage is intended to pay for any damage YOU cause to YOUR vehicle. Since that's not the case here, it's not the best method of presenting the claim to your insurer. A good claims department should give the same advice, since it would reduce/eliminate your insurer's claims exposure, too.

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 02:51 pm Post Subject:

Can I ask that the body shop use NO BONDO or other means of fixing it other than NEW HONDA PARTS??

No bondo could mean a welded repair which could inflate the claim, making that extra expense all yours (and probably not recoverable from the at fault party, either).

How the repairs are best performed should be left to the judgment of your repair professional. I wouldn't presume to tell my doctor how to perform the surgery I need: "Hey Doc! I saw it done a different way on TV."

A good body shop will minimize the bondo work anyway, because it is the part of the repair most likely to suffer fatigue in the future, and possibly have to be redone.

As for specifying genuine Honda parts, you have the right to demand that -- most states have adopted laws that prevent insurers from forcing repairs with "equal but cheaper" non-factory parts. Only problem sometimes is the availability, especially with current model vehicles at the beginning of the model year -- the parts inventory is devoted to producing new cars on the assembly line. I've seen people have to wait months to get a chassis part. You shouldn't have to worry about that -- the 2010 production year was over some time ago.

As Lori said, you'll need to research your state's law regarding diminished value claims. Simply driving the vehicle off the dealer's lot is typically worth 25% or more of what you just paid minutes ago -- after all, you're now the owner of a "used" car.

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 03:06 pm Post Subject:

Oh yeah, you take a loss as soon as the keys turned. I understand that. But I will be adamant about the the no bondo. We had a "new" vehicle and I want it repaired to the exact specs that the car was when it was hit. So from the info provided I guess ill have to go the lawyer route if they dont repair it the "exact" standards I want it. Which sucks, because no-one being hurt Is a good thing and didnt want to have to fight with the insurance company legally. I probably jumping WAY ahead of the game and need to see where this all leads. Anyway, THANKS to ALL of you who have replied. the info is and will be VERY helpful in the next couple days....

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 03:36 pm Post Subject:

Can I ask that the body shop use NO BONDO or other means of fixing it other than NEW HONDA PARTS?? Thanks again for any info.. Karl

You can ask, but NO carrier is going to put a roof on your car for a two (or 20) hour dent...since it's new, most likely you will be getting new honda parts on the replacement parts though..

You probably have no idea what the at fault party's property damage liability limit is, and it could be the state's minimum

Guess this is moot Max since he says the at fault party is covering his loss.

But I would do it very differently than Lori recommends . . . force the at fault party's insurer to pay the claim first

You can't 'force' them Max, if there's a limits issue with multiple vehicles involved..

and use my UMPD ("underinsured") rather than the collision coverage to pay any damages unpaid by the other party.

I know that CA has a lot of little twists and turns in their insurance regulations that most other states don't, and perhaps UMPD 'also' means UIMPD in your state, and further perhaps in your state if you purchase UM/UIM it means both BI, and PD, if so it's the only state that I personally know of that does...would also be the only state I know that offers UMPD without ANY deductible..but certainly possible especially in CA :wink: ....doubtful that the OP even has UMPD, (or UIMPD) since flordia doesn't even require BI coverage, in fact they only REQUIRE:

Florida's minimum coverage is $10,000 personal injury protection (PIP) and $10,000 property damage liability (PDL) as long as you have a valid Florida license plate.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that UMPD coverage isn't even availabe to be purchased in Flordia.

If you use your collision coverage, then you're going to have to front the deductible and sue the at fault party for your loss.

Yes, to the deductible, but his carrier would pursue the other party for him Max.

Besides, "collision" coverage is intended to pay for any damage YOU cause to YOUR vehicle

Max, where does it say in the policy that you have to be at fault for your collision coverage to kick in?

Since that's not the case here, it's not the best method of presenting the claim to your insurer

I believe it to be this OP's ONLY alternative, (other than private suit), had the claimant carrier not be able to assume the liability from the get go.

A good claims department should give the same advice, since it would reduce/eliminate your insurer's claims exposure, too

sorry there Max, kind of figure I was... :(

We take it to a Honda dealer, they appraise the DV and we submit a claim to Allstate

This is the typcial way to get documentation for DV, you can also hire private third party...but that would be up to you..

Allstate makes an "counter offer" (which in my opinion is BS)

I think they are assuming there is a counter by Allstate, maybe not...

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 03:52 pm Post Subject:

But I will be adamant about the the no bondo

Here's the thing...first off, if you are indeed at a good/quality shop, this should be no issue...secondly, do you REALLY think that (as an example) replacing an entire roof (estimated cost=$2000.00) for a dent/buckle (estimated cost of repair 2hr deen $500.00 or so) is the 'better' repair for your vehicle? It's not...further if they did (they won't unless there is a LOT more damage to that roof than you have posted). Further more, I've never seen a weld on part replaced that didn't have "bondo" used....

We had a "new" vehicle and I want it repaired to the exact specs that the car was when it was hit.

It will be but this really has nothing to do with repairing as opposed to replacing a panel, (unless you have a crappy shop :roll:

)...So from the info provided I guess ill have to go the lawyer route if they dont repair it the "exact" standards I want it.

I don't see that need at all, but if you want give an attorney a third of what it will take to fix your car, that's your choice. If you have chosen a quality shop, (and you say you have)...they will repair the vehicle per industry standards...have you signed a repair authorization? Someone from the shop or the insurance company should be going over the repair plan with you prior to repairs beginning....

I probably jumping WAY ahead of the game and need to see where this all leads.

I agree, I think you are borrowing trouble....stay in close contact with the shop, have them explain in language you can understand EXACTLY what is going to be done to your vehicle. Don't just 'assume' that there will be trouble... :wink: but....we'll be here if you need any assistance.

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 04:27 pm Post Subject:

I like this advice as well,,,,

There is a third alternative and you may need to consult an attorney to assist you in this scenario in order that the procedure is done properly and whether it is valid in your state. It is called Multiple Source Recovery. You can find full details at the Insurance Consumers Advocate Network or Ican2000 dot com. Just google multiple source recovery and collision and the link will take you directly to the source.

a portion of the page reads as follows,,,,,

Every business day there are 10's of 1,000's of consumers being misinformed by insurance industry professionals. Consumers are being told they may not collect on vehicle damage claims from both their own policy’s Collision Coverage and the other (at-fault) party’s Liability Coverage. Consumers are being told they must pick one source of recovery but, they cannot collect from both . . . that is simply Not True !

the Truth is . . .

Consumers have the right to pursue Both sources of recovery as necessary to be made whole
The Consumer’s right to be Made Whole supercedes the insurer’s right of subrogation
Before you insurance professionals jump out of your chair, read-on. The logic and legality will be made clear. In fact, for those with the resource to do so, go to “Couch on Insurance” and review the Federal Common Law treatise entitled the “Make Whole” Doctrine (16 COI 2d . . . Section 61:64).

As far as bondo, and pre-loss condition as promised by the contract of insurance, I believe you are entitled to be placed in a position as promised by the contract. At the present time many insurers attempt to replace the functionality and forget about pre-loss when it is to their economical advantage. On that note, I wouldn't sacrifice an entire welded on panel for the sake of a couple of hours of straightening. At least, I would not be losing my factory corrosion protection and factory glass seal at the windshield and any side lite window. As a DV appraiser, I would consider replacement of a roof skin as more invasive and detrimental to the post lost value because the operation simply can not be peformed as well as the original factory installation, though a quality repair could be performed.

Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 07:36 am Post Subject:

This is the part insureds do not "like" about insurance companies. And it has nothing to do with the company at all.

It has everything to do with the foundation of insurance: INDEMNITY. As I and others have written elsewhere, the concept of indemnity is to be "restored in whole or in part to the condition that existed, or which was enjoyed, prior to the loss, but without profit or gain."

We understand that in life insurance, the policy cannot bring the deceased person back to life, so we indemnify by replacing lost future income. In medical insurance, we can't "replace" the full enjoyment of having two arms and legs following an amputation, but we can cover the expense of hospitalization, rehabilitation, and prosthetics so that the injured person can "enjoy" as best possible, life as it has changed. Homeowner's policies cannot necessarily replace Grandma's 200-year-old set of English bone china given to her by her grandmother when the tornado destroys the home, but we can provide money to cover the value of the loss.

In an auto claim such as this, it has less to do with the age or aesthetics of the vehicle than it does with the ability of the vehicle to move a person around town safely. A dented roof does not mean the vehicle cannot be driven safely. Sure, it might not look as nice, but it could be repaired today and have a baseball dent it tomorrow. Are we going to be asked to replace the entire "skin" again?

Mike raises a great point, too.

I wouldn't sacrifice an entire welded on panel for the sake of a couple of hours of straightening. At least, I would not be losing my factory corrosion protection and factory glass seal at the windshield and any side lite window

Will you be willing to give up the manufacturer's warranties for the sake of a little bit of bondo? And what's so bad about bondo? Or are you expecting to be able to sell/trade the vehicle in a few years thinking that you don't have to disclose the prior damage? Carfax to the rescue.

As to Lori's question

Max, where does it say in the policy that you have to be at fault for your collision coverage to kick in?

Does it really have to?
This is the fundamental distinction between property damage liability and collision coverages. "Liability" covers the damage I do with my insured vehicle to the property of others, as theirs does mine. Collision covers damages inflicted on my own vehicle if I collide with another and am at fault, or simply roll mine over on my own (aka: "upset"). I don't need collision coverage if I am not at fault. The problems arise when vehicles are not properly insured.

Having said that, the "no fault" states turn the "liability" concept on its head, by saying in the event of a collision, each party's insurance covers that party's damages -- the concept being we don't have to prove liability. It's been proposed a number of times in CA, but the trial lawyers will never let it become a reality -- they would mostly end up unemployed as a result.

Granted, I have no idea what Florida does or does not require when it comes to PAP coverage. "Uninsured" bodily injury and property damage are two separate coverages (both of which extend the definition of uninsured to include "underinsured" -- since the minimum bodily injury liability/property damage limits in CA are $15,000 per person/$30,000 per accident (liability) / $5,000 (property damage).

So when a person, at least here in CA, who has UMPD along with their collision coverage, is involved in a collision and the other party is at fault, one would not want to first use their collision coverage to pay for a loss. Sadly, too many people do exactly that.

When I wrote, "force the other party's insurer . . ." it was not intended to be understood to mean make them pay more than the limit of liability, it was intended to mean, give your claim to the at fault party's insurance company to pay first. If they deny the claim or the money has run out, then you turn it over to your own insurer and let them worry about the ramifications. You pay your deductible (or make your claim under UMPD) and if your insurance company recovers that from the other company, they'll reimburse you for it. Most of the time, however, one has to sue the other driver for their deductible loss, but mostly because the claim was pursued from the wrong direction.

That's what we pay our premiums for -- at least in CA. It doesn't mean that people understand this or do it the right way. And insurance companies are far too willing to let people pay their deductibles for things that should never be an out-of-pocket expense. So that's what I meant when I wrote "a good claims department . . ."

And when I wrote, "front the deductible and sue . . . for the loss" it was not meant to be taken as sue for the entire loss, but sue for the loss of the deductible -- if an insurance company pays everything else, that's my only remaining "loss". Everything else is subrogated, and obviously cannot be recovered a second time.

Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 12:19 pm Post Subject:

Having said that, the "no fault" states turn the "liability" concept on its head, by saying in the event of a collision, each party's insurance covers that party's damages

This isn't what 'no fault' means Max...no fault states have to do with the injury claim only, (ie PIP)...Every 'no fault' state still has it's own negligence law, (ie comparative, pure comparative, etc)...as an example KS is a ''no fault" state with a 49/51 rule...my insured is deemed 51 or more % at fault...I'm taking care of that claimant vehicle...(for whatever the percentage is)..buuuuuuuuut, if that clmt had a minor injury that did not eclipse the PIP limit, or conditions, they are getting nothing from the at fault party on their injury...has ZERO to do with the vehicle damage(s).

"Uninsured" bodily injury and property damage are two separate coverages (both of which extend the definition of uninsured to include "underinsured" --

Maybe in CA Max, but not in most other states, they are four different coverages...AND four different premiums :wink:

Many times, even in clear cut liability claims, I see people that would rather use their collision coverage due to the claims quick resolution as there is no liability investigation only a quick coverage investigation that is needed to get their (insureds) vehicle repaired and back on the road..I've personally NEVER seen a carrier that did not include their insureds deductible in their subro claim against the at fault party...insured or not....collision or UMPD (200 or 250 deductible in MO)...

On that note, I wouldn't sacrifice an entire welded on panel for the sake of a couple of hours of straightening

My point exactly...isn't it funny how people want 'everything replaced' until you show them how a weld on panel has to be replaced...funny...

Mike, you aren't saying that you can collect both...PD payment from at fault party, in ADDITION to collision payment from your own carrer...?

Details.. 2010 Honda CRV (owned less than 4 months)middle ca

Total Comments: 12

Add your comment