Insurance Company Lowballing on Total Loss

[Colt]

My question involves insurance law for the state of: TN

Someone ran into my vehicle and totaled it. Their insurance company has accepted liability, but are lowballing me. I've recently put double into the car than what they are offering me. I couldn't even replace the car with one that runs based on their offer, and they're not budging. I've seen a similar car for sale for more than their offer, and it doesn't even run and has several problems like things are missing.

The problem is it is an older car. So, there really isn't any comparables around. My insurance company said to go by blue book. Which is around 500% more than their offer.

Is there anything I need to know in order to come up with a value since it is an older car? I was going to go by Nada. Obviously I know I'll have to sue the driver. Hopefully they won't tell their insurance company they are getting sued, so it would be easier in court not having to battle against a lawyer.

They said they don't go by replacement value. But I figured you were supposed to figure up what it would cost to replace the car with a similar one?

And is there any weight in the argument they are supposed to make me whole and put me in a place before the wreck? I see that mentioned sometimes, but I wonder if it has any legal weight?

[flyingron]

What you "put into it" does not directly relate to the value.
If there is really a 5x disparity in the blue book and their offer you certainly can make a counter.
Further you can assert any additional items you have that make it over and above the typical value and compute that value. You'll be lucky to get 50 cents on a dollar for those changes though.

The answer is that they are not required to restore you to the place you were before, only to compensate you for the actual value of the lost vehicle.
No insurance company will give you the money to buy a new car and then money to fix it up the way you had it before if that's what your asking.
If you have a car that's sufficiently unique, you need to look into stated value polices such as offered by Hagerty which will pay you what you need and let them subrogate against others (too late now).

[Colt]

What you "put into it" does not directly relate to the value.
If there is really a 5x disparity in the blue book and their offer you certainly can make a counter.
Further you can assert any additional items you have that make it over and above the typical value and compute that value. You'll be lucky to get 50 cents on a dollar for those changes though.

The answer is that they are not required to restore you to the place you were before, only to compensate you for the actual value of the lost vehicle.
No insurance company will give you the money to buy a new car and then money to fix it up the way you had it before if that's what your asking.
If you have a car that's sufficiently unique, you need to look into stated value polices such as offered by Hagerty which will pay you what you need and let them subrogate against others (too late now).

What you "put into it" does not directly relate to the value.
If there is really a 5x disparity in the blue book and their offer you certainly can make a counter.
Further you can assert any additional items you have that make it over and above the typical value and compute that value. You'll be lucky to get 50 cents on a dollar for those changes though.

The answer is that they are not required to restore you to the place you were before, only to compensate you for the actual value of the lost vehicle.
No insurance company will give you the money to buy a new car and then money to fix it up the way you had it before if that's what your asking.
If you have a car that's sufficiently unique, you need to look into stated value polices such as offered by Hagerty which will pay you what you need and let them subrogate against others (too late now).

You have to have a garage with those policies like Hagerty.

I guess the question is how to figure up the actual cash value on an old car? You can't look at a similar car for sale down the road like a newer car. They used a computer program to figure up the value. But the fact is I can't buy a car that runs with their offer. And they don't take counter offers. I figure I should be put in the same place as I was before the wreck which is what I've read on various Attorney's blogs. Not interested in taking out a loan to replace the car with a similar one. And I wouldn't even qualify for a loan at this time, so that isn't even an option. So, I'll only have what money I get from them to replace this car. I was doing just fine before the wreck as I can't get a loan or afford a car payment. Which is why I've put money into this one to keep it well maintained.

I guess lesson learned is don't own an older where you have to put money into it. As you will lose all that money. I just invested alot of money going through the car to get another 5-10 years out of it. I wish the car got wrecked before I put all that money into it.

I still think you are financially in the same boat if you buy a $10k newer car or spend $5k on an older car and put $5k into it. Either way you are out $10k. I can't see someone fixing up an older car, and the law says someone can deprive you of what you put into it.

If I buy $5k worth of stuff and put it in my house. And my house burns down. Then I get or most of that $5k back from the insurance company. I just don't see why it is different because it is an automobile. Now I understand why there are alot of junkers on the road. Not worth putting money into it you will lose in a wreck. That $5k didn't increase the value of your house, but you still get it back as it is still a financial loss cause the house burned down.

[DavidForthoffer]

Obviously I know I'll have to sue the driver. Hopefully they won't tell their insurance company they are getting sued, so it would be easier in court not having to battle against a lawyer.

More precisely, you are negotiating with their insurance company over whether to sue the driver.

And if you do sue, the driver will undoubtedly tell their insurance company.

If you sue in small claims court, I know that some states do not allow attorneys in court, and Tennessee may well be one such state.

The key to winning in small claims court is preparation. Use various ways to estimate the value of your car as it was just before the accident. Then sue for that amount, and be prepared to show the judge how you came up with your value.

If you win in small claims court, the insurance company may appeal, but you might have better chance going into that with a win behind you, than if you went straight to superior court.

[flyingron]

You can always negotiate. I've negotiated before on little more than I just bought tires for my totalled Suburban.
If you don't like it, you can sue but be prepared to defend your valuation.

As I stated, what money you spent to enhance a car is for the most part LOST. It just doesn't increase the value.
They don't deprive you of the money you put into it, that money was lost as soon as you spent it.
Putting a $10,000 engine in a 20 year old Camaro doesn't make the car worth $10,000 more than it was before.
Cars are not investments.

[Colt]

You can always negotiate. I've negotiated before on little more than I just bought tires for my totalled Suburban.
If you don't like it, you can sue but be prepared to defend your valuation.

As I stated, what money you spent to enhance a car is for the most part LOST. It just doesn't increase the value.
They don't deprive you of the money you put into it, that money was lost as soon as you spent it.
Putting a $10,000 engine in a 20 year old Camaro doesn't make the car worth $10,000 more than it was before.
Cars are not investments.

Nope, there is no negotiating. They don't take counter offers. My argument to them was my recent investments into the car was more than double their offer. I would have been better off if someone had stolen my car a year ago. Those thousands I just went through and put into the car as an investment to help get another 5-10 years out of it. I'd have to spend it all over again on another similar car. I just bought a $100+ battery. I don't see why I should have to buy another $100+ battery to put in a similar car to get me back to where I was before the wreck. Just one example. Also, I just had the entire brake system redone. I could have gotten 50K+ miles out of just that. So, I do look at it like I'm being deprived the use of that brake system and all the other things I just had done. As I'd have to redo it all on a similar car. I just got done putting those thousands into it to get use out of it. I don't really have extra thousands to redo the same things in a similar replacement car. Especially since with their offer, I'd have to take out a loan just to replace it with a similar car.

But I could argue that a car like mine that just had all of this stuff done to it would sell for higher than one that hadn't. Cars that have alot of maintenance history always sell for more. Every time you see a car that is top dollar, there is usually a pile of receipts behind that top dollar price. Especially when you are looking at older cars.

My hope would be is the defendant would be dumb and not show up, or just show up by themselves.

If you've got a brand new $2k TV in the back that gets cracked from someone wrecking into the car. Does that mean they don't have to compensate you for that TV since it doesn't add value to the car? If that TV was in your house that just burned down, you'd get it back. So, my opinion is it shouldn't matter whether the TV was in your house, you're walking down the street with it and someone knocks it off, or if it is in your car. You are still harmed by the loss.