If you’ve had the displeasure of being in an accident where your vehicle was repairable, you’ve probably experienced a loss in the resale value of your vehicle, no matter how well it was repaired.
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.
If it is fraud, then why doesn’t the insurance company get in trouble for it?
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.
Diminished Value Denials: How The Insurance Company Is Lying To You
The vast majority of insurance adjusters have had no formal training in valuation appraisals.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that insurance adjusters work for an insurance company and are forced to work within the policies of the company they work for.
Unfortunately, insurance companies train employees and adjusters to deny diminished value claims, even if the evidence is overwhelming.
It is such a rampant practice that they even provide adjusters with several arguments to use and most companies provide form letters that make silly arguments about why they won’t pay for diminished value.
Here are the three most common arguments carriers use against diminished value and the breakdown of why they are not valid defenses to inherent lost market value claims.
For Arizona diminished value claims, there is case law that is exactly on point. It is a case styled “Paul Oliver v. James Henry”. A Google search will surely land you with a copy of the case, or you can request a copy directly from my office and we’ll send you the full case for free. That case law says that a vehicle owner can hire an expert appraiser to document the lost market value due to damages, and that an expert appraisal or testimony is sufficient evidence. This means that if you want to recover your Arizona diminished value claims, then the quality of your expert is really the thing that matters most.
Does that answer all your questions? I didn’t figure it did. Let’s break it down by the most frequently asked questions after learning that diminished value in Arizona is supported by law. (more…)
One of the most common questions I get comes from customers who have been negotiating for the recovery of their lost market value and get told by an adjuster that the amount of inherent diminished value they want is only an opinion. Faced with this argument, the customer wants to know what to say.
A claims representative or adjuster that simply refuses to acknowledge lost value and pretends that there is no way to prove the loss is a common obstacle and a tactic that is successful when there is an uninformed accident victim. Don’t buy it! Get informed and read on. . . . (more…)
Recently I was provided with a pretty big list of arguments that attempted to show why diminished market value on automobiles is not real, or at least why it is never very much. I am going to address each one, point by point so as to be very thorough. Mind you, these arguments were made by a professional who evaluates the market of stigma losses on automobiles.