Join us around the campfire!
Blogs are buzzing because in the recent Texas Supreme Court Case, J&D Towing LLC v. American Alternative Insurance Corporation 2016 WL 91201 (Tex. 2016), a major wrong that has been going on since before there were even cars was righted.
Additionally, in the vast majority of cases the insurance company that is responsible for settling the claim with you gives you an unfair and invalid diminished value claim denial. In my view, the denial of these valid claims is an act of fraud.
The primary reason is that there are very few attorneys and even fewer accident victims that really understand the denials. Because of that, it is difficult for the accident victim to defeat the illogical and unlawful reasons that insurance companies use to deny diminished value claims.
I thought long and hard about what I could do to help accident victims get fair compensation for lost value, and outside of preparing an appraisal for them and directing them to an attorney that will take their case, the best I can do is to educate. So that is exactly what I will do right now!
I’ve already published one article that gives some responses to common denials, but in this post, I am going to pull out the stops and address every denial reason I can find, and provide all the proper reasons why the denials are invalid, improper, and in most cases, fraudulent.
This can be very difficult for the average accident victim. Can you just call around and get auto dealer quotes to prove your loss?
Knowledge of the proper methodologies and form for presenting valid supporting data eludes most laymen.
As a former licensed adjuster and current owner of a claim services company, I can attest to how hard it is to document diminished value in a credible manner.
The changes came in response to one attorney’s relentless pursuit of justice. Attorney Montie S. Day refused to sit idly by when he realized California insurance carriers and their adjusters were using language in official jury instructions to try and make accident victims believe they could not legally recover lost value damages. Specifically, we’re talking about inherent lost market value to automobiles, or as it is more commonly known, diminished value or simply DV. Market surveys and sales prove that damaged and repaired vehicles are generally less desirable (thus, less valuable) on the resale market than identical vehicles that have never been damaged and repaired.
What’s interesting here is that big changes are expected, yet there is no new California Diminished Value law. What the insightful Mr. Day attacked was not improper law (jury instructions are not law, and the law in California already recognized the right of a victim to recover inherent lost value aka diminished value). Instead he realized insurance carriers were using language in the jury instructions to mislead accident victims and imply that the law in California would not allow recovery of inherent diminished value, so he attacked and exposed that unfair and misleading tactic.
In a professional forum for diminished value providers, we had a member inquire about how the amount of the repair bill affects the diminished value (inherent) of a vehicle.
It is my experience that the amount of damages is an imperative factor to have in order to accurately assess diminished value.
In nearly 15 years as an adjuster, I have seen some doozies when it comes to collision repair.
Not all shops are crooks, but body shops, like any other business, are in business to make money.
Most people are not experts on collision repair, and body shops know this.
Taking your car to a body shop is sort of like going to the doctor or hiring an attorney. You kind of have to trust what the doctor or lawyer says because they are specially trained.
It is the same for a body shop, you kind of have to trust what they tell you because they are specially trained.