Marketplace: Canada's consumer watchdog, we've got your back. Watch Fridays at 8 p.m., 8:30 p.m. in Newfoundland and Labrador
Crash and Burned  Comment Icon 125 Broadcast DATE: Friday, February 18, 2011
Download Flash Player to view this content.
Crash and Burned
Co-host Tom Harrington investigates what some call the best kept secret in the car insurance industry: why insurance companies prevent people from claiming diminished value insurance on vehicles that have been in a significant collision.

Harrington’s own car was in a collision and he takes it to a dealership for an appraisal and discovers how much value it has lost—even though the damage was repaired expertly to the manufacturer’s standards.

He talks to a B.C. man who is taking his insurance company to court, and travels to Georgia, where paying out diminished value insurance claims has been the law for almost a decade.

Will the laws ever change here?
Your Comments (125)
In reply to a comment from Tom Cino

35 years of car sales experience, now ICBC pays you tens of thousands of dollars to deny the fact that diminished value exists. You are on ICBC's side....cause they pay you very well to do so.

In reply to a comment from Tom Cino

Funny how ICBC pays you tens of thousands of dollars every year and you deny in their defense routinely in court that no such thing exists, you claim to be an expert but are just a ex car salesman. ICBC pays you your bread & butter you do and say what is in your best interest.

In reply to a comment from Richard

Sometimes people are merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was just driving along when I got hit by a bad driver. He lied to Collision Reporting Centre and insurance companies decided to assign guilt 50-50. So it's not always as cut and dried as simply driving better.

You do realize that in Ontario the auto insurance is Government regulated? So it is not he insurance companies denying this coverage...people need to contact their local MPP to effect that kind of change here in Ontario. But, keep in mind, the more the insurance companies cover, the more they will pay out, and the more people will pay for their premiums!

In reply to a comment from Richard

Or sometimes perhaps some 87 year old woman comes flying out of a parking lot into a main throughfare and t-bones you....much like happened to me on Saturday.

I made the best choice I could, slam on the brakes, blow the horn and swerve. She still got me!

Now through no fault of my own, my 2010 Dodge Ram with less than 20,000km has had its value significantly impacted.

So, Richard. According to you I am a bad driver and not taking responsibility for the accident I got into this week? Are you suggesting I take responsibility for the first accident I have been in in my life in which "the other car" ignored a red light and plowed into me? I made a bad choice of choosing to proceed through an intersection on my green light? Hope your revolutionary ideas continue to serve you. Certainly doesn't help me.

In reply to a comment from Tal Shayo

Your type of insurance was Waiver of Depreciation and not insurance for Diminished Value. You cannot purchase Diminished Value insurance. It is a responsibility of the insurance company, according to the standard automobile policy S.P.F. No.1, to put you back to the position you were before the accident and repair. This is not an additional coverage purchase - it is built into the policy but Insurance Companies deny it exists. A diminished value appraisal will prove that it does exist.

In reply to a comment from Richard

How do you make a better driving choice when you get rear ended?

In reply to a comment from Richard

This is one of the most ignorant comments ever! Does it not occur to you that when an "accident" occurs when a driver makes a wrong choice, the driver of the car they hit is guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Single vehicle collisions are in the minority. Most collisions involve one or more other vehicles and when those collisions are caused by a driver's inattention or risky behaviour, the other drivers are victims of that error.

Here's a revolutionary way for avoiding being "defrauded" by insurance companies: don't crash your car.
This attitude that accidents just happen is such a load of crap. If people took some personal responsibility for how they drove, for understanding the limits of their driving abilities and being aware of the environment around them (put the damn phone down!), there would be a whole lot less "accidents".

An "accident" only occurs when a driver makes a wrong choice. They choose to drive too fast for the road conditions or for their abilities. They choose not to shoulder check when merging. They choose to ignore the fact that they are driving too fast at night for their headlights. They choose to be ignorant enough to think all season tires are "good enough" in the winter. Accidents are the results of bad choices.

If drivers make better choices, there will be fewer collisions and less to complain about with their insurance companies.

In reply to a comment from John Johnson

So I imagine everyone would be ok with the insurance company deducting diminished value from the total loss settlement for a previously repaired vehicle? I can hear it now, "Well Mr. Smith, you had 2 prior accidents before this one and your vehicle had "diminished" in value by 50% prior to this last accident, so as we are responsible to put you back in the position prior to the accident , here's the ACV of your vehicle less 50%....what...oh you want the full value...it was repaired fully...well the sale/resale industry says the car had "accelerated depreciation" which we are entitled to apply when considering the actual cash value of your car..." Oops...now what...How about another CBC show on how the insurance companies are applying Diminished value and how unfair it is to the consumer?? Think it through people.

The problem I see if diminished value is given to people is that it essentially allows people the 'withdraw' value from their cars if they do not sell it during its lifetime.
In other words the value of usage of the car is not diminished if repaired correctly, so if it is not sold during its lifetime the owner would make a monetary profit on the car.

In reply to a comment from Wow

Bravo! Well said Wow.
People need all of the information before attempting to make an intelligent statement.
It is simply a sad world emerging forth.
Fraud is a daily part of insurance payouts, especially injuries, vandalism, thefts, etc..and unfortunately, most of them are impossible to disprove without both parties spending thousands in in the court system.
It is absolutely disgusting what people are able to get away with these days. No one seems to take that into consideration when jumping on insurance companies, just how much money is thrown to the wind praying the carma comes back to cheating people of this lovely World!

I am not sure why people are wondering why they are paying higher insurance rates. My rate has always stayed the same or lowered from year to year. Why? Because I am not a bad driver. I do not accumulate demerit points. I do not speed, I do not commit traffic infractions. My insurance company sees me as a low risk driver to submit a claim. Hence, my rate has never increased.

I know other drivers who have been driving longer than myself. They get speeding tickets, have been involved in collisions and have committed traffic violations. They pay way more insurance than I do.

If you are fed up with higher car insurance rates, become a better driver. Stop yick yacking on your cell phone while you drive. Stop applying make up while you drive. Stop texting while you drive. When you are behind the wheel, your only focus should be on driving properly.

A unified voice of consumers is required.
We ( drivers ) need to protest the ever increasing isurance rates without any logical reasons EVERY year!

Matt comments are correct to a limit. I had this coverage and when the collision occured and the vehicle was written off, the insurance company was willing to pay only for the current whole sale price of the vehicle if purchased at the time. So let's say you paid $40K for the vehicle, but the insurance company can buy the same vehicle brand new for $35K at this time, they will pay you only $35K notwithstanding the price you paid for the vehicle. This is something to keep in mind since car makers often reduce the prices on their vehicles when new model year comes around. So in fact, you may get hit with depreciation even if you have the coverage.

In reply to a comment from Matt

Matt,
Across the board rate increase to me means that every insured without exception gets %X of rate increase. Clearly this was not the case.
Plus, when you call to get a quote from an insurance company, they ask you if you have had a claim, at fault or not at fault, why?
All I know my premium did not change much for many years, until I made 2 claims both not at fault. I got 2 increases , each after I made the claim for damages to my car. I think insurance companies like to sell a printed pink paper and make the people pay for all the costs.
And finally my question from you Matt is, why you are defending an insurance company that is technically your competitor? Is that just because you are a good christian or it is because at the end of the day you guys are all golf course buddies?

My insurance rates went up by almost $200 per month for simply moving my address to Windsor, ON. This is about a 70% increase for simply moving to a new city, plus worst part is it's all just liability! I have a few speeding tickets, but no accidents, so I never cost any insurance company a single penny. Diminished value insurance? Who cares! Cover the real story! Insurance companies rule Ontario.

If you think that this topic is the "best kept secret" of the auto insurance industry, I wish we could spend an hour share with you some of the other serious breaches of fair business tactics and examples of intimidation happening in the auto insurance industry of this province. My husband deals with it every day. He and some other business men in the area have actually formed what the newspaper calls a "coalition" to try and get the government, either provincial or federal to see what the true cost of insurance is in this province, and in this country. Anytime you have an hour to spare, we would really like to talk.

In reply to a comment from tldrkhnsm

Insurence is not responsible for bringing a car back to its "pre-accident value" it is there to bring the car back to its condition just before the loss whether it was and accident or theft or vandalism or hail etc.

Tom this is a good show but I think that it is also worth your time and effort as well as the the insureds interest to take a good and hard look at collision reporting centres and ask why a very good share of the insurance companies are now partacipating with this private company that facatalates in accident reporting I am sure that you will find that it is a win win for the insurance companies as their is now a very large increase in fifty fifty claims thus resulting in preimun incresaes to both or all parties reporting this way so both or all parties now have to pay full or partle deductables as well as increased auto preiums.
It is also worth looking into as the number of claims for injury have climbed disportionally as per the tables from M T O prior to these private run reporting centres thus possibly more fraud and we are all paying for it.

These private run centres are not only in Toronto but are poping up across north america as their name has in it INTERNATIONAL.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK

There was so much left out of this show. For example, insurance companies don't write the auto policy, the provinces do. Every insurance company sells exactly the same coverage, collision coverage worded the same at every insurer. If you want diminished value covered, lobby your local MPP.

In reply to a comment from Jafar Ronaghi

We add a rollover in a 2007 Ford Ranger it was brand new at the time we hit black ice it is awonder we wern't killed.At first Autopac said it was only going to cost $7000 but it actually cost $17000. We paid that extra insurance so we get the cost of a new truck if there was an accident but they wouldn't do it the truck was in and out of the repair shop it was not fit to drive so we had to trade it in so we went in the hole big time.
And we are in our sixties we can't retire for one of the reasons is we are still paying the bank.
So i really don't trust Autopac.

Incredible work here Marketplace. You protray this a huge cover up by the insurance industry when I don't see it that way at all. Shame on the Insurance Bureau or any Companies you approached for not commenting on this. In one sense I can see why they didn't want answer to such a biased report. I'm sure your reporter would only take parts of conversation to support his mission.
The Insurance Industry would love to take this on if they were able to make money on it as they do on the other coverages they offer...but again that appears to be a big no-no for a company to make money. What a can of worms you would open by making this coverage available. It would create a whole new industry in evaluating the 'Diminished Value'. Yet one more mouth feeding on the insurance industry. Lawyers would love to have part of the action to 'protect' the public from the big bad insurance companies who didn't diminish the value of the vehicle enough after that scratch was buffed out, oh yeah while they made money ... Car Dealers would love to have a piece of the action too as they would be able to buy the car cheaper and probably make a bigger profit on the resale, as I'm sure they wouldn't pass the whole 'diminished value' on to the new buyer...oh did I say profit again oops. I have never seen a vehicle on a lot that was being sold for less money because it had a bumper cover replaced. Maybe Marketplace should explore that next, 'The Truth behind diminished valued car sales'.

Let's get real here and recognize that if this becomes law here, we will all pay more for insurance, then who will we blame...I know the insurance companies as they should absorb the extra loss. They need to make a profit to be in existence..same as any company we all work for..or they wouldn't be in business. Wait I have an idea....let's make insurance government run because they have shown us time and time again how they can run agencies leaner and meaner. Our taxes wouldn't go up they would probably go down.
Again shame on you Marketplace for not giving the whole story and for the Jerry Springer antics. Calling an insurance agency to see if Diminished Value is covered when you know it's not available...great reporting. I'm embarassed for the gentleman that was in the accident by putting him in the position of calling from the collision centre.

I know I'm done watching Marketplace. Keep up the good work.

I drive a used car that cost me $2,000. How could I benefit from "diminished value"? The only folks who benefit are the ones with expensive cars. My insurance cost would go up to support their self-indulgence possessions. And who is dreaming in technicolor that costs won't go up? This benefits the few and I'm totally against it. Life isn't fair, get used to it.

The OAP 1 (your auto policy) covers only "Direct" damage losses.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the insurance industry.

Diminished value is solely a fabrication of the Auto sale/resale industry.

In reply to a comment from Patrick

If insurance companies were making $$hundreds of millions, there would be loads more companies, everyone would undercut each other and prices would come down.
Insurance is government regulated (heavily - same as the banks - this is, thankfully, why Canada faired relatively well in the Recession). Read some Financial Statement and loss reports.

In reply to a comment from tldrkhnsm

WOW.
Do you wish to pay extra for this type of insurance?
Please look at a variety of different insurance companies' loss ratios for 2010 before you send anything.
Many companies don't make ANY money on auto insurance. They just sell it so they can be in the market for home, commercial and life insurance.
Co-operators' aim for auto insurance is to be able to keep 2-3% of auto insurance premiums after claims. It's actually more like -25%.

In reply to a comment from Sudbury Bob

I don't think anyone's debating it's real. It's real and it's unfortunate.
But do you want your rates to go up to cover it it? No. Me neither.
What if you get into an accident and an insurance company pays you the diminished value. But you absolutely love the car and know you're never going to sell it, until a flatbed comes to take it away for scrap. Will you refuse the Diminished value payment? No. Me neither.
It's absolutely impossible to regulate and enforce, and leaves the door WIDE open for fraud. Plus people don't want to pay for it.

In reply to a comment from Insurance-rip-offs

Insurance-rip-offs. What's your point? Factless displeasure at having to pay insurance?
Please find some actual basis for an argument. Maybe have a look at figures on how much insurance companies pay out on claims each year. 2010 will surprise you.

In reply to a comment from Jafar Ronaghi

Jafar,
I work for another insurance company, but I'll defend RBC (somewhat). The person you were talking to obviously wasn't clear in understanding or explaining. Your rates weren't increased because of the crash you weren't in your car for. They were raised because of accross-the-board increases. Not at-fault accidents won't affect your rates.

The best way of adjusting for diminished value should be when the vehicle is sold. The difference between the fair market value (car with accident vs. non. accident vehicle) should be paid out by the insurance company. I think even is 25%-50% is even reasonable.

Just an idea.

In reply to a comment from Mark

Thank you for your comments Mike. However as a provincially licenced insurance employee I believe I have a fairly good understanding of what your policy covers and doesn't.

If a provincial regulatory body such as FSCO, would olike ON to offer this coverage we'll be happy to do so for a premium.

But surely you can see the issue that AFTER the car has been fixed it will continue to depreciate, and that the re-sale value will differ from dealer to dealer.

I know everyone hates to pay premiums for their insurance but the issue of coverage is something you should address with you MPP, since the ON gov;t is who sets the wording and coverages of the auto insurance.

In response to Crystal: your policy is set to idenify you against named perils. Depreciated value is not a named peril in ON

In response to Insurance Rip-offs: feel free to let us know who the 5% of non-corrupt companies are. Consider we are all regulated by the same federal and provincial bodies you should let them know these sorts of pertenant facts.

Lastly (as I will not be checking the posting any longer), our friend in GA that opened the eyes to this issue. Courts in Texas, Maine, South Carolina, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota, Illinois, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and Texas have agreed with State Farm and ruled against the concept of diminished value.

In conclusion. If anyone feels they are being hard done by by their insurance be sure to let your MPP, and MP know about it. They may or may not legislate changes to the Insurance Act. but don't complain when the rates are adjusted for this issue

In reply to a comment from Insurance-rip-offs

Insurance in Canada is so heavily regulated that there is not alot of wiggle room for insurance companies to bypass circumstances to come to there own conclusions about accidents as you have so stated. Scenerios for accidents are labeled in a chart - all the adjuster does is apply the chart to the accident details given by both parties involved. If an accidnet does not fit into the chart then the adjuster must rely on case law to determine fault. It's that simple. Insurance in Canada is really quite fair for the most part. Most insurers are not even making a profit off of there auto business because of all the fake injurie claims being filed through corrupt rehab clinics and paralegal firms. Maybe Marketplace should do an episode on that!

I've read through a variety of comments here and I'll start off by saying, yes I work for an insurance company aka the big bad wolf. I do agree with some comments here indicating that insurance companies *could* help out more with 'diminished value'. However, having said that Insurance companies are here to make money, if you think otherwise you are massively mislead. They could help out but don't think for a minute they won't make the consumer pay more because they have to pay more. Don't believe me, look at the changes to Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. Unscurpulous consumers took advantage of accident benefit claims and ruined it for the rest of us who claim with 100% honesty. The fact of the matter is the insurance industry can't appease everyone. There will always be individual situations which people feel they are getting 'fleeced' by the insurance company, however there are just as many cases where insurance companies go above and beyond to help restore people to the same situation they were prior to the loss. Fact is next to used car salesmen, insurance will always be looked at in a negative light. My final comment is simply, let's say the insurance company does pay out 3500$ in 'diminished value' and you never go on to sell that vehicle, thus never have actually accrued the 'diminshed value', then you have profited from the loss and you can EASILY see how more unscrupulous consumers WILL take advantage of that as well. Two sides to every story folks. Think about it.

In reply to a comment from Joey Chitwood

nobody in the insurance industry is saying this isn't real. It doesn't look like much attempt was made to tell both sides. Accelerated depreciation isn't covered by most insurers current wordings. To include this type of coverage would cost additional premium - as much as 2X. It's difficult to assess and this adds to the cost. Georgia is a poor example because insurance in Canada is a different animal altogether. Insurers actually pay claims here! Loss ratios in many provinces exceed 100% based on current rates and loss levels. This is uneven reporting at it's best. More CNN than CBC.

Our car was involved in accidents twice. In both occasions other driver was at fault. (in 2nd accident we were not even in the car) Not only we did not get paid for diminished value of the car, but also our premium was raised after both accidents by RBC insurance. We called RBC insurance and made objection to unfair premium increase by them and were basically told thats the way it is, take it or leave it. I think insurance law as it is written does not fully protect the consumer and favors the insurance companies.

In reply to a comment from David

unfortunately, there are far more people taking advantage of the ability to fake personal injury. Thousands of "staged" accidents are occuring each year just so people can milk the system and profit from it.

In reply to a comment from Jason Luque

Hello Mr. 1.5 times smart.... the episode is not covering depreciation of vehicle in relation to time(months or years) or general maintenance or general repairs...
they are talking about that big chunk of actual value of vehicle(market value) which gets sliced off in few seconds due to no fault of owner.

and if Marketplace has added "working" examples of Georgia or anywhere else then it is to open eyes of few extra-intelligent people who would have argued later on that "this diminishing value of vehicle after accident" concept is B.S.

and now coming to the point...95% of auto insurance companies are corrupt.... now you will ask why..
coz 99% of your adjusters issue more than actual damage value claims and share money...insurance companies by-pass major factual circumstances before putting any driver at-fault. Insurance companies force their rules on insurers ...the list has no end...
Now the second face of insurance companies...REHAB clinics and other people involved in settling injury claims work with insurance adjusters to suck money for years together and everybody in ONTARIO/CANADA knows this thing (last time i i checked it showed that i was in Canada)...

I have read all of the comments and I feel that the problem of Accelerated Depreciation has not been clearly set out on the show. There are manay factors that must be looked at before a claim for Accelerated Deprciation can be put worth. It has been proven many times that what the car deealers
tell you and what they actually do with your trade are two completley different senarios. It is the Automobile Industry that is cauisng the problem.

You don,t necessary to be in an accident to have your vehicle depreciate in value as soon as you agree to purchase a vehicle and sign the papers its classed as a used vehicle losing 25% of its value

In reply to a comment from Juan Zapata

Ok so let's do that...let's add that coverage...by the way - your rate is going up again but I'm sure that is OK with you right? There is only so much that can be done for free!!!You are being protected from from financial devestation resulting from an auto accident. You are not being protected from the pitfulls of living in the real world where other people occasionally make mistakes that may affect you negatively....really come on!!!!! This is ridiculous!!

As a Journalism graduate now working in the insurance industry I have to say this is pretty shotty "investigative journalism". First, at one point in the show the insured calls his company and advises at the urging of the journalist that his car has depreciated by $2100 because he has $2100 damage...I suppose that would be true if they DIDN'T REPAIR IT! I find in comical that a federally funded media outlet is blaming the insurer for federally and provincially created and regulated policy wordings....

Diminished value is real. The reason a damaged car is worth less is because it has to be declared to the new buyer. Thats the law! If you had a choice between buying a car that had $5,000-$10,000 in previous damage versus one that never had any damage, which one would you buy? Generally a cars value drops by 10-20%, if it had been in an accident, depending on how much damage it had and how well it was repaired.

All our insurance industry friends with their comments here... blaming Tom....blaming the C.B.C. ...blaming the local M.P.P.s .... suggesting biased reporting and on and on.....It's everyone else's fault accordidng to the insurance industry posters here......So tell then tell me why NO ONE from your industry accepted the invatation to appear on camera to explain their side of the story?? I suggest their lack of camera time tells us every thing we need to know about where the fault and blame truly lie.

Dennis asked why should his vehicle be worth less after an accident even though it was fixed with new parts?

The show gave the answer. The fault is OURS. We refuse to pay full value for a vehicle that was in an accident and don't even care how it was repaired. The assumption is as one lady on the show said, 'it is never the same again.'

However, to suggest the insurance companies are responsible makes no sense. You insure your car against the damage, not the value of your car.

To those who like to 'trade their car every two or three years', if you have an accident with that car, too bad. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

Crass? Not as crass as my having to pay yet more insurance fees for their vanity. Do these people think the insurance companies pay out their claims with money from some tree growing in the office yard?

I'm a little disappointed with CBC for running this story. I'm sorry, but if anyone learned anything new from this episode, they are seriously out of touch with automotive reality.

The defensiveness of posts by auto insurance reps is quite telling. "Insurance" - bah! It's simply a misnomer and doesn't really "insure" anything. The car owner, not at fault, should be compensates to bring the vehicle back to its pre-accident value. Why should he suffer a loss? I, for one, will be writing the Insurance Bureau of Canada and my MP!

In reply to a comment from Jason Luque

when you talk about insurance replacing batteries and tires , you are talking about something completely different, you are comparing apples with oranges. if some one hits my car, and is not may fault why I should lost the difference of the market price of that year, I think the solution is the insurance company gets me a car the same model , year and make with not accidents ,and then take my car, repair it and sell it .
I think the car insurance business must be own by the provincial government. those profits instead of going to the pockets of a few, would be going directly to the government revenue to improve roads, transit, health care and much more programs.
car insurance in ontario a rip-off

I have spent years in the autobody and insurance industry. Many people "plead" for their vehicles "not" to be written off, but repaired instead. Other older high line exotic vehicles are restored and the price goes up, yet if a vehicle is repaired from a crash it is worth less based on what dealers will tell you? Strange that a new vehicle if it sustains damage to the vehicle prior to it being registered can be repaired by the dealer up to 20% of the value of the vehicle and they can sell it as a "new" vehicle with no discloser regarding the damage! Example; if the vehicles retail value is 30,000.00 then they could spend 6000.00 repairing it and not have to mention a word.
The rest of us have to disclose anything over 2000.00 (not including tax) and then the dealer will tell us the car is worth less. The 2000.00 has been in affect for at least 30 years. That would cover alot of damage back then. Today's cars you can get there with replacing a couple headlights and painting a few panels. It is good to have to disclose damages but the 2000 needs to be changed by the government to a higher number and the dealers should have to disclose the same amount. If they did then you would see them not lowering values on vehicles to give them wiggle room to make an easier sale. As well there are many court cases that have shown no accellerated depreciation or diminished value if the vehicles are repaired correctly and many vehicles are sold for the same amount. The dealers low ball and then sell for full amount. You never see a vehicle on a lot with a "reduced, previously hit" sign and they will not mention it until after you have test driven, really like the vehicle and are working on a deal.
The system allows for hypocrosy and should be changed but should the insuarnce companies who have an agreement with insureds to repair their vehicles using industry standard repair procedures be left holding the bag? As others have comments it will cost extra for our premiums. There is no way around it.

"Crash and Burn" had a bad title albeit with good intentions ending with weak results.
An automobile is a depreciating asset. If you are unlucky enough to have been involved in an accident, insurance companies and repair facilities will ensure that it gets repaired properly to "pre-loss" condition.
However, a permanent record now exists that an loss payout (by the insurance company to the vehicle licensing ministry or equivalent)has been transacted against that vehicle. This will now show up on a vehicle history report(s) available to purchase.
The fact of the matter is a damaged/repaired vehicle will always be held financially prejudice versus the same make/model that was not.
Moving forward, if a market demand arises for an insurance product or endorsement that will hold 'safe' the end residual value of a repairable damaged vehicle, I am sure the insurance industry will offer it as an option to purchase with your other endorsements such as collision coverage, rental car coverage and other optional endorsements.
"Crash and Burn" unfortunately fell short of delivering the whole story. Don't totally blame the CBC or Marketplace, remember the insurance industry and it's governing bodies refused to be interviewed and/or comment for this show. Why? There is really nothing to hide here. It is simple marketforces at work.

my question is not so much to insurance company but Ministry of Transportation. when we buy used car we pay tax on market value but they have the record of, whether, the car has been in the accident. so Ministry still charge us the full market value tax for that car. Why? they force us to purchase car history package.

thanks for that report and teaching me what i dont know thanks

I was hit from behind with my 2010 Accent and it was only 5 months old. I had 2 appraisals done on my car after it was fixed and I had a $3000 dimminish value on my car after the accident.
Even though, my car was fixed and you couldn't tell the difference I was told it has a report that comes with the car now and there was not a dealer around that would keep it as smashed cars go to auction. I was hoping to trade it in after 1 year and now I have to deal with it.
It is truley unfair...and not my fault.

First, I am an attorney practicing law in the State of California. I usually don't comment on this issue or on line, but the show is right on.

Second, I been working on this issue for three years (34 years and attorney and former Criminoal Investigator).

Third, there is so much FALSE information out on the Internet, but this show got it right.

Fourth, in the U.S., from my research, the undpaird claims is about $55-65 Billion per year, and in California about $3-4 Billion per year.

Fifth, I did five DV cases in California last year, and got judgment on all of them. In one case, the jury found the DV at $24,000.00 on a car which was worth $37,000.00 before the accident, and found that the Insurance Company's position was "bad faith". To see only coverage on this, search Google terms "Wawanesa Insurance Liable for Bad Faith". Wawanesa Insurance is a Candian company doing business in California.

Note Also, in California, if a seller sells a vehicle without disclosing it was in an accident, the seller is liable for the "fraud". In another case, Superior Court of California, which I did list year (not against the insurance company), I represented a buyer who paid $16,500 for a used car (Mercedes), later found out that it was in an accident, and when the seller was offered to the opportunity to settle the claim for $8,000 (diminished value), the seller refused. The jury verdict was for actual "diminished value" of $8,250.00, plus $33,000.00 added for "punitive damages", and then there was court costs of about $7,000.00 added, and then an award of attorney fees against the seller for $40,000.00, for a total judgment of about $88,000.00. I have collected over $40,000, and going after the balance.

Rule: Seller Beware. Don't commit fraud and fail to disclose the accident.

Rule: Yes, you can recover Diminished Value in California.

Current actions:

Filed suit against State Farm and Mercury Insurance for "Bad Faith".
The insurance companies claim that they have no obligation to pay diminished value---I am proving them wrong and done so five times last year.

Good luck to those taking the insurance industry in Canada on.

In reply to a comment from John Johnson

I'm afraid you are greatly mistaken here. This is not a myth, but the reality based on consumers' perception of the product. As long as consumers have less confidence in a vehicle that has had to be repaired, you cannot demand the same price as a similar vehicle that has not been. Now, since the government requires that any accident be disclosed, it does follow that they have the capacity to force requirements to protect property owners from loss or damages. This is a loss of property value, that the owner must incur and this is a gross injustice, and an affront to the sensibilities of any rational human being. The point here, is that the insurance companies are playing dumb with us, and out governments are not doing their part; something you would expect from a corrupt political regime with mafia style run corporations... but not in a country that is supposedly democratic and is supposed to follow principles of the rule of law. Insurance companies are making $hundreds of millions in profit, and this has been ever increasing since "no fault" came in; wake up people!!!

In reply to a comment from Andrew Lau

All the consumer has to do is record the VIN, get a Carfax report and/ or go to the provincial registry to check the vehicle history. I've been to auctions where the vehicle's status is clearly printed as ACTIVE, SALVAGE, OUT-OF-PROVINCE, REPAIRED or PARTS.

In reply to a comment from Karlie

In Alberta, we have AMVIC - Alberta Motor Vehicle Industry Council. If any member dealer is disreputable, this Council will investigate claims and has the right to revoke membership from uncooperative dealers - just like the Law Society or any governing agency. Relating to a magazine cover story idea, who's watching the watchdog?

I remember reading years back, about a gentleman who was giving a lecture in Canada. He did research across the USA regarding "No Fault" insurance, and in all the States that went back to the previous system, the consumer was the absolute winner. No Fault takes away our right to sue for injuries and damages, so basically you get your car fixed and away everyone goes. Except your car is worth less, and there is basically nothing you can do about it, but take the loss. So, why are we paying all this money for insurance, if we are not going to yield the benefits of having insurance? This is typical here in Canada; everyone bashes the USA, but when it comes to individual property rights, they are light years ahead of Canada. Years of poor political leadership in Canada and in the provinces have created this quagmire, where consumers have very little protection from anything, unless you start a class action lawsuit. And, if you want to laugh further, compare the US State Lemon Laws to our Camvap system (if you can even call it one). It's time Canada got with the program, and moved up to the 20th century (the 21st century may be too big of a leap for us just yet).

I think folks are missing the point of the show.
The premise of Insurance is to put the insuree in the same position as before the accident happen.
We all know that the car devalues over time, thats what market value is. But if someone has an accident the car automatically devalues even more and the insurance should pay the difference between the market value of the car before the accident and the 'new' market value of the veh after the accident.
Example, car bought new for $25000 last year and today is worth $15000. If the car had an accident today it would not be worth $15000 anymore but maybe $10000. Before the accident the insuree had a vehicle worth $15000 and after the accident it is only worth $10000. The insurance should pay $5000 for the depreciation.

In reply to a comment from Dennis Jarvis

Hi Dennis, I'm in the same boat.I am trading in my TL wich was hit at a green light no fault of mine and I'm being hammered with an extra $35.500 off the value of my car.We need help. Alan

Although I would not normally side with insurance companies, this time I feel compelled to come to their assistance. If insurance companies were to pay this amount at time of accident this would not make sense as technically you are not out of pocket until you actually sell or trade in your vehicle. What I would propose to keep some sort of balance for both insurer and customer, is to have an assessed accelerated depreciated value set aside, and paid at time of sale. At time of sale would be the only time that a value could be assessed. So if today your accelerated was assessed at $5000 that amount would get set aside by the insurance company for you to file claim against at time of sale. You may only decide to sell this car three years from now, at which time your accelerated amount may only $3800. This amount would be paid to you at this time. The balance $1200 plus accumulated interest would go back to the insurance company. I am sorry if this opinion differs from yours, but I am not prepared to pay the equivalent of 25% of my vehicles value, annually to insure my car. I feel that if insurance companies are forced to pay accelerated depreciation up front, there will be legitimate arguments by insurance companies to raise rates. This is my opinion, and I believe once you take some time to think about it, you will agree with me.

In reply to a comment from Jason Luque

To respond to your comments, it doesn't matter what province it is, an accident is an accident. If it was as simple as saying "their laws are different" you can bet IBC and the insurers would comment. You miss the whole point of auto insurance, to put the insured back in the same position as they were prior to the loss. Wear and tear is not the same as diminished value. I have a certain value in my vehicle, and if the accident takes away that value, then the insurance company should pay for that. The whole point of showing Georgia, was to show that it CAN be covered by insurance companies, and that it will not bankrupt them, nor will it cause premiums to increase. Every province has some sort of depreciated value coverage for total losses. Sinister value should be covered as well. The insurance companies know this. Why do you think no company or the IBC wants to comment on this?

Diminished value on a vehicle is one thing but what about the diminished value on your home when a gravel pit is approved and begins operation across the road fromn you? If anyone has heard of a way to claim for this please let me know. At the very least you'd think your property taxes would fall to reflect the diminished value. Good luck!

My car was damaged at no fault of my own and the resulting repair left the paint mismatched and there were about ten spots where dust had gotten into the paint. When I complained to ICBC, they said I'd have to take it up with the shop, which I did. They buffed out the faults but the paint was still slightly off shade to the original paint and it was quite obvious the door had been repainted. To make matters worse, during the reassembly of the door trim, it was not aligned properly and the electronic window/lock controller on the arm rest was damaged which meant yet another trip back to the shop and more wasted time for me. Time lost is not compensated. This is not fair. It seems insurance companies of all sorts find ways to lessen their responsibilities which leads consumers to feel they are not being treated fairly. There needs to be a revolution by consumers to make insurers face up to their full responsibilities. CBC should do a followup on this story but concentrate on personal injuries. There are lots of cases where people have been given the runaround when injuries are involved and that just isn't right.

Question, If this is true that the value of your vehicle has been reduced (do to an accident)you would assume that the auto insurance company would automatically adjust your premiums to reflect the true value/worth of the vehicle? I bet that's not happening,so realistically your being screwed over twice!!

OK, some reality here:

The insurance you carry on yor car is defined by the terms of your insurance policy: essentially a contract. Many things are covered by your policy; many things are not. If you want more situations covered by your policy, your premium goes up accordingly.

IF YOU'RE NOT PAYING PREMIUMS FOR IT, YOU CAN'T EXPECT TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR IT. I suspect the very high cost (probably as high as "collision") of such a coverage would make most people opt out anyway. I'd hate for it to made mandatory: it would likely double your minimum premium.

My infiniti was in a no fault accident. Other driver ran a red light. $15,000 damage. Went to trade it in two years later offered $5000 less than listed value. Now driving it into the ground. Never had an at fault accident. Diminished value should be included in premium.

I have all the information on Accelerated DEpreciation in BC and your segment was not correct in many ways.

My experience with insurance companies is they never like to pay, and will spend inflated amounts of cash, not to pay a claim! Even if it cost them more then the claim itself. I had the misfortune to be in a rear-end collision, and was 100% not at fault, yet when it came to repairing the vehicle, you have to argue for every little thing. Even though the vehicle was a total loss, their first offer was thousands less than the rough price, in a wholesale book used by dealerships. So consumers can only use internet
sites, such as Auto-Trader.com. You find as many vehicles listed as possible and divid by the number of ads, or if you go out and purchase the same vehicle as soon as possible, then your entitled to replacement paid, otherwise insurance companies love to make offers before you have a chase to check what it would cost to buy it again.

I would support Diminished values or accelerated depreciated values.

Ok so if people think diminished value should be something that we pay after car accidents here in Alberta then dealerships should pay us the diminished value the vehicle gets the minute you buy it and drive it off the lot.... I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing I've Heard of all day. A vehicle is a depreciating item as it is, it will rarely appreciate so if it gets into a accident sadly you have to deal with it! It's the risk you takenwhen you buy a vehicle, and if you don't seem to understand that, read you auto policy before watching these so called insurance experts.

In reply to a comment from Mary

It's called indemnity....

You have paid in for years, and now have had 3 accidents that were your fault.

I don't want to pay for your carelessness... So, I agree that your premiums should go up.

My issue with this argument is that the "diminished value" only comes into play when the vehicle is disposed of....

If I have a vehicle that is damaged and repaired today, but I only sell it or trade it in in a few years, the diminished value will be a lot different.

For example. I have a vehicle worth $20,000 and it is repaired, for a diminished value of $15,000. I've "lost" $5000. I sell the vehicle 5 years later, and get $7000 for it, vs. a non-repaired equal vehicle that sells for $9000. The loss is now $2000.

If this is ever going to be sorted out fairly for people that suffer a reduced value after an accident, we all will be paying for it. Insurance companies have not been making money over the last 5 years, so where is the extra benefit payment going to come from??

If we want to fight for more fairness in our benefits, we have to fix some more glaring issues with insurance, including uninsured drivers and fraud, otherwise we will all be paying through increased premiums.

This is ridiculous, Mr. insurance broker... we shouldn't have to pay more...this should be included. I pay 2000$ a year for insurance. Explain to me why I should pay for a negligent driver who rear ended me. I have already spent on the gas plus my time to get the estimates done. Do insurance companies need to make billions of dollars every year! I hope insurance companies get eaten alive by the courts. I encourage everyone to sue!!!

In reply to a comment from Andrew Lau

"When the demand from consumers, who want to pay extra to cover "diminishing value on their vehicles and/or houses" is large enough, I guess the insurance industry might design an endorsement for that." ANDREW MY FRIEND: That is the same as saying " Hey Andrew go to Tim Hortons for me....I want an Extra large Triple Triple...Heres $1.74 for my Coffee and Oh I'm going to give you an extra $.50 to get the order right" When I request Insurance on my Car I am Expecting that my FULL COVERAGE IS FULL COVERAGE.....No loop hole, No "diminished Value",No getting Screwed by You. I was recently screwed for 5000.00 on a 2008 Aveo Car. I was T-boned -not my fault- I was financing-still owed 13000 on my car-your industry offered 8200. We need something to protect the Finacing aspect of your Industry. I have recently heard cases where you can literally buy a 2011 Truck drive off the lot Smash it and Your industry will automatically offer ATLEAST 7-10 thousand less than you just payed 5 minutes Earlier. PLEASE TELL ME WHERE YOUR NOT SCREWING US?

In reply to a comment from Karlie

It is unfortunate that you are pushing blame on the car dealerships. I work for a reputable new car dealership...I appraise all trades and I purchase units for my used car lot. The policy of this dealership is to sell accident free cars. In the wholesale market, comparable units that are accident free and those with significant accident claims (+$3000), do have very different wholesale amounts.

I choose to buy accident free units...despite the cheaper accident units that are available.

As far as finding the car lot with "the accelerated depricated units"...it isn't hard take a look at Auto Trader...we live in a society of perfect information...the units that are the cheapest are most likely the ones that had the hit...this is not rocket science...why would a dealer be under current market value unless something was wrong with car (accident, flood, fire, US Grey Market vehicle, etc...)

Take this as a word of advice on used car...don't buy the cheapest one...you are rolling the dice...despite the enforcement of OMVIC...non-disclosuse is still practiced by dealers.

We are not all crooks...the truth is out there!

Insurance companies don’t want to contribute towards “Diminished Value”? Yet they give themselves credit for “Increased Value”!
My Murano was rear-ended a couple of years ago. When adjusters presented the settlement statement, there was a line-item subtraction for ‘increased value’, because, from their perspective, my vehicle left the body-shop with newer replaceable parts (namely the muffler, etc.) than it had before the accident. Their argument was that I wouldn’t need to replace the muffler as early as if the accident hadn’t taken place, therefore, that added value should be reduced from what they paid to repair the vehicle.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander – if they wish to ignore paying claims for “diminished value”, they should also ignore settlement deductions for “increased value”.
Andre L Major, Ottawa

I watched your show about car Insurance,with great interest.Put that story on a bigger scale,a house,what would happen,what would the Insurance Co's do????? I know what they would we have been living with it for 2 years.after an accident at our home,through no fault of ours.We are still not back in our home,and your station is the only
one that will do a story about Insurance Co"s
I can tell you that it is a nightmare,when you are dealing with Insurance Co's !!!!!!!!!!!!!
They have all the power ,regardless of the situation,and its all about the almighty dollar,regardless of what the price is !!!!!!!!!!
Our story is more common than the public is aware of,tv,stations are afraid to tackle Insurance Co's ,I dont know why,they canmake a persons life a living nightmare,and,I would be willing to tell our story ,about how they tore a family apart,without hesitation,and how they spend thousands of dollars trying to correct the problem,and only made it worse,yet they cut us of from our living expense,without hesitation,and there are four children involed,where is the justice,freedom of speech,we are dictated to by an Insurance Co.!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that anyone is afraid to touch the Insurance Co's.????????????????

To Jason Luque and other insurance agents that are in this post. I would not take your opinion at all as credible as you are working for an insurance company. Why should we pay so much for insurance when they just rip us off by charging us more for premiums and lose the value of the car? Your industry does not suffer by the profits they make from us and that also includes the dealerships. As long as you are accident free you are okay but forget it when you have a claim. So what is insurance for? And we know not to trust the dealerships either. We found that out for ourselves when we were looking to buy a car. Thank goodness for Marketplace to put businesses in their place.

I highly value Marketplace broadcasts. I looked at with great facination the way insurance in Georgia handle the diminishing value of the cars. Now I know that it is possible to do it. This is what I am going to fight for. Thank you for the lead.

Responding to comments by Geoff & Amy, I've been an insurance broker selling ICBC vehicle insurance since its inception in 1974. I would just like to comment on the various endorsements you can buy for "limited depreciation" or replacement cost" - the latter being a little better coverage - to replace your vehicle with a new model of the current year - whether the owner or the other driver is at fault - for example, if your 2010 vehicle was declared a total loss you would be entitled to a new 2011 vehicle of the same make & model & options, even if the cost is higher than the original cost of the written-off vehicle.

So this doesn't happen if your vehicle isn't written off; if partially damaged it's repaired - usually with new parts/not jobber parts if you have the limited depreciation or replacement cost coverage.

Where I agree with Tom Harrington is based on the very principle of insurance - as Peter Fan states - it's supposed to put you back in the same position you were in before the accident. If I'm driving a $20,000 vehicle that I'm planning to sell, there's an accident that's 100% the other driver's fault, and because buyers will want to pay less if my vehicle has been in an accident - even when it's been repaired to a high standard - why should I have to suffer that loss of value or "diminished value"? The entire principal of insurance or indemnity is to return the person with the damaged vehicle to the same position they were in the second before the accident happened - not owning a vehicle that's worth thousands of dollars less.

In reply to a comment from John Johnson

Yes, a car is a depreciating asset, but there is no question, that there is an accelerated depreciation the moment an accident happens. This episode is about accelerated depreciation as a result of an accident, not ordinary depreciation. Accelerated depreciation can cost thousands of dollars....which if you are paying your insurance premiums, you should be entitled to receive.

In reply to a comment from Jason Luque

There's a difference between depreciation, which is not covered by insurance, nor should it be, and accelerated depreciation which is the result of an accident. Isn't it why we buy insurance to protect us and give us the peace of mind that if there is an accident we are covered from losing money.

In reply to a comment from Karlie

That's not the same issue. What you're talking about is the difference between paying a premium for buying something brand new and getting a reduced price for buying something used. It would be the same if you bought a camera and then tried to sell it on Craig's list. It wouldn't be worth what you paid for it in the store because it's used.

the informatin you provided was flawed. I have been a vehile appraiser in BC for 35-years. I have been involved in setting some precidents inthe Supreme Court with regards to Accelerated depreciaition. I have ben involved in as many as
20 trials and i would be glad to give you the proper information on this topic. I found the segment did not capture the true meaning of Acclerated Depreciaition and in fact the major insurance companies do agree it exisits and I wil tell you how a claim is made and won

What about the environmental impact of this move?

Currently we are writing cars off hand over fist. Scrap yards are full of cars that they can't sell parts for because everything is being stroked. That is NOW. Start adding this ambiguous "accelerated depreciation" cost into the total loss calculation and more than half of the claim vehicles will be Total Loss'd.

And what if you never sell your car and drive it into the ground? Do you get to keep that $$ as profit? Well then you are in conflict of the insurance act which says that nobody can legally profit from an insurance claim. How do you plan on getting around THAT one?
Or what about this scenario. Typically, any damage over $2k needs to be declared. But say you own a new BMW and all that's happened is two broken headlights. Well BMW Xenon headlights run about $1800 a piece. Bolt on modular parts that will have absolutely zero impact on the performance of the car, but we need to be compensated for that? To quote Keyshawn Johnson; C'mon man...

The fairest solution is obvious: if you resell your previously damaged and repaired vehicle then at the time of sale is when the diminished value is professionally appraised against current blue book value. If you drive it into the ground, then you get nothing, otherwise you get what you lost in the sale at the time of the sale. Professional appraisal keeps it from being abused.

My observation is the diminished value of your vehicle is lost by you and gained by used car dealers. Here's what happens:
1) You trade in your repaired car at greatly reduced value to the dealer because you can't sell it.
2) The dealer sends it to auction.
3) Used car dealer buys it at auction for cheap, and then sells to unsuspecting buyers at blue book value.
Think about it: you've lost thousands, a used car dealer lies and makes thousands, and the next owner finds out the used car he just bought is worth a lot less or even worthless.
Think about it: how many no-name used car dealerships are there per square kilometer in Canada? How many people do you know have bought a lemon from one of them but are unaware or ashamed to admit it? Remember the stat is ONE MILLION accident claims per year in Canada.

I would like to contact the gentleman in the story, the one from BC. I think there is a case to be made for a class action lawsuit by other drivers in the same situation that he is in. There might be more strength to the lawsuit, and I for one would join any such class action lawsuit.

In Ontario FSCO dictates how auto insurance is handled. EVERY Ontario policy is the SAME, an Insurance company Can not simply take offer additional coverage or not offer a coverage dictated by LAW.

CBC, how can the insurance company cover something by LAW they can not.

why not ask government to change the LAW?

BTW in Ontario ALL insurance companies pay out more then they take in, this will add to cost.

How can this be sustainable.

This is yellow journalism at its best, you guys ask leading question even interview someone who has a vested interest in doing these types of auto insurance.

My tax dollars to a waste.

In reply to a comment from Jason Luque

This coming from an insurance salesman. Way to “toe the line” for your company, I’m sure you believe everything they tell you.

I believe that if you where not at fault you should be compensated for lost value. I know that if you trade in your vehic;le you have to declare the accident

If one wants to purchase coverage for acceleratted depriciation why shouldn't they be able to? I'm not saying it should be mandatory but why isn't the option there? To say that value doesn't go down after an accident is dillusional. Buy a wreck and try to sell it. You'll have a heck of a time trying to get rid of it, let alone at the same value as an original non-wreck vehicle. Same goes for a less serious accident such as a rear end hit. It may not cause severe depriciation, but it WILL cause some unless it is not disclosed- which is illegal. If your car is worth 22,000, you get rear ended, and after being fixed with oem parts, it's worth 19,500, are you not out 2,500 if you were to sell right now. WHY should you be out 2,500 if you were not at fault. Why in the he!! should I be out $2500 because some id!ot can't ste on the brakes quickly enough. Like the guy in Georgia said, you have the right to sell your vehicle at any time, you should be payed diminshed value as if you were to sell it tomorrow.

I am in the process of legal process against a new car sales dealership in regards to trade in. The vehicle was in an accident, just under $8,000. There was some kind of confusion in the verbal agreement to the trade in and after numerous contact with the dealership I was told that the trade in amount was the low end of the black book price minus 100% of the repair amount. This is not right at all, hence legal proceedings plus the fact that there was no agreement to this.
Vehicles are fixed and approved through insurance therefore they should be at their value prior to any accident.
I think the problem lies within the dealerships.

I think that diminished value should only be paid when you come to sell the vehicle. Insurance is expensive enough as it is without pushing up prices. If you keep the vehicle for 15 years it will be worth less than if you were to sell the vehicle at 5 years old making the diminished value less for the older vehicle.

It's not the insurer's responsibility to pay for what a "dealer" thinks the value of the vehicle is. If a vehicle is repaired up to government standard with a lifetime guarantee, there should be NO ADDED DEPRECIATION, AND YOU ARE A TOTAL GOOBER IF YOU THINK INSURERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, PERIOD.

is it law in all the provinces to tell the buyers if a car has been in an accident.please let me know if you know for sure .i have a feeling it is not . i live in manitoba ,i think that is why a lot of car sellers bring in cars from other provinces for sale ,because they buy these cars at a low price because of DV,and sell them from full price because you don.t have to tell the sellers if the car you are selling has been in a accident.

I live in Quebec, Dec. 29th 2009, I was hit in the front of my vehicle by a car that lost control. there was more than $12,000.00 damage to my 2008 Mazda 5. there was just under 40,000km on it. I have purchased replacement cost insurance for my vehicle, so since the air bag deployed, (which everyone tells me is a sure sign of a write off) they repaired my car. I am not pleased with this decision, and it took until Feb. to get it repaired. The body shop tries to tell me it's as good as new, but I don't feel it is. There are rattles that weren't there before, the paint is not well blended on the door, as well as many other things that displease me. I paid extra for an insurance that has done me no good.

I don't think this topic goes to the roots of car insurance problem. First, insurance rates are not regulated at the federal level; the rates are different from province to province; by law, at federal level you are required to have insurance. The insurance companies have a gold mine in their hands; they can apply what rate they want based on internal policies that only they know. There is no transparency what so ever. It is the best business somebody can have. Second, the government don't care about the rates; the taxes coming back are higher the more money the insurance companies are making. Don't everybody would like to get a business like this? Government imposed purchase of products from your Company and you price your product the way you want. Great business!

In reply to a comment from Amy

opcf 43 only applies if the vehicle is a total loss. They made that point on the show. Coverage is NOT available in Ontario for this at this time, however should it be? It is, in my opinion more of an issue today with company's like Car fax providing consumers options to choose not to buy cars that have been in an accident, thus depreciating the value of these cars. However IF they were to make this coverage available the insurance company's wouldn't pay the extra cost of claims, we would with higher insurance premiums. It is unfortunate that they made it seem like the slimey insurance company's are choosing to pay us less when that is infact not the case. With our current economic state and the number of complaints from consumers I suggest this isn't something we need to push for. Further it would likely encourage fradulent claims because people would literally profit from small claims and insurance rates would be raised even further.

In reply to a comment from John

I agree, if enough people want the coverage, then they can be prepaired to pay the fees associated with it...at that time lets see how many people will all of a sudden not think that diminuished value is such a big issue...

Not a big deal!
If diminished value was covered, and it increased claims by 20%, you would see premiums rise by 20%!

So, if I get into an accident and I have my dealer ship repair the vehicle, what everyone is saying is that my car is depreciated because they can't fix it properly. So much for my dealership. I don't believe we pay any extra in premiums for this so called diminished value, so is everyone ready for a premium hike? Ontario has one the riches Auto Mobile policy and if the companies are going to pay it, the rates will have to go up.

Great just what I need...to pay more on my insurance...Thanks Tom

I think this story is misleading and irresponsible. When there is a loss, the job of insurance is to return the vehicle to the state it was before the loss - no less and no more. It is not about financial gain for the insured - which is exactly what paying for depreciated value is. Not to mention that insisting upon depreciated value being returned to the insureds would only increase the exorbitant price that we are already paying.

As an insurance broker, just for once, I'd like to see a story about our industry that doesn't make us seem like the bad guys.

In reply to a comment from John

I agree 100%.

Amy, the OPCF 43 only "kicks in" with total losses, not with a partial loss, hopefully you are not an insurance agent cause that's scary that you dont know that.....

Only problem with a show like this is it suggests that the insurance companies should pay for diminished value, but all it means is increased premiums for consumers. Just who does Marketplace think they are helping?

Not sure why this is an issue with insurance companies. Just because vehicle dealers wont sell your car for what it's worth and just because consumers wont pay full price for a vehicle in an accident is not the fault of insurance companies. Would consumers pay extra premium for this coverage. Ask an America how much they pay for this coverage. I'm sure people would not be happy with their rates going up to add such a coverage would they. We all know they complain about $1 increase, try paying for this added coverage.
Further to that houses that have floods or fires and are repaired do not lose value when they are sold so basically this concern is being driven by supply and demand of consumers and people need someone to blame cause heaven forbid they pay for something themselves. To all those out there that are unhappy that consumers will not pay market value for their cars that have been damaged in an accident, I ask you, would you pay full price for someone else's car that was in an accident?? People complain when they are the ones that are losing money....someone else must pay cause I wont

I have a new (6 months old) Acura TL that was just rear ended, cost to repair, almost $11,000. Why if it is repaired with all NEW parts should I have any depreciated value???? This is something that has to change as I pay insurance to protect me and make me whole, I trade in every 3 years and expect a certain amount at that time. No way should I be out of money when I was not at fault at all.

when I lived in North Carolina, my 4 month old VW Passat was rear-ended by a SUV and sustained @ $8000 damage, mostly because the parts had to be sent from Germany. The highly reputable repair shop recommended we hire an automobile appraiser to determine diminished value. This was not covered by insurance. The appraiser stated our vehicle suffered $5000 diminished value, advised we might have to go to court and he would testify. It was then we discovered why a reputable appraiser was important. When we submitted his documents with our claim to the other insurance company we settled at $4500 without going to court. Now that we are back in Canada, I would do the same thing if we were the victim in another auto accident.

Oh Please!!! the value of my car goes down the minute I sign the bill of sale on my new car, if i was to go back to the dealership later the day i drove off they would stick it to me for couple of grand at least...maybe you should investigate the business practices of these dealerships, insurance is regulated by the Ontario Government but there is no watch dog for dealerships. Please! They are not even requested to supply a used car pkg like someone who is selling their car in a private sale, so how can they claim diminuished value..maybe you should investigate them instead...

Almost all of our lives are "regulated" by the 3 levels of government, but those "regulations" are bent in favour of businesses or people with influence in government. The average Joe gets screwed. CBC knows about, it but if a story is NOT "sexy', CBC DOES NOT spend TIME TO DELVE INTO IT.

I have always felt that the value of the vehicle at the time of accident is what should be paid. Anything less--as insurance has been paying --puts double jeopardy on the innocent owner---higher insurance & diminished value.
I do know of one case where I helped a guy buy a car and in 4 wks, he ran a yield sign and smashed it. Well--surprise! Insurance paid him almost twice what he bought the car for, although the car was exactly the same as when bought!

In reply to a comment from Dean Boudreau

That's no "dirty laundry"! Today, only publicity --BIG PUBLICITY-- helps to check the crooks! There's not enough airing of "dirty business' laundry"!

To begin; we will all have to wait and see what the program offers, but I share the sentiment of the message board from all the information that has been posted so far.

What I have seen and read so far is unsettling, and frankly irresponsable reporting. Interviewing someone from BC, has absolutly no barring on ON, MB, or any other province in Canada. In fact BC insurance is regulated by ICBC, a provincial gov't operation, so if the individual has issue with the policy perhaps they should take it up with their MPP. Painting with wide brushes, never tells the exact story.

Secondly, what releveance (other than trying to prove Tom's point), do the statements of an individual in Georgia have?, we live in Canada last time I checked.

Moreover, here in ON (where i reside), your auto policy is not written (specific wording controlled by FSCO) to cover depreciation. Why should the insurance industry be on the hook for something they are not collecting premium on?

The argument is so off base, and rediculous, I had to send in a posting. By Tom's logic, your insurance company should pay you for used tires, batteries, and also general maintenance of the vehicle as well, after all isn't that depreciation.

Similarly would you pay the same amount for a used computer that had to be refurbished with similar parts, or would you pay a bit more for the computer that has all the original pieces ?

As a LICENCED insurance employee I feel these types of one sided stories are highly irresponsable and lack credability. Frankly I am somewhat concerned that our tax $ have gone to put this type of programming on the air. It's unsettling to know that a crown corporation can have cart blanche to falsely protray a story and dimish the credability of private businesses, which by the way are regulated by provincial and federal regulatory bodies.

But then again I guess its just another example of tax $ hard at work.

People always have it out for inusrance companies. Becareful on what you wish for becuase if insurance companies have to pay diminished values that cost has to come from somewere. So don't bitch when your rates go up!

Seems to me the used car salesman took him at the dealorship he dealt with. Remember it is their job to buy the car as cheaply as possible and then to sell it for as much as possible. (If the car was fixed at the dealorship's own body shop, they are telling him their own trained technicians did not fix it properly, to manufacturer's standards?) Cars are built to be fixed. Is a car devalued if you replace it with a non-OEM battery. Of course not. Seems to me he listened to a Used Car Salesman and beleived what he told him and gave his money willingly away to
him. Moral of the Lesson: Do Not Take At Face Value Everything You Are Told; Think For Yourself. (I am still driving an 12 year old car 10 years after it was in a very serious accident which required everything from the firewall forward to be replaced and it is a great car (300,000 klms) and runs fine. The repair shop did an excellent job fixing the car and stood behind the repairs 100%.

I am an insurance agent in Ontario.

Some readers had already discussed about "depreciation waiver", so I would not add more comment.

Insurance industry can always design a product to cover all economic, emotional and diminishing value losses. However, there is no free lunch. How much would we want to pay extra for that extra coverage?

As for the auto insurance industry, we pay to have client's damaged vehicles repaired properly as per manufacturer and/or Ministry of Transportation safety standards. We have made good to our promise to our clients. When the demand from consumers, who want to pay extra to cover "diminishing value on their vehicles and/or houses" is large enough, I guess the insurance industry might design an endorsement for that.

I agree with Dude; is there any used car dealership set up an area where prospects could buy those well repaired vehicles at thousands of dollars cheaper than market value? Even with new cars, we ended up paying different prices, not to mention NO TWO USED CARS ARE THE SAME! So, all of a sudden, buying and selling a used car became insurance industry problem.

In my opinion, it would be unfair to blame this on insurance industry. When nothing happens, everyone complains that we pay too much on insurance; yet when something happened, we complained that we had not purchased enough, or we were not sold adequately by insurance agents.

I am an 80 year old senior gal.I have had car insurance with the same insurance broker since 1973-and have paid thousands of dollars to this company during that time. I have NEVER had an accident on the road - but in 2005 moved into an apartment with 5 underground levels of parking with concrete pillars and walls throughout. In 2005 and again 2010-in moving over to let another car pass me- I scraped by back fender and was paid a total of $3,887.00 for both repairs. Also in 2010 in a parking lot I grazed the van beside me and the other driver insisted that her repair be paid by her insurance company. I also reported the incident to my insurance company-they took pictures of the slight mark but it was so insignificant that no repair was ever done.
I drive a 2008 Buick Allure. In 2010 my premium was $1,218 - and to renew my insurance with this company my 2011 premium would be $5,591.00-almost 5 times the previous year - More than recouping the total amount paid out to me since 2005 in just one year- and would still be very high in the future. I have talked to other insurance companies and they say I have "2-at-fault" accidents and no one else will insure me!!
This is not insurance - this is "highway robbery"

In reply to a comment from Amy

Right on, Amy. Negative reports from media on the Insurance Industry are famous. The Media never go to the right people for answer they just want to get some poor guy on there that wants tro complain and knock the Insurance Industry. Tom, shame on you for bringing your personal situation up for discussion. If your not happy talk to Insurance Adjuster like the rest of have to. Don't air your dirty laundry on TV!

As the report says, Georgia State has a law regarding this, so obviously there were legitimate consumer concern they felt they had to address by making it the law. Looking forward to hearing about this aspect of the report.

In reply to a comment from Amy

Amy, the OPCF 43 limited waiver of depreciation is only valid for two years from the date of purchase of a brand new vehicle and only to the original purchaser. After two years the endorsement expires.

(I do believe TD has their own version of this endorsement that lasts a little longer, but I don't know enough about thier policies to comment with certainty)

Catchy subject: "Carsh and Burned"? Burned by who? An insurance carrier that is forced to follow the rules set out by the province? This is not an insurance carrier issue. This is a question regarding auto insurance regulation. You need to speak to your local MPP, as this is a provincially regulated product.

Franky, I feel that this show has "Crashed and Burned". Where is the unbiased investigative journalism? Why are our tax dollars being spent on shows which fail to serve the public in an ethical and unbiased way.

I am very disappointed.

Does anyone producing actually read these comments? I have looked at the comments from the past six shows and clearly there is a shared frustration. All we are asking for is unbiased- investigative journalism, which presents the facts from all applicable viewpoints.

I would like to know where the used car lot is with all these "diminished value" vehicles on it...show me and I'll buy one because there will be nothing wrong with it. You won't find this car lot because the car dealers are still asking the full market value for these vehicles....they are telling people they are worth less, blaming it on the insurance company and then turn around and ask full price. This is an auto industry issue, not an insurance industry issue!

If someone buys an endorsement opcf 43 known in Ontario with their new vehicle they don't have to worry about diminished value.

If you pay for the coverage you get it. If you don't qualify or pay for the coverage you don't get it.

It's like life insurance if you don't have it you don't get paid out when you die. Does this mean if someone dose't have life insurance a insure company should pay out? Well that seems to be CBC's logic. Why not do a show on that.

Is the CBC aware of the Endorsement 43 on auto policies for new vehicles that protect form this? Or to will you guys make that omission to make it more dramatic. If so where is the journalistic integrity in that?

Oh wait doesn't Fox new report things with miss information? humm....

How can you argue diminished value for a depreciating asset? Not to mention when that asset was being used with worn or sed parts that are then replaced as per manufacturers standards? I think in this rare case the insurer's are ok and it this is a mythical concept brought forth by new car dealers with a vested interest in making a buck and selling cars. I think you should be sure to comment on what the increased claims costs associated with buying into this concept would mean to the consumer from premium standpoint....

Isn't auto insurance, and the coverages offered, regulated by the government in each province?

 
We're turning the tables on our viewers. as Marketplace runs the scams instead of exposing them. For the first time ever, instead of grilling the bad guys, we will be confronting the "victims" with one simple question: "Why do you fall for it?"
The labels say 'organic' and 'natural' -- but are they really? Erica Johnson separates the truly green products from the 'greenwashed' -- products that look green, but really aren't -- in our top ten countdown of lousy labels.
We're looking for Canada's Worst Cellphone Bill... again!
Their business can be ferocious, but when debt collectors cross the line, can you count on the rules to protect you?
Are there special rules for gift cards sold by the banks? Erica Johnson puts Visa Gift Card to the test.
We follow up on some of our favourite stories. See what's changed, and who's been busted since we "Busted" them.
Tom Harrington investigates what some call the best kept secret in the car insurance industry: claims for diminished value.
We test 100 samples of chicken from across the country for superbugs, and Erica Johnson reveals what the results mean for you, your family, and your health.
Erica Johnson joins forces with contractor Mike Holmes to investigate the shady world of shoddy roofers.
Are you being fooled into buying expensive water purification systems? Marketplace goes undercover.
Erica Johnson investigates possible health side effects of Canada's number one birth control pill.
Notice that many of your favourite products are getting smaller and smaller, but the price is not?
Erica Johnson investigates one of the fastest growing alternative health treatments in the country: homeopathy.
Tom Harrington investigates the sneaky charges and over-billing that have been plaguing the gym industry for years.