Debunking Common Adjuster Excuses Against Diminished Value Claims
The process of filing a diminished value claim can be fraught with obstacles, most of which come in the form of objections or excuses from insurance adjusters. While it is fair to say that not all adjusters possess comprehensive training or experience, many are guided solely by insurance company guidelines that often advocate for denial of these claims. This article aims to illuminate the most frequent excuses invoked by adjusters to reject diminished value claims and shed light on why these arguments are fallacious.
“We Aren’t Responsible for That”
While this argument has seen decreasing traction as diminished value claims gain prevalence, it is not entirely extinct. Some adjusters, particularly those less experienced, may still resort to this line of defense. It is advisable to ask the adjuster to document this refusal in writing or provide legal justification for it. Practically every state in the U.S. allows for diminished value claims if another party caused the accident, effectively negating this excuse.
“The Vehicle Was Repaired Properly, Therefore No Diminished Value is Owed”
Adjusters often argue that if the vehicle is repaired adequately, there should be no claim for diminished value. However, irrespective of the quality of repairs, the vehicle’s accident history will most likely be recorded on platforms like Autocheck or Carfax. According to our extensive dealings with local used car managers, almost any record of significant damage leads to diminution. This depreciation is influenced by multiple factors such as the model of the vehicle and market demand, thereby necessitating a specialized appraisal to determine the actual diminished value.
“The Vehicle Has a Prior Accident on its History”
A history of prior accidents does not negate the possibility of diminished value. Many states employ comparative negligence laws, and multiple accidents are often accounted for in depreciation. Even if the prior accident was more or less severe, most used car managers still apply deductions for both incidents. An appraisal is often the most accurate way to assess how each accident impacts the total decrease.
“We Don’t Recognize Your Methodology. That’s Not How It’s Done”
Insurance adjusters frequently question the methodology employed in our appraisals, largely because they are familiar only with the 17C formula. However, this formula cannot capture the nuance of supply and demand in local markets. According to the Bureau of Certified Auto Appraisers, using solely a formulaic approach does not comply with their guidelines or the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Our methodology, which is based on consultations with local used car managers, has been endorsed by several defense attorneys from major insurance companies.
“Diminished Value Cannot be Determined Until the Vehicle is Sold”
Contrary to this belief, selling the vehicle is not a prerequisite for claiming diminished value. Each state has its own statute of limitations for filing these claims. It would be unjust to mandate that the vehicle be sold within this timeframe. If sufficient evidence is provided proving the diminution in the vehicle’s value due to the accident, then a claim for diminished value is entirely legitimate from the date of the accident.
Conclusion: Don’t Be Deterred by Excuses
While the above excuses may seem compelling on the surface, they do not hold up under scrutiny. If you encounter resistance from an insurance adjuster while pursuing a diminished value claim, we are here to offer our expertise and guidance. Our specialized appraisals are designed to provide the necessary evidence to counter these objections successfully.
Feel free to reach out to us for additional support and information, including sample reports that demonstrate the efficacy and reliability of our appraisal methodology.