Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    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.
    I didn't mean to imply that my methodology favors insurance companies, only that it was fair to both sides. Many independent appraisers work for both sides and so must alter their formula to suit whichever side they are working for. That I only work for plaintiffs doesn't necessarily make me biased. I hope that the fairness of the report demonstrates that.

    I only work for car owners and not for insurance companies. Many independent appraisal companies accept assignments from both. That, in and of itself, makes their reports less reliable. As an insurance company wouldn't be pleased with a high diminished value amount and a car owner wouldn't be pleased with a low amount, it stands to reason that the appraiser has to substitute the numbers in his formula to correspond with the client's wishes.

    My point was that my appraisals are not skewed toward either the car owner or the insurance company. I apologize if I gave the impression that I favored the insurance company.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,288

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Quote Quoting Kowalski
    View Post
    I only work for car owners and not for insurance companies. Many independent appraisal companies accept assignments from both. That, in and of itself, makes their reports less reliable. As an insurance company wouldn't be pleased with a high diminished value amount and a car owner wouldn't be pleased with a low amount, it stands to reason that the appraiser has to substitute the numbers in his formula to correspond with the client's wishes.
    Not so. If you wish to work for both, your work had better not be (at least too) skewed in one direction or the other or one side will refuse to hire you. But when you work exclusively for car owners, they want as a high a figure as they can get, and you then have incentive to deliver just that.

    Quote Quoting Kowalski
    View Post
    My point was that my appraisals are not skewed toward either the car owner or the insurance company. I apologize if I gave the impression that I favored the insurance company.
    That flat out contradicts your earlier statement. I'm not surprised since once I pointed out that the argument that it would favor the other side would make the method unacceptable you had to revert to insisting that the results favor neither side. But I am deeply skeptical of that claim since using trade-in values in my experience would give high figures — exactly the result that would favor the clients for whom you work. That's not surprising either; in valuation cases experts frequently disagree on valuations and, not surprisingly, their valuations pretty much always bend in favor of the client they are testifying for. A lawyer for that client wouldn't put that expert on as a witness otherwise. But the experts do at least have to show they are using methods that considered reliable for determining valuation. I'm not convinced your method is a good one to reach FMV, but perhaps the lawyer arguing for your method could convince a judge that it is.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    jk:
    I only work for car owners and not for insurance companies. Many independent appraisal companies accept assignments from both. That, in and of itself, makes their reports less reliable. As an insurance company wouldn't be pleased with a high diminished value amount and a car owner wouldn't be pleased with a low amount, it stands to reason that the appraiser has to substitute the numbers in his formula to correspond with the client's wishes.

    My point was that my appraisals are not skewed toward either the car owner or the insurance company. I apologize if I gave the impression that I favored the insurance company.

    "...they don’t even provide a written statement, well, I can claim I talked to anybody and say “they said”.

    The names, dealerships and telephone numbers of the six dealers are listed.

    "You didn’t address my question of whether they even see the car let alone inspect it."

    There is a paragraph in my appraisal that states that the car was repaired to factory standards so my research was done based on that. There is no need, therefore, for a dealer to see the subject vehicle.

    "Are your appraisals challenged with other appraisals? If not, then it’s likely to be true."

    Of course they are challenged and none have stood up next to mine in any court.

    But now we have Daubert in Florida. I need to get my ducks in a row. I'm state-licensed, I've published articles, etc. and feel that it would be of great benefit to participate in peer review.

    "...they don’t even provide a written statement, well, I can claim I talked to anybody and say “they said”.

    The names, dealerships and telephone numbers of the six dealers are listed.

    "You didn’t address my question of whether they even see the car let alone inspect it."

    There is a paragraph in my appraisal that states that the car was repaired to factory standards so my research was done based on that. There is no need, therefore, for a dealer to see the subject vehicle.

    "Are your appraisals challenged with other appraisals? If not, then it’s likely to be true."

    Of course they are challenged and none have stood up next to mine in any court.

    But now we have Daubert in Florida. I need to get my ducks in a row. I'm state-licensed, I've published articles, etc. and feel that it would be of great benefit to participate in peer review.

    Taxing Matters: Understood. I may have given the false impression that my reports favor insurance companies. That's not the case. I trying to show how my reports are completely impartial by showing how one segment actually does tilt the scale toward insurers. I could certainly obtain bigger numbers by researching outright sales vs. trade-ins but it wouldn't exactly be fair as most people trade their cars.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,646

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Quote Quoting Kowalski
    View Post
    I didn't mean to imply that my methodology favors insurance companies, only that it was fair to both sides. Many independent appraisers work for both sides and so must alter their formula to suit whichever side they are working for. That I only work for plaintiffs doesn't necessarily make me biased. I hope that the fairness of the report demonstrates that.


    My point was that my appraisals are not skewed toward either the car owner or the insurance company. I apologize if I gave the impression that I favored the insurance company.
    if you must alter your formula depending on who you are working for, that is intentionally skewing the numbers. This just further proves your appraisals are unreliable as you have explicitly stated you do alter them depending on what results you wish to produce.


    How can it be fair to both sides if you don’t have the same result regardless who is paying you?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    I wrote that independent appraisers who work for both car owners and insurance companies have to skew their methodology to satisfy the two completely unique clients. An insurance company would NEVER hire an independent appraiser that provided them with real-life, what the car owner will typically face diminished value reports.

    We only work for car owners so the results are always the same.

    Sorry for any confusion.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,646

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Your wrote this:

    Many independent appraisers work for both sides and so must alter their formula to suit whichever side they are working for.
    that implies that one typically alters their formula to provide a different result for one side or the other. Even if you don’t work both sides of the courtroom, it still implies you make adjustments favorable to your side rather than creating an unbiased opinion.

    I find it odd that you state an insurance company will intentionally and knowingly hire appraises that provide an improper appraisal. That suggests that somebody is willingly lying in their testimony. It also suggests the insurance company is knowingly allowing or providing inaccurate appraisals That’s a mighty serious charge there.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Please don't assume that I'm implying anything. I do not alter my appraisals to suit the client. And my appraisals are completely unbiased.

    If you'd like to know more about insurance companies and how they treat claimants making auto diminished value claims, you'll find more than enough in articles and forums to gain a thorough understanding of what I wrote.

    Case in point regarding my being unbiased. An exotic car owner wanted me to base the diminished value appraisal on my pre-accident retail value of $102,000 vs. my pre-accident fair market value of $96,000. His vehicle incurred structural damages so the diminished value was high, about 45% of the pre-accident fair market value.

    So, in front of a jury, I was able to explain my methodology. The insurance company's defense attorney couldn't put a dent in my testimony. My client wound up receiving a judgement for almost $40,000 for the diminished value + was reimbursed for all of his expenses.

    Don't you know that, instead of showing some appreciation for providing unimpeachable evidence that was instrumental in his prevailing at trial, he nonetheless felt that the few thousand dollars he would have gained had I used retail value as a basis for my appraisal was lost due to my failure to comply. What could have been lost was his entire case had I tried to provide faulty evidence.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,646

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Don’t assume? Why?

    And it wasn't as much an assumption as accepting what you described as sop for creating an appraisal


    As to retail compared to fmv: if you couldn’t accurately explain why retail value was not applicable, maybe you shouldn’t be doing what you're doing. You can explain the difference, right? Maybe if you had taken the time to explain why fmv was applicable he would have not had a problem with it.

    And i wasn’t seeking edification. I was suggesting somebody might be committing perjury or fraud. To knowingly introduce false evidence is kind of frowned upon.



    Oh, and the guy wouldn’t have lost his entire case if your valuation was not accepted. His award for damages may have been less. what you were there for wasn’t concerning whether the other party was liable. It was merely to establish how much they were liable for. Establishing liability had nothing to do with your participation. The court is clearly aware there was diminution of value and it is compensable. A court failing to award something would be improper.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Retail prices are what dealers get, not you. You get FMV when you sell or trade a car unless you are willing to sit on it for weeks until someone comes along willing to pay retail. Elementary.

    Re: false evidence, I can point to multiple incidents that I have had to clarify for clients and attorneys alike. Here's an article should you care to read it. Most people are baffled by responses they receive when making diminished value claims. Who protects you? https://minnesotadiminishedvalue.com...-value-claims/

    He may have lost his case if my evidence was impeached. The insurance company's offer to the client was Zero $$$. Sure, liability was established but if a car's diminished value isn't proven, where would that leave my client? As for the court being clearly aware there was diminution of value, A) Many judges haven't a clue about this subject (or very strong feelings one way or another - I hear that diminished value is much more difficult to attain in Dallas, which is more conservative, than in Houston) and B) It was a jury trial. They were the ones who needed convincing. I would still be having nightmares if that case was lost due to my presenting evidence that was a departure from both my SOP and reality.

    Here is what the client's wife (the actual car owner and only one present in the courtroom when I testified) wrote to me afterward. It has been redacted.

    "Dear Frank, I am remiss in thanking you for your expert testimony in my auto diminished value case. Thank you! You did an amazing job just as (Husband) had predicted. You are grace under pressure and you came across as knowledgeable and trustworthy, and I love that (Insurance Company's) attorney couldn’t rattle you one bit. I truly appreciate your time and expertise, and it was so nice to meet you. If you find yourself in this neck of the woods I’d love to take you out for good sushi! Have a wonderful week, Fondly, (Car owner)"

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,646

    Default Re: New Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in State Courts

    Quote Quoting Kowalski
    View Post
    Retail prices are what dealers get, not you. You get FMV when you sell or trade a car unless you are willing to sit on it for weeks until someone comes along willing to pay retail. Elementary.
    given your difficulties with your client, I’m actually surprised you know this. Maybe it’s a poor communications skills issue.

    But make up your mind: either I can or can’t get retail value for a car I’m selling? You start with I don’t but then finish with I can.

    The correct answer is I can and it isn’t based on how long I’m willing to sit on it. In fact, sitting on it actually tends to cause a lower price. A smart buyer is aware of how long it’s been sitting around which is indicative of it being over priced. Then the haggling starts.
    Re: false evidence, I can point to multiple incidents that I have had to clarify for clients and attorneys alike. Here's an article should you care to read it. Most people are baffled by responses they receive when making diminished value claims. Who protects you?
    ah, now your reason for posting here comes to light. It’s a very long path but it’s obviously spam. Your mention previously of your company’s name was a bit curious and now the link to a website from your company. Sneaky sneaky you are.





    He may have lost his case if my evidence was impeached. The insurance company's offer to the client was Zero $$$. Sure, liability was established but if a car's diminished value isn't proven, where would that leave my client? As for the court being clearly aware there was diminution of value, A) Many judges haven't a clue about this subject (or very strong feelings one way or another - I hear that diminished value is much more difficult to attain in Dallas, which is more conservative, than in Houston) and B) It was a jury trial. They were the ones who needed convincing. I would still be having nightmares if that case was lost due to my presenting evidence that was a departure from both my SOP and reality.
    as I stated, the judge is clearly aware of the law that diminution of value is compensable. A judge would be remiss in their official duties if they were to dismiss the case without some level of award. A. Mistake of law allows for an appeal.

    Here is what the client's wife (the actual car owner and only one present in the courtroom when I testified) wrote to me afterward. It has been redacted.

    "Dear Frank, I am remiss in thanking you for your expert testimony in my auto diminished value case. Thank you! You did an amazing job just as (Husband) had predicted. You are grace under pressure and you came across as knowledgeable and trustworthy, and I love that (Insurance Company's) attorney couldn’t rattle you one bit. I truly appreciate your time and expertise, and it was so nice to meet you. If you find yourself in this neck of the woods I’d love to take you out for good sushi! Have a wonderful week, Fondly, (Car owner)"
    your point? Would you like to read the last letter I got from a girl I had sex with extolling all my expertise and knowledge of the subject?
    My letter was just as meaningful as yours is. Probably just as much puffery as well.


    And now i see that the guy that grumbled about using fair market value wasn’t even a party to the case, I’m really missing the point of your inclusion of his argument.


    And I thought the suit at hand was in Florida. What does Dallas have to do with it?


    the underlying issue is whether the state acknowledges third party diminution of values claims. Not all states have acknowledged this whether it be through statute or case law. In fact, your mention of Dallas suggests you are not familiar with their law. If you intend on testifying in Texas, maybe you need to read up on why a diminution claim is more difficult, if allowed at all.


    So Mr. C, t since It has become obvious this is little more than a veiled advertisement, I’m done.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 3 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