Quote:
Originally Posted by oldpueblo
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.
|
That may be your personal opinion on the merit of diminished value, but it's not how the law sees it. Anyone in a not-at-fault accident has a legal right to pursue compensation. Whether or not you feel that is 'ethical' is another matter. While I disagree that a value is 'intangible' until it has been sold (I can use the equity in my home or a car for collateral, for example), I'll let it slide.
For what it's worth, you HAVE to go after the individual for this, also called the tortfeasor (and the insurance company is obligated to pay it). You can't sue the insurance company directly as they did not cause the damage. It sounds like you may have misunderstood what was actually going on in the case you sat on the jury for. While you may have thought he was going after some poor woman, he was forced to do so to get to the insurance company. I highly doubt he had any expectation that she would be paying anything.
When I had to take a DV case to court, I had to take the individual that hit me, not his insurer, Allstate. I explained this to him and it was a perfectly friendly exchange.