How much for diminished value?

It doesn't say anything about the body shop, only the value of a car with an accident history. If they are responsible for the original damage, then they should be responsible for any reduced value they claim it has through their insurance. Otherwise, you have to go after the responsible party yourself no matter who repaired it.

 

Never mind. Obviously my point was missed. I was not specifically addressing diminished value as much as customer loyality.

 

I had no idea it existed until we got a letter in the mail from our insurance company asking if we wanted the DV compensation. I was reluctant at first being as my wife was at fault and I didn't want our rates to increase. After talking to our claims adjuster she assured us our rates would not go up because of our good driver record; we were given accident forgiveness for this incident. We have USAA as our insurance and they are awesome!

It was nice to get the extra (I think you did better than us, we got $1500 for damage that totaled $5000), but I still don't think we will take that big a hit when we sell, especially if we trade it at a Nalley dealership being as they did the repairs. I also don't feel the repair should have costs $5000 based on the damage. She was backing out of the garage and couldn't have been doing more than 1-2 mph when she hit the Suburban. But, Nalley was one of the recommended repair facilities and USAA offered a lifetime on the repairs should Nalley not cover it, so maybe that got figured into the cost.

 

Of course I wouldn't want to lose the $1,600.

But this whole diminished value thing seems a bit odd. You're right, it depends when the car is sold. So, I'd say that, if the owner receives $1,600 for the diminished value, he has to agree to sell it within the next six months.

Otherwise, if he keeps it for ten years, he's actually made money from the accident. Right? In ten years, I guarantee it'll have other damage and this minor accident will be a non-issue.

The insurance company fixed the damage. That's enough. Let's move on from there. We're grown ups and there isn't always someone around to kiss the boo-boo, make it better.

The OP, in a sense, is being paid twice for this accident. No wonder everything is getting so expensive in America.

 

Here's a different thought. Depending on whether one keeps their car until the rims fall off (and it's worth squat anyway) the whole dim value thing may be trivial, compared to another collateral 'accident' issue. In some states (don't know about yours) - accidents stay on your record from 3 to 5 years -your fault or not. Insurance companies may forbear jacking up your rates with just ONE accident - but if you've got other things on your DMV record already, and accident, even one held to be not your fault, may cause your rates to go up, until one or more things fall off - which could be years. That extra cash that some folks end up having to pay for their OWN insurance rates should be compensable as well. If you're record is otherwise squeaky clean, then you're good to go.

 

Hmmm, interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about the whole no fault thing. Yes, it reduces litigation and other costs associated with the assignation of blame, but you're right. Having an accident on one's record—regardless of fault—could be costly. Depending on the record before the accident.

So, if the driver already has other issues on their DMV record, perhaps they're not such a careful driver in the first place. Perhaps something they did contributed to the latest accident as well. Who knows, maybe they drive fast, brake suddenly, cut people off in traffic, etc.

No matter which system, it seems that folks with hypothetical good driving records will be less impacted (pardon the pun) by an accident than those with a hypothetical poor driving record.

 

Feeling argumentative today ?

You pay insurance for your car to be made 'whole' again. Wholeness is based on current market value (what else?)

 

DV is only on paper until you actually sell, so Pinto Girl has a point. In contrast, an example of being made "whole" again in practice would be compelling your insurance company to cover the sales tax you pay for a new vehicle to replace the car that it has totaled.

 

It also depends on how serious the accident was. If the car had severe damage that just happened to be a bit under the threshold of totalling the car, that is going to the follow the car for a long time. You will have big resale value issues even if you don't sell the car for years after it is repaired.
A scratched bumper, not. You would probably be better off just fixing the scratched area even if it is an obvious repair than repainting/replacing the entire bumper.
A touched up blemish on the bumper will raise fewer eyebrows than if an inspection reveals replaced parts and total repainting. Most people don't care much about little marks except on brand new cars or some kind of show car.

 

Yep, she has the HS250h. I think a lot of the added cost was the back-up sensors that had to be replaced (2 if I recall). I should have taken a picture but didn't, to me it didn't look that bad. But then again, like you pointed out, that same back-up sensor in a Toyota probably would have been half the cost it was on a Lexus! We probably should have taken it to a Toyota dealer for the repair and just had them use Camry sensors!

 

I can see the argument for DV only when the car is sold, but I think it would be inconsistent to do so; after all (and as far as I know), there's nothing to compel you to repair your car when it's damaged. If you want, you can just take the money it would cost to repair it, and leave the damage. If you then keep the car until it's 30 years old and worthless other than scrap metal, you've profited in that case too.

 

You might, but most people change cars at least every 6 years or so and many people trade much more often than that.
So what if someone "profited" by driving around for 30 years with unrepaired body damage on their car? The car was still damaged by the fault of someone else. Why should the responsible party "profit" by damaging property not belonging to them without having to pay for it?

The person who damaged the car is responsible for the damage at the time. Even if you don't plan to sell your car right away, something might come up unexpectedly and you might need to sell on very short notice. The immediate payout is to close the case immediately instead of it dragging on unresolved until some future sale date that is unknown at the time and trying to bring up the issue again at that later date.

 

Our insurance paid the body shop directly, I'm not sure we would have been offered DV if we had not had it repaired. DV is sopposed to compensate the owner for any loss that could be incurred due to a loss in value as a result of the damage and subsequent repair. If they just handed you a check for what the repairs would have costs, and you did not have it repaired, they may consider that just compensation and not offer more...

 

hello nice posts guy

 

We received about 15% of the repair for ours. I was told 10% was low and 20% was high so 15 seemed good and not worth arguing over.