Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Many of you are familiar with third-party automobile inherent diminished value claims against the at-fault party in a collision. The advent of Carfax and other reporting agencies brought about a change in buying and selling cars both by dealers and via arms-length private transactions. Trade-ins make up a majority of transactions. Now that prospective buyers can view a car's accident history, they have a bargaining chip by which to request a discount. If a car had structural damage or air bag deployment, a dealer can't certify or even sell it so it goes right to auction. That car will bring about 50% of it's pre-accident trade-in value as a result.

    When auto diminished value claims started trickling in, an insurance company created a formula based on numerical "modifiers" to assess diminished value of cars. The formula, known as Rule 17C, was soon adopted by insurance appraisers and independent appraisers alike. By manipulating the numbers, any result was possible. A landmark case was brought before The Georgia Supreme Court (against State Farm Insurance) who ruled that 17C was inequitable and should only be used when no other methodology was available. Appraisers still use these formulas and algorithms today, mostly because they make it simple to calculate diminished value - however accurately or inaccurately.

    In 2008 I began preparing auto diminished value reports. To determine how much a vehicle has lost in value after accident repairs I query the sales managers at recognized new car dealerships. If my client lives in Orlando and owns a Lexus, we query Lexus dealers in North Florida. We describe the vehicle, the repairs it underwent and ask them typically how much less the car would bring in trade. These dealers provide answers out of courtesy as they are also informed that the subject vehicle is not available for purchase or trade. We obtain six dealer quotes and the average reduction in price determines the diminished value amount.

    Judge Hardesty in Mobile, AL asked why we go to the trouble of securing six opinions instead of on or two. I answered "with six, I know that I'm in the ballpark." That case, along with many others, was a judgement for our client.

    The problem is that there are no other independent appraisers who go to the trouble of securing professional opinions. The truth is that I created this methodology because it represents what a car owner will encounter in the real world. There isn't a more valid method that I'm aware of. Despite this, under Daubert, the chances of my testimony being excluded seems likely.

    I have written articles that are part scholarly and part trade publishing. I'm also looking into how peer reviews work.

    Thank you for taking the time to read my posts and answer my questions.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,712

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Your method is corrupt simply due due to the fact the people you ask have an inherent interest in the outcome of the determination of value. Additionally given the reputation that car salesmen enjoy, i suspect you would have a hard time getting a court to trust their statements. I know if I was facing you I would toss in a hundred proofs showing the dishonesty car salesmen have been proven to be involved in.

    And god forbid the judge was the recent victim of an unscrupulous car dealer.


    You need provable fact. You are simply basing an opinion on an opinion from a dubious source.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,342

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    The potential problems I see with the methodology is that (a) the sample size is somewhat limited and self-selected and (2) more significantly you are inquiring about just one measure of value of a used car: what a new car dealer would give in trade for a new car, which may not be the best measure of value as there are other factors that play into the dealer's decision of what trade value to give (motivation to make the new car sale, etc). In my experience a court generally wants to see is evidence of what the car would sell to a buyer for cash in a deal between unrelated parties both having full knowledge of all relevant facts. Trade in value does not give you that. But it will be up the judges hearing your method to determine if it's good enough and perhaps some will say it's acceptable.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Much appreciated. Two points:
    1) The dealers we query aren't in line to obtain the car, they are simply giving their opinions as a courtesy.
    2) Trade-in values vs. cash sales are actually more favorable to the insurance companies as the diminished value is much less simply because a trade-in gives a dealer the incentive to take less off the value of the car being traded than in an outright sale.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,712

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Quote Quoting Kowalski
    View Post
    Much appreciated. Two points:
    1) The dealers we query aren't in line to obtain the car, they are simply giving their opinions as a courtesy.
    2) Trade-in values vs. cash sales are actually more favorable to the insurance companies as the diminished value is much less simply because a trade-in gives a dealer the incentive to take less off the value of the car being traded than in an outright sale.
    the dealers, even if they are not inline to obtain some particular car, have a vested interest in the over all result of the valuation system.

    And now what you have said that due to the difference in trade in versus cash sale, the valuation by the dealer is even more worthless (if that is possible)

    A stated trade in value from a dealer is meaningless. The trade in number is often nothing close to actual value of the vehicle. It is a means to obfuscate the negotiations more than anything else. While you state a dealer can effectively over value a car due to it being part of a negotiated sale, you are missing the entire point of setting a value for the car. Dealers often over state trade in values and use that as a negotiating tactic to not reduce the sales price of a vehicle being purchased (typical dealer statement: so Iím giving you retail value on your trade in and you want to buy the new car at wholesale prices. How is that fair to me? If you want to pay wholesale, all I can give you on your trade is wholesale value). Car salesmen are crafty folks that use a lot of numbers with no backing to confuse the hell out of buyers so as to maximize their profits.

    And you donít want something that is more favorable to anybody. You want a system that sets a valid and supportable value without regard to it being more or less favorable to anybody.



    seriously, your dependence on a dealers off the cuff valuation of a vehicle makes your system worthless. You have nothing to actually show to support your conclusions are dependable.




    So, Iím sticking with you are doing nothing more than offering your opinion based on the unproven opinion of a dubious source. It is in no way worthy of being accepted as ďexpert testimonyĒ in my mind.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    The vast majority of you who own late-model cars will trade them in when it's time to upgrade. This has always been true but these days people are even more hesitant to list and sell cars on their own for personal safety reasons, time constraints, etc.

    So, jk, since this is what you and most others are actually going to experience, in the interest of fair play, I must use this approach to best replicate what would likely happen to you in the real world.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,712

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Quote Quoting Kowalski
    View Post
    The vast majority of you who own late-model cars will trade them in when it's time to upgrade. This has always been true but these days people are even more hesitant to list and sell cars on their own for personal safety reasons, time constraints, etc.

    So, jk, since this is what you and most others are actually going to experience, in the interest of fair play, I must use this approach to best replicate what would likely happen to you in the real world.
    so you’re comfortable with the fact you have absolutely no objective support for your “appraisals”

    you also totally ignore my statement that a car dealer uses the valuation as a sales tool. Their stated trade in value will change with the salesman’s perception of the gullibility of the buyer, the time of the month (yep, those old sales quotas will play a part), what the salesman has in his bank account (hungry salesmen are aggressive salesmen), what vehicle is being purchased (some vehicles are much more profitable than others and allow a dealer to give more for a trade than they would on a low profit vehicle) and many other factors that are not a true reflection of value.

    If you believe you can establish a fair determination of diminution of value from this one single source of data, well, I have to say I think you have some particular party in mind when you give your appraisal. That alone would give rise to ignoring your valuation.


    Your methodology is flawed. If your method is not discredited in court, I believe it is because nobody cared enough to do so rather than they are accepting it as accurate.

    Has the subject car even been seen by the dealers you ask? Given it is a freebie, I presume there is no actual inspection of the vehicle beyond a cursory glance, if it is actually seen by the dealer at all. Does the dealer weigh prior incidents and accidents the vehicle has been involved in when making his determination? After all, you are attempting to determine the diminution of value of a specific vehicle. It’s history would be relevant to that valuation.

    Does the dealer provide you with a written statement of his determination of value? Will he defend that in court if need be?


    So, when you’re having a dealer evaluate the car, once he gives you his opinion, hold out your hand and say: I’ll take it. Consider his response when deciding whether to give any credence to his valuation.

    He will tell you: well, that’s the value IF you’re buying a car. I’m not going to just outright purchase the car. Of course, once they sit down to actually negotiate a deal, the numbers are likely to change radically depending on the factors I listed above. A dealer will give more weight to any issues and suppress the value when purchasing a vehicle but will attempt to ignore those same factors when trying to sell the car. That proves there is no dependability to his valuation of the vehicle and it is only a tool to be used in his negotiations.






    Now, in all fairness, sometimes an incorrect valuation is the only valuation available and as such, the court has little option but to give it some credence. That doesn’t mean it truly has any level of accuracy though. It just means nobody has bothered to disprove or contest your claim.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Thank you for participating in this discussion. You have raised valid points for me to consider. Replies to what you wrote:

    "...a car dealer uses the valuation as a sales tool."

    This is true, however, as the dealers I query were informed that the subject vehicle was not available for purchase or trade, their incentive to "take advantage" of a gullible car owner, for instance, does not exist.

    "If you believe you can establish a fair determination of diminution of value from this one single source of data..."

    That is the reason I obtain six dealer opinions, hence, six different and unbiased sources.

    "I think you have some particular party in mind when you give your appraisal..."

    I work on behalf of my client, of course. Above all, my intention is to provide fair and impartial evidence that will stand up in court. I have neither an interest in what my client or the insurance company "wants" but, instead, strive to protect my client by submitting an demonstrably impartial diminished value report.

    "I believe it is because nobody cared enough to do so rather than they are accepting it as accurate."

    Sure enough, insurance defense attorneys have attempted to do this (I handle about 1,000 auto diminished value appraisals a year) but, so far so good because whether in court or as evidenced by out-of-court settlements, St. Lucie Appraisal's methodology has not been disallowed.

    "Does the dealer provide you with a written statement of his determination of value? Will he defend that in court if need be?"

    No.

    "Consider his response when deciding whether to give any credence to his valuation. "

    Absolutely. If the majority of dealers tell me that a repaired car that had minor repairs done would typically lose 10% or 15% of its pre-accident value and a lone dealer tells me he'd typically deduct 50%, I'd either discount his opinion as that of someone who was ill-informed or that it was an outlier that I would simply not consider.

    "...the numbers are likely to change radically..."

    The likelihood of the numbers changing radically is slim. To address potential changes that could occur, I'll tell you that the only reason for a dealer to offer a car owner a radical departure from my figure is if he sees that repairs were improperly done. That is not germane to my report because I obtain quotes based on a perfectly repaired car.

    "...sometimes an incorrect valuation is the only valuation available and as such, the court has little option but to give it some credence."

    I hope that this is not the case in most courts.

    What is comes down to is whether my methodology represents an easily understandable and comprehensive means for determining the existence and approximate amount of diminished value. From my standpoint, there isn't any methodology that can and/or has been accepted as more credible.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,342

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Quote Quoting Kowalski
    View Post
    2) Trade-in values vs. cash sales are actually more favorable to the insurance companies as the diminished value is much less simply because a trade-in gives a dealer the incentive to take less off the value of the car being traded than in an outright sale.
    That is a serious problem. First, it indicates that you routinely only testify for plaintiffs, which itself can invite attack by the defense for bias, and more importantly it confirms that your method does not give an accurate fair market value (FMV); just as I indicated before. Instead, the value is distorted because of the other factors present in making a deal for the sale of the new car. If you tell a court that the method is flawed but that should be ok because you assert it actually favors the other side, the court should exclude that method because it is not accurate. Even if what you say is true about favoring the other side was true (and I'm not sure it is, my experience has been that dealers tend to overstate the value they claim to give trade-ins) that's not the standard for whether it is acceptable. Rather, it must be a method that reliably produces FMV, not one that skews in favor of one side or the other.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,712

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Quote Quoting Kowalski
    View Post
    Thank you for participating in this discussion. You have raised valid points for me to consider. Replies to what you wrote:

    "...a car dealer uses the valuation as a sales tool."

    This is true, however, as the dealers I query were informed that the subject vehicle was not available for purchase or trade, their incentive to "take advantage" of a gullible car owner, for instance, does not exist.
    you are looking at a snap shot of the dealers involvement. How about the long term implications. There are long term effects with establishing car values so the dealers statements will be subjective whether they intend them to be or not

    But considering the snapshot; why would they bother giving you any numbers if they don’t have some reason? You say it’s out of courtesy. Do you know all these dealers? Since you aren’t paying them and they don’t even provide a written statement, well, I can claim I talked to anybody and say “they said”. I guess since there isn’t much push back or competition your method works for you. Maybe I should start my own appraisal business and claim to do what you do and just make up whatever numbers my client would like to see.

    Of course since you have nothing to back up your supporting research and facts, your business and my business will look identical when our methodology is reviewed and we will have equal support for our resulting appraisals.
    "If you believe you can establish a fair determination of diminution of value from this one single source of data..."

    That is the reason I obtain six dealer opinions, hence, six different and unbiased sources.
    grabbing six spoiled apples doesn’t Make a sweet pie. Six dealers is not multiple sources. It’s multiples of the same source. You have nothing except the dealers statements to support your valuations.


    "I think you have some particular party in mind when you give your appraisal..."

    I work on behalf of my client, of course. Above all, my intention is to provide fair and impartial evidence that will stand up in court. I have neither an interest in what my client or the insurance company "wants" but, instead, strive to protect my client by submitting an demonstrably impartial diminished value report.
    so you admit you don’t provide an objective appraisal. You just killed your veracity. Working on behalf of anybody removes objectivity. You can work for a person and not work on their behalf. Real estate appraisers do it every day. They come to conclusions based on facts regardless what they’re client wants their conclusions to be.

    And since you have nothing but a claim you talked to somebody, your result does not have demonstrable support. It has anecdotal support.
    "I believe it is because nobody cared enough to do so rather than they are accepting it as accurate."

    Sure enough, insurance defense attorneys have attempted to do this (I handle about 1,000 auto diminished value appraisals a year) but, so far so good because whether in court or as evidenced by out-of-court settlements, St. Lucie Appraisal's methodology has not been disallowed.
    and again, you ignore part of the statement. Maybe your valuations are close enough the insurance companies don’t see it worth the cost of squashing you. Insurance companies are one very conscious of a risk versus benefit situation. After all, that is what their entire business model is built around.

    "Does the dealer provide you with a written statement of his determination of value? Will he defend that in court if need be?"

    No.
    wow, so you have absolutely no proof that you have even asked a dealer, let alone 6.
    "Consider his response when deciding whether to give any credence to his valuation. "

    Absolutely. If the majority of dealers tell me that a repaired car that had minor repairs done would typically lose 10% or 15% of its pre-accident value and a lone dealer tells me he'd typically deduct 50%, I'd either discount his opinion as that of someone who was ill-informed or that it was an outlier that I would simply not consider.
    obviously and as it should be. So, are any of them willing to purchase the cars at the price they give you? You didn’t address my question of whether they even see the car let alone inspect it.

    "...the numbers are likely to change radically..."

    The likelihood of the numbers changing radically is slim. To address potential changes that could occur, I'll tell you that the only reason for a dealer to offer a car owner a radical departure from my figure is if he sees that repairs were improperly done. That is not germane to my report because I obtain quotes based on a perfectly repaired car.
    hell dude, I can get a dealer to change his numbers in a few minutes by playing the game they play backwards. Yes, their numbers will change because their purpose of accepting a trade in is to sell a new or newer car to that person. It is not because they want the old car. The value they set on a trade in is strongly dependent on the prospective deal being made. If you believe otherwise, then you make a very good customer for car dealerships.

    Thjs makes me recall a purchase of a used car many years ago. It started out with $13 grand painted on the windshield. They were having a “$1000 off sale” so the 13 was lined out and $12 grand written below it. I wanted the car so I offered $7000. The guy said; but it’s a $12000 car. I said if you believe a cars value is established by what you claim it to be, I’ve got a great deal for you. I have 5 $5 bills in my pocket. Now those are really worth $20 each but since I’m in such a good mood I’ll let you have them for the bargain price of $10 each. The guy says but they’re $5 bills. They’re worth $5 each.

    and I said: and that isn’t a $12000 car.

    I bought the car for $8350 and I can assure you the dealer made money on the deal or he would not have sold it to me.

    A dealer is in the business to sell cars and make money. They are not in the business to set prices. Set prices are actually problematic for them. In fact, that works against their business model where they get to fly loose with the facts and numbers to confuse a buyer.


    "...sometimes an incorrect valuation is the only valuation available and as such, the court has little option but to give it some credence."

    I hope that this is not the case in most courts.
    you’re there, not me. Are your appraisals challenged with other appraisals? If not, then it’s likely to be true.


    What is comes down to is whether my methodology represents an easily understandable and comprehensive means for determining the existence and approximate amount of diminished value. From my standpoint, there isn't any methodology that can and/or has been accepted as more credible.
    the fact there isn’t another method that is more credible does not mean your method is credible.

    If I have a rotten apple and there are no others to compare it to, calling it a fresh apple doesn’t make it a fresh apple. When you have a chance to make a comparison, it becomes obvious you really do have a rotten apple. You apparently have not been compared to fresh apples yet.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Chemical Tests: How to Find a Gas Chromatology Expert Consultant Expert to Challenge a BAC Test
    By Hammerscastle in forum Drunk and Impaired Driving Charges
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-14-2018, 07:42 PM
  2. Trials: How to Find Expert Witnesses for a Criminal Case
    By lorie42 in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-02-2014, 07:59 PM
  3. Traffic Accidents: How Many Expert Witnesses Do You Need to Support a Personal Injury Lawsuit
    By oregon7 in forum Accidents and Injuries
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-28-2013, 10:23 AM
  4. Expert Witnesses: The Opinions of Expert Witnesses and the Extent to Which They Can Fulfill Their Role
    By NikkiGosbee in forum Legal Practice
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 01:19 PM
  5. Medical Malpractice: Fees for obtaining medical records and expert witnesses.
    By jsstarr in forum Malpractice Law
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-13-2006, 11:10 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources