Diminished value: fact or fiction?
What proponents and
opponents say about the issues
State Farm's position
A car is in an
accident. It is damaged, but it can be fixed. Body shop technicians
do their job, and soon the car is back on the street.
Is this vehicle
automatically worth less than it was before the crash -- even if it
was properly repaired? The answer is "probably not," but some would
answer raises a host of other questions. Under what circumstances might
a loss in value exist and how can it be measured? Should auto insurance
compensate the owner for loss of value? Does the relevant automobile
physical damage insurance policy cover such a loss? More important,
if current auto insurance prices don't contemplate covering such losses,
are consumers willing to pay higher premiums for what would, in most
states, be a brand-new insurance coverage?
Reduced to its
simplest terms, alleged "inherent diminished value" has within the past
five years become one of the hottest issues in the insurance and collision-repair
industries. And how the issue is ultimately resolved could have a big
impact on the insurance-buying public -- those who buy car insurance,
and those who are in accidents that result in vehicle damage claims.
While the attention
being paid to diminished value is relatively new, the issue itself is
not. An Illinois appellate court weighed in on this issue as early as
1923. In a case called Haussler v. Indemnity Co. of America,
the court said a jury should not have considered an award for diminished
value of a car in addition to crash repair costs. Only a few states
have ever recognized that diminished value should be considered as a
loss covered by the insurance contract.
The issue, however,
attracted scant attention until the late 1990s, when a few entrepreneurial
vendors began aggressively marketing "computerized" products that purportedly
would help body shops and consumers figure out how much value a car
had "lost" simply as a result of the stigma of having been in an accident.
Before long, plaintiff attorneys recognized diminished value as a potential
new arena for class-action litigation and a wave of lawsuits began.
The current debate
centers on the auto insurance policy's collision coverage, and also
on comprehensive coverage, which pays the policyholder for claims caused
by such things as theft, glass breakage, flooding, hail and other weather-related
events, and fire. Within the insurance industry, these are called first-party
Under some conditions,
diminished-value claims may be paid under the property damage liability
coverage -- called third-party coverage by insurers -- which pays for
damage to someone else's vehicle for which the insured person may be
held responsible, if the damage can be proven.
Most policies don't
mention any first-party coverage for diminished value. The insurer promises
only to pay the cost of repairs to its own policyholder's car, or to
compensate the policyholder for the car's actual cash value. Actual
cash value is generally defined as the amount it costs to replace the
property with property of like kind and quality.
If insurers become
obligated because of court decisions to pay diminished value claims
on a more widespread basis, customers would have to pay higher premiums
to cover such claims.
and opponents say about the issues
Those who argue that diminished value exists and that vehicle owners
should be compensated for it often divide the concept into two categories:
alleged "inherent" diminished value; and "repair-related" diminished
value. There are also divergent positions on other important issues.
Let's take a look at the pro and con views in each category.
** Alleged "inherent"
diminished value -- the proponents view:
According to the inherent diminished value theory, any car that has
been in a collision simply isn't the same car it was before, even if
it was properly repaired. Those who support this view claim the car
is now "damaged goods"; there is a negative perception attached to the
vehicle. They argue the car isn't worth what it was before the crash;
they say it has automatically lost some of its value just by
virtue of being involved in an accident.
their view with the following argument: If you were shopping for a used
car and you saw two identical vehicles on the lot, and the salesperson
told you that one of them had been in an accident and the other had
not, which one would you choose?
assert that if you are trading in your old car on a new one and you
disclose to the dealer that your car has been in an accident, the dealer
will automatically reduce your car's trade-in value. And they point
out that in some states, you are legally required to disclose such information
to a dealer or prospective buyer, so you may not be able to avoid the
alleged loss of trade-in or sale value by keeping quiet about the crash.
A handful of vendors
of computerized products purport to be able to measure diminished value.
They argue that even the best repairs can't restore the car to exactly
the way it was before the crash. They say a close inspection sometimes
will reveal the car has been damaged. They further claim a crash-repaired
vehicle is more likely to break down in the future.
diminished value -- the opposing view:
Insurers and others involved in the repair or valuation of vehicles
reject the notion that every vehicle that has been in an accident automatically
loses some of its value solely because it was in the accident,
even if it has been properly repaired.
The Society of
Collision Repair Specialists, which represents 9,000 collision repair
businesses and 76,000 professionals who specialize in the repair of
collision-damaged vehicles, has said that "a collision repair facility
can restore a collision-damaged vehicle to a condition that meets or
exceeds its condition prior to the accident in terms of appearance,
durability, functionality and safety. Furthermore, the proper restoration
of a vehicle does not, in and of itself, diminish its value."
Also, widely used
market valuation guides, such as the Kelley Blue Book and the National
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) book, don't have separate valuation
tables for vehicles repaired following an accident.
Most states don't
require disclosure to a dealer or by a dealer to a prospective buyer
that a car has been in an accident -- or if they do, it is only for
a damage amount above a certain threshold. Indeed, some states don't
even require disclosure of minor damage to a brand-new car unless it
exceeds a threshold. If the existence of inherent diminished value --
which is a perception, not a reality -- were provable, wouldn't market
valuation experts and car dealers recognize it in their pricing of used
Those who reject
the theory of inherent diminished value argue that the "side-by-side"
argument is too simplistic. On a used-car lot, each vehicle competes
on its own merits for a prospective buyer's attention. The market value
of a car is a combination of many factors, including: condition, mileage,
effect (if any) of any prior damage, nature and quality of any repairs,
popularity of a particular model, prior ownership, color, equipment,
trim, and whether it is a classic or specialty car.
Perhaps some customers
would prefer a car that has never been in an accident. Perhaps others
don't want a car that has had a driver or passengers who were smokers.
All of these items could be points of negotiation between the dealer
and the buyer who might be willing to pay less than the asking price
for a vehicle that's not her first choice. But none is the basis for
an objective finding that the car has automatically suffered "diminished
or "insurance-related" diminished value -- the proponents view:
Proponents of this theory say certain things done wrong during the repair
process are the fault of the insurance company and may contribute to
diminished value. For example, they say, if the repair technician tells
the insurer that specific repairs need to be done, but the insurer refuses
to authorize them, the car will be returned to the owner with incomplete
or improper repairs.
that if the car owner goes to a shop recommended by the insurer, that
shop probably will do the job as cheaply as possible to stay in the
insurer's good graces -- and accordingly, that means shoddy repairs
and diminished value. Proponents further contend that the insurance
company is obligated to either arrange for the car to go back to the
shop with orders to do the job right, or pay the customer the diminished
value. Then the insurance company would have to try to recover that
amount from the shop through a process called subrogation.
or "insurance-related" diminished value -- the opposing view:
Insurance companies and collision repair shops sometimes differ over
whether specific types of work need to be done as part of the car repair
process, and they try to resolve those differences so their mutual customer
will be satisfied. To suggest that a difference of opinion over repair
procedures always means the repaired car's value will be reduced is
It's also wrong
to suggest repair shops recommended by insurers are interested solely
in doing the work as cheaply as possible. Insurers and most shops are
interested in quality repairs at reasonable prices. Car repair shops
uniformly state that shoddy repairs lose them customers. If the repairs
are done correctly and completely, there should be no impact on the
If inherent diminished value does exist, how do you measure it?
Even assuming some validity to the concept of diminished value, it raises
some difficult questions:
"diminished value" universal among vehicles that have been repaired
after being in a crash? Even advocates of the theory don't agree on
this point. Some advocates maintain that if any car has been in any
kind of accident, no matter how minor, it has sustained diminished
value -- they support the theory of the "inherent" diminished value
of all cars involved in every accident. Others limit the concept to
newer vehicles with relatively low mileage that had major damage in
the accident. Either view raises difficult questions about whether
the perceived value can be measured on a broad basis.
what point does the vehicle "diminish" in value? Does it happen immediately
after it has been repaired and returned to the owner? Or, as some
would argue, does this occur only when it is traded in to a dealer
or sold to an individual? What if the owner doesn't trade in or sell
the car for a long period of time -- say, five years after the accident?
Does this theory of damage catch up to the depreciated value? Suppose
the owner never trades in or sells the car, but keeps it until it
has only salvage value. Has that owner suffered any diminished value
at all? If this owner were to receive a diminished-value payment from
the insurance company, should he then return it?
must add this coverage, premiums likely will go up.
Except in four states (Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee)
where some court decisions have held otherwise, insurers say claims
for diminished value are not payable under comprehensive or collision
coverages. Most insurance policies say that when the car is damaged,
the insurer will pay the cost of repairing the car or its actual cash
value (when the car is considered a total loss). There is no mention
of coverage for diminished value, and the payment of diminished value
was not contemplated when rates were established. If insurers are compelled
to begin providing coverage for diminished-value claims, they will have
to adjust their premiums to take this new obligation into account.
The impact on insurance
Courts and state insurance regulators disagree on the core issue of
whether diminished value occurs solely because a vehicle has been in
a crash and, if so, whether insurers are required to pay for it. The
trend in recent years has been toward rejecting the argument that insurers
must pay diminished-value claims under comprehensive and collision coverages.
Insurance policies, which are subject to review in most states by insurance
departments, generally limit the responsibility of the insurer to the
cost of repair. State courts or regulators in California, Florida, Texas
and Louisiana, among others, have agreed with insurers that the policy
language is clear and unambiguous.
Insurance policies generally don't mention "diminished value" or "diminution
of value." Some say this is evidence of the fact there is no intent
to provide coverage. Others argue the fact it isn't excluded is evidence
that coverage is implied.
The Insurance Services
Office (ISO), which writes policy forms used by many insurers, has developed
a form that specifically excludes payment for diminished value. According
to the online publication IRMI.com, the ISO policy language had
been approved for use in at least 38 jurisdictions as of March 2001.
State Farm has
developed an endorsement designed to reinforce what it considers already-clear
policy language to more specifically state there is no coverage for
diminished value. It is now being introduced in several states.
State Farm's position
position on the diminished-value issue may be summed up this way:
** State Farm believes a properly repaired vehicle does not automatically
lose market value simply because it has been in an accident. In most
instances, skilled repairers can restore a vehicle to its pre-accident
condition and market value. Sometimes, where repairs are not properly
done, a vehicle might lose some value.
** In rare circumstances
the combination of repairs and other market factors might also affect
the perceived market value of a particular vehicle. State Farm does
not believe in the existence of "inherent" diminished value -- that
the market value of all cars involved in any type of accident automatically
** Claims for loss
of market value aren't payable under comprehensive and collision coverages,
except in those few states where courts have held otherwise. Even if
such claims are allowed, proof is required before payment is made. Under
some conditions, diminished-value claims might be payable to a third
party under a State Farm policyholder's liability coverage. Again, proof
of the alleged loss of market value would be required.
and collision coverages should be limited to payment for repair costs
when a vehicle is repairable. Requiring insurance companies to pay for
a perceived loss of value would only serve to add to the cost of insurance
paid by all consumers.