Diminished Value Car Accident

ClintonL on 29/03/2016 - 02:33

Hey guys, I was rear ended a few weeks ago and had a question about the diminished value of my car. My car is being repaired by my insurer, i didn't have to pay excess or anything as i was not at fault but wondering if i can make a claim on the diminished value of my car.
The car had obtained structural damage which needed to be repaired (damage to the frame of the car). After fixing this i've heard this will now show on the car's record and when someone searches the vin. So even though my car will have been repaired the post value of it will be lower. I've read and this is claimable in the US but i can't find much info about it here. Has anyone here had any luck? I'm with AAMI if it matters.

Cheers

General Discussion

Comments

  • Marcsie on 29/03/2016 - 06:11
    +5

    I have never heard about this, so good luck :)

    • eatwell365 on 29/03/2016 - 07:11

      think you are taking about the written off vehicle registration.

      any concern, call Ami - she is nice to deal with,

  • gevidian on 29/03/2016 - 07:47
    +1

    In your policy, you will find "not covered - loss of the value of your vehicle". Meaning no claim for diminished value.

  • ClintonL on 29/03/2016 - 09:24

    I can see that its not covered by my insurance but would i have a claim against the other party's insurance company?

  • Mad Max on 29/03/2016 - 10:16

    This is a very valid issue. If you have a brand new car and someone smashes onto it they can repair it very well, but it will never be as good as new. A trained eye will detect the repair and the value of the car will be lower. In OP's case it is even worst as the damage will be recorded.
    Who has to pay for the diminished value loss?

    • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2016 - 11:56
      +1

      I haven't found a standard insurance provider (the big common few) who will cover diminished value loss. This is why I will never buy a luxury car. Too many idiots on the road. Higher car value = less likely to write off = higher chance to just swallow the diminished value loss+headache dealing with repairs for said precious car. All this on top of the massive depreciation. If I ever earn more than 10K per day after taxes, I might change my mind.

  • suchislife12 on 29/03/2016 - 12:08
    +7

    Diminished value is not a recognised Australian legal concept and there is a very good reason for this. Diminished value is a concept created by overly litigious countries such as the USA. In Australia a person is only held responsible to the value of the damage they caused or the total cost of the car (whichever is cheaper). The court sees it that the car itself should be repaired to its pre accident condition and hence has the same utility. If we have this 'diminished value' concept our courts would be filled with many ridiculous claims.

    • spychiatrist on 29/03/2016 - 12:45

      Can you claim for expenses whilst without a car (hire car, taxi)?

      • suchislife12 on 29/03/2016 - 13:25

        Yes you can provided they're reasonable. I.e if you can get there by bus you don't catch an expensive taxi or you drive a Nissan don't rent a Mercedes

        It's all about minimising your loss

        • ClintonL on 29/03/2016 - 14:04

          Would i be able to claim my public transport to work? Where would you claim this.

        • Mad Max on 29/03/2016 - 14:29

          @Clinton:
          If you are not the at fault party you can claim the hire cost of a car similar or inferior to yours. And you can also claim the extra cost to reduce the excess on the hire car to the same excess you have on your car insurance. You will have to pay for the hire car and then claim it from the other party (through your insurer if you have comprehensive insurance and they are looking after the repairs to your car)

    • unifex on 25/04/2022 - 00:36

      I don't agree. The owner of the vehicle has a had a material loss as the car is going to be worth less. The point of insurance is to insure you against loss.

  • dasher86 on 29/03/2016 - 13:33

    Diminished value would be hard to claim anyways.
    How are you going to quantify diminished value?
    It would have to be agreed by both parties

  • Mad Max on 29/03/2016 - 13:43

    Not that hard to quantify. It is the difference between the amount a dealer would have paid for your car before the accident and the amount he would pay after the accident (after the repairs).

    • SirFlibbled on 05/04/2016 - 10:28

      Except you would also need to know when you're selling the car. That value today would be different than if the OP decides to sell the car in 3 years time.

      • Mad Max on 05/04/2016 - 13:59

        Yes but the loss suffered in decreased value of your asset is today and that is what should be compensated. OP may never sell the car, but still has a car that is worth less as a result of the damage.

        • SirFlibbled on 05/04/2016 - 15:39

          legally the OP is only to be compensated to place them back in the position they would have been before the accident. So if they were going to calculate diminished value, they'd need to determine the value of the car when it is sold, not the value now.

        • Mad Max on 05/04/2016 - 16:03

          @SirFlibbled:
          The position OP was in immediately before the accident was an undamaged car worth for example $10,000. The position after the accident is a repaired car worth for example $9,000. OP has a functioning and repaired car which does the same job, but is now worth $1,000 less by no fault of his own.
          Insurances treat that loss as a risk everyone has to take in order to drive on the road. I think it could be legally challenged, however it would open a can of worms for insurers so they would strongly defend the challenge. And they have very deep pockets and a lot to lose if they lose the challenge.

        • SirFlibbled on 05/04/2016 - 18:03

          @maxi: Even if the law did accept it, they wouldn't calculate the loss on current value and the OP would then effectively be unfairly enriched because they will pocket future depreciation. This isnt the purpose of damages which is why a court would hesitate to allow it.

        • Mad Max on 05/04/2016 - 20:41

          @SirFlibbled:
          http://www.allauto.com.au/consumerinfo/consumerinfo6.html
          What you say does not make any sense.
          It is like people that have shares and when the price of the shares they own goes down they say that they have not lost anything because they are not selling the shares anyway.
          It is irrelevant if you are selling the shares (or the car) or not.
          What is relevant is that the inherent value of your asset at this point in time is now reduced. So you own a car that is worth less than it was before tha accident occurred even if it has been repaired.

        • SirFlibbled on 05/04/2016 - 21:55

          @maxi: That's how the law is.

  • Ughhh on 29/03/2016 - 13:52

    If claim is possible, then this makes comprehensive insurance useless if you hit a high end lux car like a new Ferrari. You won't have to pay for the damages, but the diminished value is probably just as much!

  • tonyjzx on 29/03/2016 - 13:59

    Sometimes you have to take the L.

    Take the L OP.

  • Baysew on 01/04/2016 - 14:45

    /gif diminished value

  • chumlee on 05/04/2016 - 20:44

    How much value do you think has diminished?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join