Re: diminished value was: insurance company hassles

[Mark Williams <williamh@xxxxxxx>]

Mark Williams wrote:
> I can tell you that in the state of Texas (where the state writes the
> insurance policy) recent law has overturned diminished value for an
> insured.  These claims were paid in the past but the Texas Department of
> Insurance has recently ruled that as an insured, one is NOT eligible for
> a diminished value claim. In an uninsured motorist claim (where the
> insured is handled as a claimant) or when a claimant has damages due to
> the negligence of an insured , then there is the ability to have a
> diminished value claim.  Otherwise, NO insured is entitled to diminished
> value.

Mike Fennell  then queried....

"when a claimant has damages due to the negligence of an insured" .  Doesn't
that mean any accident when the claimant isn't at fault?

IOW, if you hit my $600k F50 (yeah, right), I'm eligible for diminished
value (and those Ferrari guys are NUTS about "no paintwork") but if I hit
something myself, too bad.  If I'm understanding this right, that seems
fair to me.

In truth, I've never known anyone to get reimbursed for diminished value
(I live in NJ, BTW) but I don't work for an insurance company.  I just
give one money.

*****************************************


Correct Mike!   In Texas you are only eligible for a dimished value claim
if you are a claimant, or if you are an insured that was hit by an uninsured
motorist.....   I agree that the ruling seems to make the statement that if you
are at fault in an  accident, then you must accept responsibility that you
damaged your own vehicle, and therefore cannot claim diminished value.


Mark Williams
Dallas, TX

------------------------------