What are your thoughts on this?

[TTQ B4U]

Anyone following the story about the guy who is taking Nationwide Insurance to court over the loss of resale value on his Yukon XL after it was in an accident?

Basically, he's suing them for the difference in resale he got from his vehicle vs one that was never in an accident.

 

Overall the concern should he win and this legislation be put in place is that rates for everyone will go up to cover the costs of the underlying risks then held by insurance co's. I understand and that makes sense.

 

My opinion is that I'm confused as to why the insurance co. would be responsible for this? I don't see insurance as having a responsibility to financially repay one for having an accident? I see it as a repair/replacement when needed.

 

What are your thoughts?

[HAOLE]

The purpose of insurance is to make the person whole again. If you sustain a loss, the vehicle should be repaired to OEM spec. IMHO, my car did not have after-market parts form the factory, so it should not have them after the accident.

 

In this case I assume the vehicle was repaired to OEM spec. The difference between a clean car-fax and a car-fax that has been in an accident, could be a huge amount of money. Therefore he is not whole. Unless the policy has specific provisions addressing this, he may have a case to recoup the difference.

 

As far as everyones policy going up... that will happen anyhow. I am not sure why people worry about the insurance companies bottom line so much, their profits are huge, and they will throw you under the bus without losing a bit of sleep over it.

[Drewhop]

Large Suv's have typically very bad resale within first 3 years of ownership. I just dont see how he can try and hold insurance company responsible for market trends. Hopefully this one gets shot down quick or there will be more lawsuits out messing everything up.

[V8 Beast]

The purpose of insurance is to make the person whole again. If you sustain a loss, the vehicle should be repaired to OEM spec. IMHO, my car did not have after-market parts form the factory, so it should not have them after the accident.

 

In this case I assume the vehicle was repaired to OEM spec. The difference between a clean car-fax and a car-fax that has been in an accident, could be a huge amount of money. Therefore he is not whole. Unless the policy has specific provisions addressing this, he may have a case to recoup the difference.

 

As far as everyones policy going up... that will happen anyhow. I am not sure why people worry about the insurance companies bottom line so much, their profits are huge, and they will throw you under the bus without losing a bit of sleep over it.

 

True story!!! Insurance companies only pay for the resale value of the car and force you to have gap wise to cover yourself. I think if a car is in an accident we are paying the insurance company to cover us. If we loose out in any way shape or form I feel they need to step up and zero things out.

 

They give you high rates if you have bad credit, if you get tickets, if you are under 25, if you live in a certain area, if you drive certain cars, etc. Then they raise their rates and blame it on insurance fraud. The insurance companies probably hope the guy wins.... Then they can calculate what they could possibly lose and take it off top.

[HAOLE]

Large Suv's have typically very bad resale within first 3 years of ownership. I just dont see how he can try and hold insurance company responsible for market trends. Hopefully this one gets shot down quick or there will be more lawsuits out messing everything up.

They are talking about the difference between non-accident and accident cars. Not overall resale.

 

Your are right about resale on large SUV's... I bought a 02 Z71 suburban in 04 for less than 50% of sticker.

[Skinner]

The question I have for him is

1. did he have OEM coverage? (coverage that replaces all damaged parts with OEM aftermarket).

2. Who was at fault if he was why should the insurance company pay the difference for his mistake?

3 Did he even have a Nationwide policy or was he hit by a NW policy holder?

 

Brian do you have a link by change.

 

on a side note as a nationwide employee I have no offical comment.

[V8 Beast]

 

on a side note as a nationwide employee I have no offical comment.

 

Awww, I'm telling! Insurance company owners are the smartest in the business. As long as car insurance is mandatory the big companies will always have a paycheck coming in!

[Nitrousbird]

I agree with the Dr. 100%.

 

But what isn't answered is whether or not he is suing his insurance company or the person that hit him. That makes difference.

[Conesmasher]

I believe that whether he was at fault or not WILL play a big role, but the ruling on this case would be much larger than his allegation.

 

When someone looks up the value of this car in KBB or NADA, it will be based on year, make, model, mileage and condition.........not by number of accidents.

 

If a car is repaired correctly, it shouldn't be worth any less money unless it was somehow not in the same condition, previous to said accident......which in that case the policyholder should have not accepted the work done.

 

I don't believe that the insurer can allow a car to be repaired if it will not be in "as good as or better than" previous condition.......otherwise they would deem the car a total loss.

 

I think the case might be right 10% of the time, as an informed consumer would probably not pay "market value" for a wrecked car.........however the other 90% of car purchasers in the world don't know about carfax or even know to check it out. Bottom line is there are more idiots than smart people.

 

And insurance companies don't make money hand over fist, some of them actually lose......all it takes is a couple catastrophies and many companies could be wiped out. The stability of the company is in the policyholders best interest and they should hope for profit...........unfortunately, many insurance companies are owned by stockholders, when there should be many more mutual insurance companies whereby you get unused premium back in the form of a refund.

[thorne]

Weather or not the car is back in "PERFECT" condition is not the issue. If a car fax says wreck you better damn well bet if i'm buying the car I'm not paying blue book/nada. It would not make sense to many unknown variables.

[Akula]

He's going after dimished value. If you had the choice of a car that has been in an accident, and one that hasn't you wouldn't take them for the same price. The lessor price you would pay for the wrecked one is the diminished value.

[Bahnstoermer1647545488]

There is a term for the loss in value sustained for an accident free car vs. a wrecked car, but I can't remember it. Essentially it has never been covered by insurance companies, which is why I suppose this guy is going to court.

 

Personally I feel that it should be addressed, as a wrecked car very clearly has less value because (buyer or seller), we all want to know the accident history before we buy a car for a reason - we pay less for a car with repair work done. Actually assigning a value is probably extremely difficult. The more I think about it, assigning a value to this probably means you're saying the car, no matter how well fixed, is not in "pre accident condition," even though that's what the system's based on. This sounds like a snag in the logic to justify the case.

 

If this scenario were to change, that would be a big deal.

[Bahnstoermer1647545488]

He's going after dimished value. If you had the choice of a car that has been in an accident, and one that hasn't you wouldn't take them for the same price. The lessor price you would pay for the wrecked one is the diminished value.

 

There it is.