She has a Kia Telluride. She got t boned. About $10k in damage. My 7 year old bruised his nose. I was reasonable w the carrier. I got stigma damages. I can go back and check how much
Haven’t received the estimate if it won’t be. To add insult to injury, my dog appears to have broken her knee in the accident. I am seething angry for many reasons. First, my dog. Second, if it’s fixed, the depreciation. I already changed the contract with the repair company to mandate original Genesis parts. I’m really hoping that it isn’t totaled. My just turned 1 year old dog has knee surgery on her right knee about 3 weeks ago… and now her other knee is broken due to the accident.
Simply justify the diminished value upon resale due to the stigma of a fully repaired vehicle at resale due to a prior mva. I received $500+ in Texas by simply stating the existence of that stigma in a similar situation.
ask. Also, I’m just a PE teacher. What do I know?
"California law is a little complicated but certainly recognizes stigma damages. Bottom line, you will need to provide a reasonable basis for the amount you seek and show your work.
There is a formula.
You will need to know:
1. Purchase price
2. Cost of repairs
3. Mileage
In California, you file diminished value claims with an insurance company. That insurance company will determine how much value the vehicle lost in the crash. Most insurance companies and their adjusters use the 17c Formula to calculate diminished value.
This diminished value formula begins with the appraisal value of your vehicle. This is the pre-accident value of your car, in its original condition. It often comes from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) or Kelley Blue Book.
The appraisal value is then multiplied by 0.1. This represents the maximum diminished value that a vehicle can suffer from a crash. The number is often referred to as the base loss of value.
A damage multiplier then determines the base loss of value. The damage multiplier ranges from 0 to 1. Higher numbers are for more severe damage from the wreck:
0 – there was no structural damage or replaced panels,
0.25 – minor damage to panels or the vehicle’s structure,
0.5 – moderate damage to panels or structure,
0.75 – major panel and structural damage, and
1.0 – severe damage to the vehicle’s structure.
The resulting number is then subjected to a mileage multiplier. Older vehicles that have been driven more lose value less than new ones. The results of the damage multiplier are themselves multiplied by:
0 – for vehicles with 100,000 miles or more,
0.2 – vehicles with 80,000 to 99,999 miles,
0.4 – 60,000 to 79,999 miles,
0.6 – 40,000 to 59,999 miles,
0.8 – 20,000 to 39,999 miles, and
1 – for vehicles with less than 20,000 miles.
I just cut to the chase. I treated the adjuster with respect. I asked her what her data showed. I asked her to make an offer. I told her that it was not reasonable and told her I needed it to be better. I had some additional leverage because my kid was knocked around a little bit but just fine. They knew I was plaintiff's lawyer but I had no enemies at their company because I don't do that kind of work. You can handle it just fine yourself.
But as you suggest, in the end, it, like most things, is negotiable to a degree, with this information providing a baseline for valuation. Fortunately I did not have to go through (to my knowledge) a formula in Texas, and I was also with the potential to assert a personal injury claim (which I did not), so that also provided leverage. I made sure in these situations to be sure the claims professional knew I was a defense attorney and almost always was on the other side of the discussion, which I believe also served me well.
Knute is right that diminished value is a classic element of tort damages. But there may also be rules that cap damages in a way that limits your recovery, or the insurance company may be willing to tell you to make their day on that, because it's harder to prove than repair cost.
For example, in Tennessee, diminished value in this context is recoverable as a general matter, but your total recovery for property damage can't exceed the difference between the value of the vehicle immediately before the wreck and its value immediately after the wreck (i.e., before the repair). As a practical matter that hampers lost-value recoveries.
But what the rule on this in California I haven't a clue. You could tell me almost anything and I would believe it.
You are entitled to be made whole by the tortfeasor, and if even after full repair the vehicle has less value upon resale, that should be part of your compensation. If need be, get an estimate of the "stigma" from the repair shop or your dealer to show the reduction in fair market value due to that collision and resultant stigma.
easy in CA, especially with State Farm… particularly when there are no injuries. I just don’t want I lose a significant amount of value in my special snowflake car. When I bought my first one, it had a catastrophic engine failure within an hour of leaving the lot. I was made whole and purchased another one. As dysfunctional as this sounds, I want to keep it… and it’s had issues since.
Just quantify the diminished value claim and assert it. If they say no, return here and we'll figure it out. I cannot provide anyone with legal advice, since I'm no longer an attorney. 😁
That said ins companies are like bankers and money changers. It’s starts with what the policy says. Then it may get worse. My cell is 719 229 0700. Unlike some I’m not afraid to post. If I can help or refer I will. What in ca? I could also have a referral.
One of the best closing arguments I have ever heard is that an insurance company is nothing more than a guardian of top hat that holds the skim. There is a reason 11 of top 100 wealthiest companies are insurance
(Used to be 3, but sold the 3rd because constant rodent damage) and have never made a significant claim. We ate the Woolsey fire damage and also our significant flood damage due to 2023 Jan rain. We’ve only claimed car rodent damage. Everyone is getting dropped locally due to fire risk. We literally haven’t made a homeowners claim because of it, but may get dropped State Farm announces their July news. That said, in terms of car claims, if you are familiar with what entails this type of claim, would love to chat. I need some guidance. I was hit by a ‘18 Tesla Model 3. Owner tried to drive off, while my car was un-drivable and pushed into a landscaped median. Randomly and fortunately, filming was going on back and forth on the street, so police presence was there. I waved down a police officer while my Apple Watch had already called 911 and he arrived before the woman turned back around/ emergency services via my watch could arrive. As I said, she admitted fault, which is stated on the police report. My car is new, but has 18k miles. No gap insurance, fully owned. I’m very concerned about loss of value due to the CarFax report. Email attached and if if you are free tomorrow, would love to get some guidance!
It wasn’t my fault and other driver even admitted fault to the police officer. I’m hoping that my car isn’t totaled, but in preparation for it not to be totaled, for it to go down in value due to an impending carfax report change am soliciting info about non-injury depreciating value car claims. I have a ‘23 Genesis GV80 3.5 Prestige trim with roughly 18k miles. To make matters more complicated, the driver and I are both insured by State Farm. I’ve read that Depreciating Value claims can be tough with State Farm and also in CA, particularly if there are no injuries, which there weren’t, fortunately.
I’ve mused about getting one since we’ve had great experiences with Hyundais in our family.
To which Genesis you’re talking about.
Her first one was a lemon and she needed to fight with Hyundai to get it returned.
Hopefully her experience with the 2nd one has been better, but I’m sure it left a bad taste in her mouth.
I hope this version is much better.