Quote:
Originally Posted by Gen
Definitely, definitely not true. I've won a diminished value case or two in my time. Whether or not you sell it or intend to sell it is completely irrelevant, and while insurance companies like to claim it's not possible to assess diminished value until the vehicle is sold, this is also incorrect. They simply hate paying it. (see Oliver v. Henry which actually took place in Arizona for what its worth)
It's no different than a house. If a nascar stadium went in 15 feet behind your house, it's no longer as valuable as it previously was regardless of whether or not you intend to sell it. (Which this sort of precedent is exactly what I always use)
Several years ago Allstate wrote a check for $7500, after paying all costs to repair my vehicle, after the tortfeasor lost in small claims court. The total diminished value was assessed at $15k. Repair costs for the vehicle were around $16k. If you show up prepared in front of a judge with case law, an appraisal, etc. it's a pretty easy thing to win.
Who takes diminished value on a car to civil court anyways? Was it a Ferrari or something?
edit: Btw, if anyone is actually pursuing DV, most insurance companies will throw case law at you indicating that an insurance company is only obligated to repair the vehicle. These cases are in relation to first party claims (you can't go after your own insurance company for DV in most states) rather than third party claims.
|
It's not about whether or not you can win, sleezy lawyers can win all sorts of things. It's about what dictates value. How much are your shoes worth on your feet right now? How can you possibly learn their value? Supply and demand. Your house analogy is irrelevant because you actually prove my point, it's the market that assigns value. Maybe a Nascar fan would happily pay more than its value to live so close to the track. But if its never sold then the value is intangible or you the owner assign the value yourself.
The value of my car is 100% in my eyes, I love it. I get in an accident and it gets fully repaired. The car is once again 100% and I love it. It will continue to be 100% regardless of the accident as long as the accident fully restored it.
Now years later I decide to sell it. I may or may not get full value depending on several factors. Depending on the type of vehicle I might actually get even more than it's general value regardless of any past accident. Supply, demand, mileage, year, etc. Dodge quit making orange chargers in 2012 and that's the only color a friend wanted, so he would actually pay more to get that specific year regardless of any past accident as long as it was fully restored. How much its diminished in value will depend on dozens of factors but ONLY at the time I try to sell it. Congratulations getting free money though with a lawyer trick though. I'm not saying it's wrong period, but in my book if you aren't trying to sell it then you've lost no value and you're gaming the system.
I was happy to award the guy 0 dollars, he was going after a girl who had fully paid to restore the car, he was perfectly happy with it, had no desire to sell it, but then he learned about diminished value and realized he could get several more thousands out of her just because! Dirty. If the OP has no desire to sell his FR-S, then in my opinion a diminished value claim is just asking for free money. If the insurance company pays it out I have less issue with it. But if they go after someone else for it then that's not right.