If you are doing research on how to get paid for your vehicle’s diminished value, then you know that the advice on the street is to get a diminished value appraisal from a qualified expert. Are you feeling lost or overwhelmed in the process? You aren’t alone!
If you have a repairable collision claim in Texas, then you may be entitled to recover for your vehicle’s diminished value. In Texas, if you file a third-party auto claim, then if your claim meets certain standards, you would likely recover diminished value if the case went before a jury.
Diminished value in Texas compares to other states in this capacity through the negligence law rules.
In Texas, if one is over 50% at fault for a loss, then they cannot recover damages from a less negligent party.
The kicker is that if they are only 10% at fault, then that 10% can be deducted from their damage amount. Some States have a law that applies negligence in a pure manner.
For example: if you are 10% at fault, then you owe 10% of the other person’s damages. If you are 61% at fault, you can still recover 39% of your damages.
The point, and to answer the question in the title of this article, is that YES you can get paid for diminished value in Texas.
Insurance companies count on vehicle owners not knowing about the law, specifically the made whole doctrine. They use the lack of knowledge by the layman to prey on accident victims for profit. Right now, many of the accident victims that are reading this article are being further victimized by their own insurance company, and many times the adjusters that are doing the victimizing have been indoctrinated to believe they are doing the right thing and that they are within the law.
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.
Anytime you’re involved in an auto accident and it was not your fault, you potentially have a third party claim.
If the at fault party has liability insurance, then when you file a claim with their insurance company and you have a third party claim.
I have read quite a few articles that give a lot of bad information about adjusters. The thing I have noticed about those articles is that none of them were written by an insurance adjuster!
I’d be willing to bet that if you have not been an insurance adjuster, then you believe insurance adjusters are almost as bad as used car salesmen or attorneys, hehehe. It is a common view. I can’t speak for every single insurance claims office out there, but I can say that I have worked for 5 different non-standard companies as an adjuster, and I have worked on contract for many standard companies as a recovery specialist with a firm.
I have never been instructed to deny any valid claim, nor have I been advised to “low-ball” claimants.
This might happen at some companies, but it is definitely not the norm. Insurance adjusters (if they care about their license) will usually try very hard to fairly resolve claims.
I will say that I have definitely dealt with some companies that have some “questionable” practices.
I won’t name names, but some of these companies simply attempt to cut costs by hiring inexperienced adjusters and giving them a “rule-book”.
It is the inexperience of the adjuster in interpreting the “rules” that causes the majority of the issues.
Most of us will be involved in an auto accident within our lifetimes.
This means that we are likely to have a claim with an insurance company; either our own insurance company or someone else’s insurance company.
After over 17 years of experience in the field of insurance (most as a claims adjuster), I have come to realize that the majority of the public just doesn’t get it (the claims process, that is).
Additionally, I also believe that the majority of auto claims adjusters don’t get it.
When I first began to speak with people about insurance claims over 17 years ago, the problem was not so apparent, but as more attorneys and less experienced adjusters come on the market, claimants get fed a lot of misinformation.
Just search the internet for auto accident claims help or some similar string of search words and you will quickly become confused on how to best approach getting a fair settlement on your insurance claim.
In my own opinion, the best approach is the simplest approach. As the title of this article indicates, critical thinking is the key to a successful claim negotiation.
As an adjuster who has handled almost every type of claim imaginable, I will attempt to give some pointers on critical thinking that we should all remember when we are dealing with a claim, adjusters and claimants alike.