dinished value ?

[1mudslinger]

What is the name of your state?mass
I was wondering if anyone knows anything about dimished value claims.
I've been looking at trying to get the insurance company of the driver who was at fault to pay me for any diminished value my vehicle has incurred from a head on accident I was involved in. Because the vehicle will never be worth what it was before the accident. If I'm truthful and tell an iterested buyer it has been in a accident and the extent of the damages.

[teflon_jones]

The MA insurance regulators do not support the concept of diminished value.

[1mudslinger]

Can I sue the driver at fault for dimished value? Not the insurance company.

Originally Posted by teflon_jones

The MA insurance regulators do not support the concept of diminished value.

Quit the opposite. Mass. has one of the first recorded cases in history of (DV) that the Mass. supreme court case of " SAMUEL GILES & ANOTHER v. THE EAGLE INS. CO. in 1840. It was a very interesting case one to read! The conclusion was for the plaintif in the amount of $835.00

Originally Posted by 1mudslinger

What is the name of your state?mass
I was wondering if anyone knows anything about dimished value claims.
I've been looking at trying to get the insurance company of the driver who was at fault to pay me for any diminished value my vehicle has incurred from a head on accident I was involved in. Because the vehicle will never be worth what it was before the accident. If I'm truthful and tell an iterested buyer it has been in a accident and the extent of the damages.

D.V. doesn't include the cost of repairs. The total of the repairs & D.V. could be as much or more than KBB value. Based on this you may get the adjuster to "total" you vehicle. Depending on the year and previous cond. (before accident) this might be your best ave.

[teflon_jones]

Originally Posted by Trucking Mad

Quit the opposite. Mass. has one of the first recorded cases in history of (DV) that the Mass. supreme court case of " SAMUEL GILES & ANOTHER v. THE EAGLE INS. CO. in 1840. It was a very interesting case one to read! The conclusion was for the plaintif in the amount of $835.00

What are you talking about? Automobiles didn't exist in 1840.

I repeat my correct answer:
Diminished value is not applicable in MA. Period.

[teflon_jones]

Originally Posted by Trucking Mad

D.V. doesn't include the cost of repairs. The total of the repairs & D.V. could be as much or more than KBB value. Based on this you may get the adjuster to "total" you vehicle. Depending on the year and previous cond. (before accident) this might be your best ave.

See above about diminished value not applying in MA.

Also, the Kelley Blue Book is a consumer guide and is not used by the insurance industry. The NADA guide is the correct guide to consult: [url]www.nada.com[/url].

Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you attempt to give legal advice to someone! This forum is here to help people, not give them incorrect information.

[1mudslinger]

mass supreme court found that my insurance co is not liable, but I feel that the driver at fault or his insurance co. is liable. Any comments greatly appreciated.

[InsuranceLadyAZ]

Originally Posted by 1mudslinger

mass supreme court found that my insurance co is not liable, but I feel that the driver at fault or his insurance co. is liable. Any comments greatly appreciated.

Why would his insurance company be liable? Were they driving his vehicle?

Originally Posted by teflon_jones

See above about diminished value not applying in MA.

Also, the Kelley Blue Book is a consumer guide and is not used by the insurance industry. The NADA guide is the correct guide to consult: [url]www.nada.com[/url].

Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you attempt to give legal advice to someone! This forum is here to help people, not give them incorrect information.

So why are giving them incorrect information. Maybe you need to brush on a few things.
From the "SAMUEL GILES & ANOTHER v THE EAGLE INSURANCE CO." In 1840 the Mass. Supreme Court heard this case about the fishing schooner Good Hope. Not to drag this on but DV. was awarded by the court even though the repairs were shortened at the owners request ( trying to prevent total lose )

[BelizeBreeze]

Once again idiots respond.

Poster, The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the highest court in the Commonwealth, DID speak to the issues of "Diminished Value" in Elena Given v. The Commerce Insurance Company. The case was decided Oct. 7, 2003.

In it's opinion, the court said:

"Having paid for the full cost of repairing the vehicle, Commerce was not obligated to pay anything more under any theory."

[JETX]

And more incorrect information from 'Trucked up':
"MASSACHUSETTS DOI SHOOTS DOWN DIMINISHED VALUE CONCEPT"
[url]http://www.sure-net.com/board/messages/649.html[/url]

Also:
In Given v. Commerce Insurance Company, No. SJC-08859 (Mass. 10/07/2003), by applying the appropriate rules of contract interpretation and said:
We will not torture the plain meaning of the terms "repair" and "replace" to encompass "repair" or "replace[ment]" of damage caused by stigma, a form of damage that, by definition, defies remedy by way of "repair" or "replace[ment]." There is nothing exotic about the words "repair or replace" as used in the standard policy -- both words, in their ordinary usage, refer to the remedying of tangible, physical damage. See Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1923 (1993) (defining "repair" as "to restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken"); id. at 1925 (defining "replace" as "to place again: restore to a former place, position, or condition"). No "objectively reasonable insured, reading the relevant policy language" would conclude that these terms include compensation for diminution in market value or for anything else beyond restoration of the vehicle's precollision physical condition. Hazen Paper Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 407 Mass. 689, 700 (1990).

The decision was repeated on the same date in Roth v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, 440 Mass. 1013, 796 N.E.2d 1281 (Mass. 10/07/2003)

[1mudslinger]

The at fault drivers insurance co is liable for any damages That the insured is legaly responsible for. So I think his insurance co is responsible for the loss of value. This accident will always be connected to my vehicle. Who would pay the same amount for a vehicle that has been in a serious accident and one that has not? No matter how well the repairs have been done. In this day and age of information it is very easy to find out this info. This is a serious situation that needs to be addressed, because there is no reason that I should have to pay for someone elses mistakes.

The guy who hit me was heavly medicated and was very negligent. I shouldn't have to pay for his negligence.

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by 1mudslinger

The at fault drivers insurance co is liable for any damages That the insured is legaly responsible for. So I think his insurance co is responsible for the loss of value. This accident will always be connected to my vehicle. Who would pay the same amount for a vehicle that has been in a serious accident and one that has not? No matter how well the repairs have been done. In this day and age of information it is very easy to find out this info. This is a serious situation that needs to be addressed, because there is no reason that I should have to pay for someone elses mistakes.

The guy who hit me was heavly medicated and was very negligent. I shouldn't have to pay for his negligence.

So you don't care what the law and the courts have already said because you're going to stomp your feet, hold your breath and ball your hands into little fists until they do as YOU wish?

What an idiot.

[1mudslinger]

Does the law state that the at fault driver is not responsible for any loss in value. I read the given case and I understood that it was against her insurance company not the at fault driver. Yes I am stubborn but there should be compensation for this when your not at fault. Thank You for your input.