Diminished value auto claim (Trinity: sale, insurance, lawyer)

[BriansZ]

Are there local companies that can help with an insurance DV claim? I had a lifted truck back into my car in a parking lot recently. The car is only a couple of months old and I had it repaired but I’m having trouble with their insurance company on the DV claim. I originally thought this would be too small for a law firm, but now I think I might need help to push the insurance company to respond quicker. It’s been months and they just transfer me around and it feels like they are trying to drag it out and come up with excuses. They made a small offer but when I asked how they came up with the number they were very vague. I asked if they would at least look at the car with me but they won’t due to their COVID protocols. I tried an online company but they said they refuse to acknowledge that report, so unfortunately I think I need local assistance.

[Need4Camaro]

DV claims suck, especially in Texas as you can't claim them with your own insurer in TX.

As for the law, you have to remember that the at-fault parties insurance holds no legal obligation to make you whole as you're not their insured. This is why you're getting the run-around. They have no obligation of giving you the value of your vehicle. Only a reasonable repair for damages to your car.

The Texas Department of Insurance Bulletin B-0027-00 (2000) has also held: “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.”

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/u...-50-STATES.pdf

You WILL need a lawyer if you want any hope at reclaiming the lost value of your vehicle... but it will not be an easy battle ... and if you do manage to reign victorious, do not expect some $4,000 check within the next 2 - 3 months.. ..more likely it will be dragged on for over a year so don't fall for the advertisement you get from a lawyer with pie in the sky promises. Cases for DV have been thrown down for simple reasons such as 'does the claimant intend to keep or sell the car.' and barrages of lawyers defending the insurance companies.

Other helpful resources:
https://thomasjhenrylaw.com/blog/blo...e-claim-texas/
https://www.tdi.texas.gov/bulletins/2000/b-0027-0.html

[BriansZ]

Thanks for the info. I’m thinking I might take the offer they made and move past this.

[Need4Camaro]

Yeah. It sucks but that is what I did. They basically gave me pennies on a dollar compared to the actual diminished value when my car was rear ended. Could get a lawyer and go for more but I don’t have time to worry about the added aggravation and I don’t intend to sell my car (it’s paid off).

My SS was hit in the rear twice in the same year … still looks and drives brand new but that carfax will really bite me if I ever did try to sell it.

[jiping]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

DV claims suck, especially in Texas as you can't claim them with your own insurer in TX.

As for the law, you have to remember that the at-fault parties insurance holds no legal obligation to make you whole as you're not their insured. This is why you're getting the run-around. They have no obligation of giving you the value of your vehicle. Only a reasonable repair for damages to your car.



https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/u...-50-STATES.pdf

You WILL need a lawyer if you want any hope at reclaiming the lost value of your vehicle... but it will not be an easy battle ... and if you do manage to reign victorious, do not expect some $4,000 check within the next 2 - 3 months.. ..more likely it will be dragged on for over a year so don't fall for the advertisement you get from a lawyer with pie in the sky promises. Cases for DV have been thrown down for simple reasons such as 'does the claimant intend to keep or sell the car.' and barrages of lawyers defending the insurance companies.

Other helpful resources:
https://thomasjhenrylaw.com/blog/blo...e-claim-texas/
https://www.tdi.texas.gov/bulletins/2000/b-0027-0.html

You sound exactly like the Progressive adjuster assigned to me. He insisted that there was no ground for DV claim, and that he would only pay Toyota body shop rate for my rear-ended Lexus - "only reasonable repair".

I paid $250 for an appraisal report showing DV loss of $7.5k, and hired a litigation lawyer for $0 upfront.

Progressive offered $750 and I declined. Offered $1500 and I declined again.
Two months later case went to small claim court and Progressive wanted to settle at $6k.
I agreed. Lawyer took $2k and I got $4k. Easy money.

[Need4Camaro]

Glad it worked out for you, but technically per law the adjuster wasn’t wrong. There’s no law in TX that entitles anyone to the lost value of their vehicle. Only reasonable repairs.

Here’s a few law cases and how they typically go in terms of diminished value in Texas…

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,44

Texas courts have refused to allow recovery of diminution in value and have stated that “[w]here an insurer has fully, completely, and adequately ‘repaired or replaced the property with other of like kind and quality’ any reduction in market value of the vehicle due to factors that are not subject to repair or replacement cannot be deemed a component part of the cost of repair or replacement.” American Manufacturers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. 2003).
The Texas Department of Insurance Bulletin B-0027-00 (2000) has also held: “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.”
A vehicle’s diminution in market value due to additional mileage and the marketplace perception that a fully repaired vehicle was inferior was not part of the insurer’s obligation to repair the vehicle after a theft under the policy. Because the vehicle was fully repaired, the insurer was not required to pay its inherent diminished value, i.e., the difference between the value before the loss and after repair. Where an insurer has fully, completely, and adequately repaired or replaced the property with other of like kind and quality, any reduction in market value of the vehicle due to factors that are not subject to “repair or replacement” cannot be deemed a component part of the cost of repair or replacement. Carlton v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 32 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. App. 2000).

Schaefer's standard automobile insurance policy does not obligate AMM to compensate Schaefer for his fully repaired vehicle's diminished market value. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment in favor of AMM.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,44

VI. CONCLUSION
Trinity's liability for direct and accidental loss to Carlton's vehicle is capped at the ”[a]mount necessary to repair or replace the property with other of like kind and quality.” Therefore, Trinity is not liable, as a matter of law, for the ”inherent diminished value” to Carlton's automobile. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Trinity or in denying Carlton's motion for partial summary judgment. Accordingly, we overrule Carlton's second and fifth issues.

A few others from an attorney’s perspective of the matter:

Attorney 1:

In my view, diminished value damages are completely speculative and improper. You don't know if you'll ever sell your vehicle. It might get totaled in another accident. It might get destroyed in a fire. If you do sell it, you don't know when you'll sell it. You also don't know if the person to whom you sell it will make an effort to research the car's accident history. You also don't know if your ultimate sale price is based on market conditions, the buyer's negotiating skill, or your desperate need for money. Accordingly, giving you something based on ”diminished value” could amount to compensating you for damages you may never suffer or grossly overcompensating you.

Attorney 2:

If a car had a scratch on it because of an accident, it will have a lower value because of it and the damaged owner is clearly entitled to compensation for that damage. You might say, that scratch can be repaired, and that’s true. A car owner also gets compensation for damage done to a car that puts it beyond repair, as well. So what is the difference here: if the owner has suffered a loss in value, repairable or not, he ought to be entitled to compensation for that. Saying that the diminished value is too speculative for the reasons he gave doesn't fly because cars can be valued given their history and the loss determined with reasonable accuracy. It's done all the time. Cars with salvage titles, for example, are worth less than those without such titles even if they appear otherwise to be in the same condition, and that difference can be computed. Same with the diminished value claims here. I agree that the amount of diminished value in many cases is not much, but to the extent it does exist, it ought to be part of the compensation owed.

[jiping]

Adjusters are not qualified to give legal opinions. They are paid $30/hr, while lawyers' billable rate is $300/hr.
Sheep listen/talk to adjusters and they will only be reimbursed 1/10. It's the game played by the insurance company.

It's pretty obvious to me that real lawyers see merits in these DV cases.
From plaintiff side, DV litigators on contingency are easy to find, just like any other car accident attorneys.
From defense side, Corporate lawyers were eager to settle at 80% of my DV report.

[JAYRICH]

If the crash was someone else's fault, you may claim diminished value against their insurer. There are no laws that govern this, it is written in the responsible party's policy that they must make you whole. That is why they paid their premium. Call the appraiser in Fort Pierce and ask them. They are straight shooters and if your claim wouldn't be worth much, they will tell you.

[BriansZ]

Originally Posted by jiping

You sound exactly like the Progressive adjuster assigned to me. He insisted that there was no ground for DV claim, and that he would only pay Toyota body shop rate for my rear-ended Lexus - "only reasonable repair".

I paid $250 for an appraisal report showing DV loss of $7.5k, and hired a litigation lawyer for $0 upfront.

Progressive offered $750 and I declined. Offered $1500 and I declined again.
Two months later case went to small claim court and Progressive wanted to settle at $6k.
I agreed. Lawyer took $2k and I got $4k. Easy money.

Would you mind messaging me the lawyer’s info that you used? The report is north of $10k (the car value is over $70k), so I’d like to see what they have to say.

[jiping]

Originally Posted by BriansZ

Would you mind messaging me the lawyer’s info that you used? The report is north of $10k (the car value is over $70k), so I’d like to see what they have to say.

Mine was back in DFW. Talk to local DV appraisers and ask for reference. Work with lawyers on contingency.