• filter:
  • 1 2 34516
  • Page
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
rated:
I was just wondering if the police does indeed say who is at fault on the accident report. My cousin got into an accident and the police officer told him verbally that the other person was at fault, but the police report just has my cousin's statement and the other person's statement.

Ads by Google
rated:
hotwallet2934 said: I was just wondering if the police does indeed say who is at fault on the accident report. My cousin got into an accident and the police officer told him verbally that the other person was at fault, but the police report just has my cousin's statement and the other person's statement.Please, let's stay on topic

The subject of this thread is Diminished Value - How to calculate - How to pursue

rated:
Check arrived: $1153.29

rated:
Thanks for posting. I was not aware of this at all!

Is there any time period before which the diminished value claim has to be sent? And what if the damage has been fixed (paid by the party-at-fault's insurance agency)?

rated:
Diminished value is separate and in addition to the cost of repair of the physical damage. As far as time limits, it probably varies by state. (I filed for Diminished Value within 5-6 weeks of the accident)

rated:
ellory said: Diminished value is separate and in addition to the cost of repair of the physical damage. As far as time limits, it probably varies by state. (I filed for Diminished Value within 5-6 weeks of the accident)

Thanks. I found that it is a minimum of 2 years and for some states, it is three years.

rated:
kogerk said: Thanks. I found that it is a minimum of 2 years and for some states, it is three years.I assume you mean maximum

rated:
mnsweeps said: I am working with my lawyer on a similar case though not exactly the same. I bought a car from TX dealer and he never disclosed a prior accident ( neither did the carfax report he gave me). Later on a CA dealer found about it ( latest carfax report shows accident 2 yrs ago) ..I have a lawyer in TX representing me and I want the diminished value from TX dealer now...we are filing under TX DTPA act....

Really a completely different situation. I'd call yours "fraud".

rated:
Subrogation complete. Full payment for damages paid to my insurance company (from the other insurance company), since I filed under my collision. My insurance company has cut me the check to repay me for my collision deductible.

rated:
Guys, you seem to be missing the point about diminished value. State law usually deal with whether or not an INSURANCE COMPANY has to compensate a person for the diminished value of a vehicle that was involved in an accident with their insured. Some states do allow recovery from the INSURANCE COMPANY while others do not. If you are upset about the accident, you should have the option of pursuing a claim against the DRIVER PERSONALLY.

Proving diminished value can be tough. The way to prove diminished value is to get the difference in what you would get for a trade for your vehicle if it hadn't been in an accident versus having been in an accident.

For OLDER VEHICLES with higer mileage, you probably have to use one of the services mentioned in previous posts.

For relatively NEW VEHICLES, take your car is to go to a dealer who sells your make and model and ask them what you vehicle is worth having been in an accident and what is would have been worth had it not been in the accident. Most newer cars that are traded to a dealer can be CERTIFIED. However, most new cars that have been in accidents with a significant amount of damage (think a couple thousand) cannot be certified. If your vehicle falls into this case, you can save the money you would spend going with one of those companies by simply going to the dealer and having him tell you the difference between a vehicle being traded in that can be certified and one that cannot be certified. Don't forget to get a name and business card so that the insurance company can follow up and verify with the dealer.

rated:
My most recent renewal with Geico included a number of changes in policy language. One of the most notable was that the collision coverage now specifically *excludes* claims for diminished value. This is in California. There were also a number of other changes that appear to be claims cost containment measures for Geico.

rated:
ssmetana said: Guys, you seem to be missing the point about diminished value. State law usually deal with whether or not an INSURANCE COMPANY has to compensate a person for the diminished value of a vehicle that was involved in an accident with their insured. Some states do allow recovery from the INSURANCE COMPANY while others do not. If you are upset about the accident, you should have the option of pursuing a claim against the DRIVER PERSONALLY. As far as I know, in all states you have the right to claim Diminished Value from the other parties insurance company. Its only your own insurance company that is the issue. And, both the law and the policy govern

Proving diminished value can be tough. The way to prove diminished value is to get the difference in what you would get for a trade for your vehicle if it hadn't been in an accident versus having been in an accident. Yes its tough. That's what this thread is about

For OLDER VEHICLES with higer mileage, you probably have to use one of the services mentioned in previous posts.

For relatively NEW VEHICLES, take your car is to go to a dealer who sells your make and model and ask them what you vehicle is worth having been in an accident and what is would have been worth had it not been in the accident. Most newer cars that are traded to a dealer can be CERTIFIED. However, most new cars that have been in accidents with a significant amount of damage (think a couple thousand) cannot be certified. If your vehicle falls into this case, you can save the money you would spend going with one of those companies by simply going to the dealer and having him tell you the difference between a vehicle being traded in that can be certified and one that cannot be certified. Don't forget to get a name and business card so that the insurance company can follow up and verify with the dealer.Why would the word of a dealer be worth anything? With no written documentation. In my case, I used a service - and it cost me nothing, but I included it in my claim

rated:
I am in the process of filing a DV claim with Geico. I acquired a DV appraisal and have submitted that along with two demand letters via certified mail. My last correspondance was a notice to the insured that I will be filing a lawsuit against her because Geico refused to acknowledge my DV claim. Each time I gave 10 busines days for a response. I got the letter of denial from my initial claim and after that TOTAL SILENCE. Tomorrow is 10 business days since I sent the letter to the insured. I tried calling and talking to the adjuster yesterday... his attitude was that I haven't provided enough proof and that if I wanted to pursue a lawsuit then that was my perogative... WOW! Just WOW! After reading of your results Ellory with uploading the documents online, I just finished uploading everything I have sent them along with one final demand letter stating that if this is not settled immediately that I would be filing suit within the week against their insured. We'll see...

rated:
Got confirmation that my documents were uploaded. I sure hope this makes a difference... this has been a pain and I'm sure they are simply waiting for me to give up... I won't simply because it's become a matter of principle for me at this point! There's about $4K on the line!!

rated:
Some history on my accident... occured Dec. 20th, a lady t-boned me in my '05 F150 Supercrew causing over $8K in damage, including front suspension damage,frame damage, and cutting the back lower right portion of the cab off at the seam and replacing it. I pleaded with GEICO to total it knowing the truck would never be right again, but they refused.

I've gotten the exact same treatment that Ellory got from GEICO... submitted claim with DV appraisal for certified appraiser (I spent a little more, but if this pans out it will be worth every penney) along with a demand letter quoting the Texas law and the Texas Insurance Commissioner regarding DV claims in third party situations. GEICO insisted on inspecting the truck...the adjuster did the same as with Ellory.. took pictures and attempted to engage in conversation about it... I did my best to keep it at a minimum.

Shortly after the inspection I got a letter from the adjuster stating that my appraisal was just "one mans opinion" and did not prove that my vehicle had suffered any dimunition of value. He went on to say that I needed to provide "verifiable statistical proof" that my vehicle had suffered DV.

I responded in writing refuting his claim about the appraisal and that neither the law nor the insurance commissioners statement mentions what the burden of proof should be and that his request for "verifiable statistical proof" was unsubstantiated...furthermore the appraisal I submitted is more than adequate in proving my DV as it utilized industry standard weighting based on the type of damage caused as well as real world quotes from local dealerships. I provided the adjuster (somewhat sarcastically) with a copy of the Texas Insurance Commissioners statement in case he wasn't familiar with it. I gave him 10 days to respond/settle my claim or I would be notifying their insured that I intend to file a lawsuit if this is not settled. NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER from GEICO.

So, at 10 days, I sent a notice of intent to file a lawsuit to the insured. I gave her 10 days to respond or work with GEICO to settle this matter or I would be filing a small claims court suit against her personally since this is a civil matter. NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER from either the insured or GEICO. The day before the 10 days were up, I attempted to contact the insured to see what her thoughts on this were and to explain to her the situation... she did not return my call. I called the adjuster at GEICO to get an idea where they stood in regard to the claim.. as I mentioned above, he stuck to his guns and basically said if I wanted to pursue a lawsuit that I should go ahead and do that. WOW! So apparently they are more than willing to have their insured drug into this... just WOW!

So then I start searching around some more and find this website and Ellory's post. I have some hope now that they will settle based on how his claim was handled in the end. I've done as Ellory stated and uploaded the documents that I already submitted in addition to a final demand letter stating that this needs to be resolved immediately or I will be filing suit at the end of this week. I did this yesterday afternoon, I received confirmation that the documents were indeed uploaded, but no response from GEICO at this point... if I don't hear from them, I'll be headed to the county courthouse on Friday to file the lawsuit. My hope is that it doesn't come to that... but I certainly won't hesitate to do it...

rated:
Just file the lawsuit already.

FYI, your DV report may not be admissible in court without the expert himself present.

rated:
haha... yeah, I will, I'd just like to settle this without resorting to that if at all possible. Today is officially 10 business days from when the insured received the notice via certified mail. This post gave me a little hope that this might get settled without going to court.

He will be present... part of the deal, so that's not an issue. He's been to court with Geico before and won, so he's confident this will be a slam dunk if we end up in court.

rated:
Good, you should have filed 10 days again and not wasted time with the adjuster.

rated:
ClaimsGuy said: Good, you should have filed 10 days again and not wasted time with the adjuster.

You are probably right... hindsight and all that... It will be done no later than this Friday for sure if they don't move to settle this before then.

There's one little snag that has kept me from doing it thus far... the lady that hit me happens to work for the same company I work for... so I was doing what I could to keep from suing her... I'm over that at this point, besides, provided i win, it's GEICO that pays, not her. I just really didn't want to drag her into it if I could avoid it...

rated:
Well ellory... must be the luck of the draw 'cause I got absolutely NO response yet again... headed to the courthouse tomorrow to get that ball rolling.

rated:
Mickeymeanie said: Well ellory... must be the luck of the draw 'cause I got absolutely NO response yet again... headed to the courthouse tomorrow to get that ball rolling.Sorry about your experience. Mine was very easy and very painless

rated:
Filed...

This will be a long drawn out process if they don't settle in between... court date is 4 to 6 months out apparently...

rated:
I am in Texas and have a 2006 Range Rover that was rear ended by a person insured by State Farm. When State Farm denied my DV claim, I hired a law firm that specializes in DV claims to pursue the issue and file suit. If they would have just paid something in compensation of DV, I may have been willing to let it go. I am an attorney myself and, because of State Farm's flat denial and refusal to even acknowledge any obligation to pay a DV claim, I am willing to take it as far as it needs to go to get satisfaction in this matter. It is the principal of the thing to me now.

rated:
davecraze said: I am in Texas and have a 2006 Range Rover that was rear ended by a person insured by State Farm. When State Farm denied my DV claim, I hired a law firm that specializes in DV claims to pursue the issue and file suit. If they would have just paid something in compensation of DV, I may have been willing to let it go. I am an attorney myself and, because of State Farm's flat denial and refusal to even acknowledge any obligation to pay a DV claim, I am willing to take it as far as it needs to go to get satisfaction in this matter. It is the principal of the thing to me now.

EXACTLY! It has become a matter of principle now... had GEICO offered a reasonable settlement instead of ignoring and denying the claim, I would have let it go as well. Now they will have to pay for representation of their insured and hopefully it'll cost them the full amount of the settlement plus interest and court costs provided i win the judgement.

rated:
Just got notice from GEICO that my claim has been assigned to a new adjuster... not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing...

rated:
You need to follow through as many don't and thus the reason GEICO and other carriers stall, delay and deny. Insurers anticipate that most will tire and get fed-up and they really don't care if you go away mad... as long as you just go away!
Think of it from a business point of view, insurers already have the money and if they can retain it, rather than spend it, that money then becomes 100% NET NET PROFIT! How many legitimate businesses make 100% net profit!?

Now you begin to understand why some insurance companies do what seems to be unconscionable.

Barrett Smith
AutoDamageExperts.com

rated:
Waiting to hear if the insured responds to the small claims suit I filed... if she doesn't, I can request a default judgement and be done rather than waiting on a court date. Based on how this has gone, I don't see that happening... but you never know.

rated:
I was recently in a car accident in Plano and it was the other party's fault. I tried to file a diminished value claim against AAA which is the other party's insurance company and they are giving me the hardest time in trying to file for it stating that I need to find other autos that is similar model that had similar accidents and find out how much of the value they diminished due to the accident.

I am looking for recommendations on lawyer or diminished value specialist local to DFW that I can use to collect diminished value. Currently I am looking at http://www.diminishedvalueoftexas.com have anyone used this company before?

My car is only 6 months old 2008 Acura MDX and the total damage to the car was around 8.5k. When I took it to carmax after it was fixed they told me they would only give me 25k for it due to the frame damage but without the damage from the accident they would have given 30-33k on it.

rated:
I was hit by an uninsured driver. Luckily my insurance covered everything (costs were around $8k). Can I file a DV claim against my own insurance company? Is it prudent to do so? There's no way I'm going to be able to collect from the woman who hit me - she was absolutely crazy.

rated:
holla said: I was hit by an uninsured driver. Luckily my insurance covered everything (costs were around $8k). Can I file a DV claim against my own insurance company? Is it prudent to do so? There's no way I'm going to be able to collect from the woman who hit me - she was absolutely crazy. In many states, ypur auto insurance policy prohibits you from filing against your own company. (Georgia, I think is an exception)

Suggest you read your policy and /or research your state laws

rated:
Hi all,
I am going through the same thing trying to claim third party diminished value from Encompass insurance. I have never been in an accident and was clueless when I had to deal with the adjuster from Encompass. My Scion Xb 09 was rear ended by a BMW. Encompass accepted liability for both vehicle. The impact caused my car to crash into the pick up truck in front of me. My car suffered $7000 worth of damages including 7hrs worth of repair for structural damage. This was the appraisal/estimate given by Encompass's appraiser. I never knew diminished value existed but I did mention about resale value decreasing to the adjuster to which he quickly said that they don't deal with that. I did some research online and read about diminished value. So I paid for an appraiser who determined that the DV of my car to be about $7400. The report was faxed to the adjuster and about a few days later I called him. During our conversation, the adjuster flatly lied to me stating that they do not do first or third party diminished value. I asked him to show me the law in Oregon that i cannot claim third party DV. This is when he got really defensive, stating that he cannot commit to my request and that from now on all communications will be in writing. I told him I am not looking for any commitment right at that moment but for information that third party DV claim is not recognized in Oregon. He stated that I should get all that information in the letter that he is mailing out later that day. Also he said, there will be some questions that I need to answer in order to clarify the DV claim.
So I got the letter... no explanation about third party DV claim not recognized in Oregon.. instead questions about if I still have the car and if I am driving it in the same manner as it was before and if the repairs were done to my satisfaction according to industry standards. These are BS questions as they are still paying for the rental car and they know that my car is still being repaired. I think what they are trying to do is to prove that I have no diminished value and if I have issues with the repairs, the repair shop will be the one responsible for the DV.
My claim for DV is for inherent DV that is the VALUE of the car after the accident and not the CONDITION of the car after repairs.
You'd think this is a clear cut case as they were the one that discovered the structural damage and they were the one who estimated the damages to be $7000 on a car that has a market value of about $18000 prior to accident. I can never trade in my car with a dealer for a good value after suffering structural damage. I have planned to trade in for a nicer car in about 3-4 years. Not happening now. Even more annoying, the girl who rear ended me.. is no older than 18, poor little rich girl. Mommy and daddy were at the scene within 15 minutes.

rated:
For those in Texas looking for info on DV... here is the Texas State Commissioners take on the subject: (I highlighted the pertinant portion of the statement)

http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/bulletins/2000/b-0027-0.html

COMMISSIONER´s BULLETIN NO. B-0027-00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 6, 2000

TO: ALL COMPANIES, CORPORATIONS, EXCHANGES, MUTUALS, RECIPROCALS, ASSOCIATIONS, LLOYDS, OR OTHER INSURERS WRITING PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND TO OTHER AGENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PUBLIC GENERALLY

RE: PAYMENT OF DIMINISHED VALUE TO POLICYHOLDERS

The purpose of this bulletin is to clarify the position of the Texas Department of Insurance (Department) to admitted insurers writing private passenger automobile insurance and to the public on the issue concerning first party claims for diminished value.

When an automobile is completely repaired to its pre-damage condition, there is sometimes a question of whether an insurer is obligated to pay the first party claimant for the diminished value of the automobile. A policyholder may claim that the automobile´s market value after complete repair is less than its market value before the damage. The policyholder then claims that the insurer is obligated to pay for the difference in market value, which is referred to as diminished value.

The standard Texas policy for private passenger automobiles, adopted by the Department under Texas Insurance Code Article 5.06, provides that an automobile insurer´s contractual liability for first party claims for a loss to a covered vehicle under Collision or Other Than Collision (Comprehensive) Coverage is the lesser of the following three options, less any applicable deductible:

Actual cash value of the stolen or damaged property;
Amount necessary to repair or replace the property with other of like kind and quality; or
Amount stated in the declarations of the policy.
Option (1), to pay the actual cash value, applies when the insurer elects to declare the covered automobile a total loss. Option (2), to repair or replace, obligates the insurer to pay the total cost necessary to repair or replace property with parts of like kind and quality, minus any applicable deductible.

The position of the Department is that an insurer is not obligated to pay a first party claimant for diminished value when an automobile is completely repaired to its pre-damage condition. The language of the insurance policy does not require payment for, or refer to, diminished value.

This bulletin is not intended to preclude the use of loss of market value as a measure that an insurer and first party claimant may use to settle other disputes. For example, if an automobile was repaired properly but the vehicle still does not function as it did before the accident, the insurer and policyholder may agree to use loss of the automobile´s market value as a measure of damages to settle the dispute.

An insurer also may be obligated to pay a third party claimant for any loss of market value of the claimant´s automobile, regardless of the completeness of the repair, in a liability claim that the third party claimant may have against a policyholder. Further, an insurer may be obligated to pay a first party claimant under the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provisions of the policy, for any loss of market value of the first party claimant´s automobile, regardless of the completeness of the repair.
Questions regarding this bulletin should be directed to the undersigned at 512/322-3430.

Sincerely,

David Durden
Associate Commissioner
Property & Casualty Program, MC104-5A



Amazingly, even with the Texas Insurance Commissioners statement, insurance companies continue to argue they are not obligated to pay these claims.

GEICO has opted to let my claim go to court, and have asked for a jury trial. Their contention is that I did not act in a reasonable matter as a responsible person should to ensure my vehicle was repaired properly. Completely ignoring the fact that DV has absolutely nothing to do with the completeness or quality of the repairs. They are basing this on the fact that I had the GEICO claims rep meet with me and the repair shop regarding some major issues with the repair work. I only had him there to ensure the repair shop got it done right and that they put me in another rental car while the corrections were made (something they were fighting me on). So their take is that I'm not satisfied with the repair work and that it should be between me and the repair shop, which is just stupid. All of my correspondence with them has stated very clearly that my vehicle has been repaired to industry standard and that my claim is based on the fact that my vehicle suffered structural damage that has diminished it's market value. The appraiser that I'm working with was surprised by there defense. He says the court will most likely require mediation before it goes to trial in an attempt to settle the case.

The appraisal company I am working with is http://www.avrecovery.com/avr_010.htm So far they have been very helpful through this whole mess. Part of the deal is that if/when this goes to trial, they will be there to present their findings on your behalf. At this point, I would highly recommend them... I'll give the final thought once this process is complete. That won't happen for several months since this is going to court eventually and the court date will likely be no sooner than Sept. or Oct. I suspect.

rated:
I am in the process of researching a diminished value claim in Iowa. My car (2009 Ford Focus SES, 3.5months old, 5800mi) was hit on the drivers side at a 4 way intersection. Side airbags deployed, drivers side panels and door were destroyed, both rear wheels were destroyed, other misc damage. The initial estimate from the Body Shop (the dealership where I purchased it) was $6100 in damage. This is expected to go up when they begin repairing the car. This also includes the use of aftermarket parts including 2 Keystone wheels and a side panel from a salvage yard. Apparently there is nothing I can do about this. The shop's "hands are tied" by the insurance company. I am dealing with Nationwide for the claim, which is NOT my insurance company.

After getting the adjusters voice mail for 2 days straight I finally managed to get the claims manager on the line. He admitted there will be a diminished value and wants to wait until the repairs are complete and have someone sit down with me and ask some questions about the repair to establish this diminished value. When I asked about an independent inspection he responded very negatively saying that would not be necessary etc..

I will probably be purchasing a quote from dvassess.com but with the mixed results in this thread what other recourse do I have? The car is very new (purchased in April) and will have a severely diminished value after all is said and done.

rated:
LucJoe said: This also includes the use of aftermarket parts including 2 Keystone wheels and a side panel from a salvage yard. Apparently there is nothing I can do about this. The shop's "hands are tied" by the insurance company. I am dealing with Nationwide for the claim, which is NOT my insurance company. Just not true. But you have to being willing to fight them
When I asked about an independent inspection he responded very negatively saying that would not be necessary etc..Of course. He does not want you to have your own knowledge

wants to wait until the repairs are complete and have someone sit down with me and ask some questions about the repair to establish this diminished value.waiting for completion makes sense. But the questions about the repair are irrelevant, especially if its a quality repair. DMV is solely based on the fact that a fully and correctly repaired car is just not worth as much

I will probably be purchasing a quote from dvassess.com but with the mixed results in this thread what other recourse do I have? The car is very new (purchased in April) and will have a severely diminished value after all is said and done.Recourse? Educate yourself. Hire experts if necessary. Show that you are willing to fight. Communicate only in writing They will use your own words against you

rated:
Mickeymeanie said: GEICO has opted to let my claim go to court, and have asked for a jury trial. Their contention is that I did not act in a reasonable matter as a responsible person should to ensure my vehicle was repaired properly. Completely ignoring the fact that DV has absolutely nothing to do with the completeness or quality of the repairs. They are basing this on the fact that I had the GEICO claims rep meet with me and the repair shop regarding some major issues with the repair work. I only had him there to ensure the repair shop got it done right and that they put me in another rental car while the corrections were made (something they were fighting me on). So their take is that I'm not satisfied with the repair work and that it should be between me and the repair shop, which is just stupid. All of my correspondence with them has stated very clearly that my vehicle has been repaired to industry standard and that my claim is based on the fact that my vehicle suffered structural damage that has diminished it's market value. The appraiser that I'm working with was surprised by there defense. He says the court will most likely require mediation before it goes to trial in an attempt to settle the case.

The appraisal company I am working with is http://www.avrecovery.com/avr_010.htm So far they have been very helpful through this whole mess. Part of the deal is that if/when this goes to trial, they will be there to present their findings on your behalf. At this point, I would highly recommend them... I'll give the final thought once this process is complete. That won't happen for several months since this is going to court eventually and the court date will likely be no sooner than Sept. or Oct. I suspect.


Do continue posting interesting updates; however, don't post anything here you wouldn't want the Geico defense atty to know. Most big companies monitor their online references and such a service would probably find this thread, forward it ot the company and it would make its way to the adjuster eventually. Such services will also (slowly) start to teach companies that when they screw with people, since information sharing is now very cheap people will know. This behaviour of Geico certainly makes me not want to be a customer of theirs -- not only are they screwing you over, they are screwing their insured over by dragging them to court and risking that they have a judgment in their name against them.

Geico should spend less money on moronic caveman ads and more money paying legitimate claims on behalf of their policyholders. But that's the problem with for-profit (instead of mutual) insurance companies -- their mission is to maximize profits for their shareholders instead of efficiently spreading risk for their policyholders.

rated:
I've just received a letter from the insurance company stating that I am missing specific information from my diminished value report. I've used Diminished Value of Texas and sent in the full report that they've sent to me. However the insurance company is asking for

"Specifically we will need a list of comparable vehicles which were used to determine the amount of your vehicle's diminished value. The list will need to include each comparable vehicle's year, make, and model; the sale price of each vehicle as compared to the sale price of vehicles that had never been damaged; and the extent and type of damages each vehicle had."

I am wondering if this is a true statement and also what contents were delivered to you from the diminished value reports so that I can compare it with the contents delivered from mine to see if any information was missed.

Thanks for the help

rated:
I used www.DVAssess.com

2009 Acura TSX with 1000 miles on it
DVA report said 6800
CSAA came back with 5100
We met at 5900

They sent me a check in a week after I signed the release form for the diminished value. Very simple process, just sent them the letter the website gave me. Used the exact amount of the repair and exact value of car. I told them I wanted a response within 15 business days and they were on the phone with me within 5 days. The specialist from AAA called me and said he came up with 5100 and I said can we meet down the middle and he sent okay and sent me a check after i signed the waiver.

I want to thank everyone on this forum for the input and help I read.

rated:
From the letter from www.DVAssess.com did it include a list of comparable vehicles which were used to determine the amount of your vehicle's diminished value ?

rated:
davecraze said: I am in Texas and have a 2006 Range Rover that was rear ended by a person insured by State Farm. When State Farm denied my DV claim, I hired a law firm that specializes in DV claims to pursue the issue and file suit. If they would have just paid something in compensation of DV, I may have been willing to let it go. I am an attorney myself and, because of State Farm's flat denial and refusal to even acknowledge any obligation to pay a DV claim, I am willing to take it as far as it needs to go to get satisfaction in this matter. It is the principal of the thing to me now.

Dave, I'm curious:
As an attorney, why not pursue this in small claims yourself? I can't imagine that I can hire a private attorney to successfully pursue a DV claim - unless the court grants me legal fees also.. In my understanding, the award of attorney fees is not guaranteed. I could end up with another $4k in DV, but $20k in attorney fees...

rated:
jlim0930 said: From the letter from www.DVAssess.com did it include a list of comparable vehicles which were used to determine the amount of your vehicle's diminished value ?

No it didn't. I mean AAA came up with 5100 as the diminished value so we weren't far off from each other. So pray you get AAA on the other side?

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014