Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Smart Shopper Questions About Auto Insurance & Accidents
4422 messages, Last post on Dec 04, 2009 at 6:46 PM
You are in the Smart Shopper Forum. Your Hosts are kirstie_h & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Aug 17, 2007 2:33 pm) Supposedly state insurance boards are supposed to regulate insurance companies and protect the consumer, but one has to wonder. I've tried to file a complaint against an insurance company for violation of state regulations. It's a sobering experience. No wonder there are so many class actions suits flying around right now. Here's an interesting website on the subject--but I have no idea how accurate or fair it is-- http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/ |
|
|
Last month the 10th District Court of Appeals (Franklin County) unanimously recognized that diminished value can be recovered in Ohio in Rakich v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 2007-Ohio-3739. This is now the law in Columbus (and I sure hope I never need it!). According to yesterday's edition of The Columbus Dispatch, the insurance company has yet to decide whether to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. IMHO the decision was well reasoned and will not be reversed if appealed. Caveat: perhaps I should say that it should not be reversed. Given that the GOP holds all 7 seats, pro-business decisions are not unknown here. Per the newspaper, the SUV in question sold for $49,000 new. Five months later it was broadsided and the insurance company paid $8000 to repair the damage. The owners are now seeking an additional $6000 for diminished value.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cccompson (Aug 19, 2007 4:52 pm) In California I was under the impression that you can sue the third party but not your own company for DOV. Insurance companies HATE DOV claims. They fight every one tooth and nail. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Aug 19, 2007 5:43 pm) It should be honored in all Property Damage Liability Claims and all U.M. Property Damage Liability claims. The more pricey or costly of the vehicle in question, the more DV should be awarded. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Aug 19, 2007 5:43 pm) LOL, the newspaper quotes the vice president of governmental affairs for the Ohio Insurance Institute as saying that the case is little more than a marketing ploy for civil lawyers and that it will have "...very little impact on how claims will be handled in the future." Right - the spin never ends. As it happens, Nationwide is my insurer and they will not pay DV to a policyholder unless the policy has such an endorsement. One of the interesting points the court made related to Nationwide's claim that such claims were inherently speculative. They disposed of this summarily by saying that one of the things insurance companies do all the time is determine before and after values of crashed vehicles. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cccompson (Aug 20, 2007 1:20 pm) Exactly! And what would compel him to choose the repaired vehicle? Yep, lowering the price. What might be somewhat "speculative" is the actual dollar amount required to convince the man to buy the previously damaged car. But we know it's going to be a substantial amount, probably 25%-35% deduct off "book".
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Aug 20, 2007 1:52 pm) 
|
|
I believe that the automobile will have its useful life shortened by being knocked up, whereas the other subject in question may just be better "broken in", kinda like a good leather saddle or a rifle after the first 200 rounds fired thru it...
|
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Aug 20, 2007 6:01 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cccompson (Aug 20, 2007 1:20 pm) I think you have it right there. Insurance companies will resist anything that increases their required pay out. Any business would. In the future I can see DV as an optional endorsement that you pay extra for. I don't know if I can agree with the logic that the insurance companies should just automatically pay for DV without some compensation for it. Some people may prefer to go without such an endorsement because they drive older cars where DV is not an issue. I can just see me filing a claim for my old farm truck. "Yes Mr. insurance man, as you can see they blended the paint all wrong and now the rust spots don't flow together like they use to."
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Smart Shopper Questions About Auto Insurance & Accidents
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
