Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

So last night, around 2 am in the pouring rain, a 16 year old asian kid on a cell phone decided to pull out into a major road without looking, and I t-boned him at around 20mph or so (slammed on my brakes pretty hard).

I've got an older car, which is worth probably around $3-$4000.

The damage isn't awful, but it affected quite a few parts (hood, bumper, quarter panel, driver door), so I'm expecting the damage to be up there.

If the damage exceeds the value of my car, am I pretty much screwed having to pay the difference for repairs?

Obviously I could just take the money and put it towards a new car, but since mine is paid off and only has 75k miles on it, it doesn't make any sense to do that.

Am I going to be shafted here if repairs exceed the car value?

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

find a good trade-in place. sometimes you'll get $1-2k for a wreck

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

cdxx - it's definitely not a total wreck. the front bumper is scuffed to all hell, and the hood got bent up.

The driver side door took the worst damage, because the kid was an idiot and actually hit me -TWICE-, once on the first blow, then he took a quick u-turn to get out of traffic and rammed me again.

My ballpark estimates:
- Car is worth around $3500
- Car is worth a LOT more to me because while old, it's in great shape and low mileage.
- Damage would include replacing hood, front bumper, a headlight assembly, and driver side door panel.

I've seen repairs for $1500 for simple quarter panel damage, so I assume this is going to be in teh ballpark of 3.5-4k.

I -really- don't want to come up with $500 for repairs, or trade it in for a car with similar mileage and owe another $7k.

Is it possible to take someone to small claims court for the difference in value? (I assume not)

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

If he pulled out in front of you I don't understand how this wreck could possibly be your fault. You clearly have the right of way in the situation described.

Am I just reading this wrong?

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible to take someone to small claims court for the difference in value? (I assume not)

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be if you had called the cops and they had found the asian kid at fault. The kid's insurance would then be responsible for all of damage to your car, not just the difference. Since I gather you didn't, you'll have a hell of a time proving your case in court and you'll probably lose.

That said, I can't imagine spending more to fix a car than its worth unless it has sentimental value. The value of a car takes into account its mechanical condition and mileage.

[ QUOTE ]
Using your own money to repair your car if it's totaled would be pretty dumb

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention illegal. But totaled doesn't mean costs more to fix than its worth, it means that the car is so badly damaged that it is no longer safe to drive regardless of resonable repairs.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

If the repairs would cost more then the value of the car they'll declare it totaled and give you the value of your car. In theory this shouldn't screw you at all because you should be able to find the exact same car for the money that they give you.

Using your own money to repair your car if it's totaled would be pretty dumb unless it's a very small amount or if the car has some sort of sentimental value to you.

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky
 

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

FWIW,

A police report WAS filed. However, here in virginia, cops are not allowed to decide on the accident scene who's fault it is.

The problem with the actual 'value' of my car is that it would be near impossible to find a similar car because:
(a) they usually give a trade-in value or similar, which sucks
(b) it's damn hard to find a car that cheap with that low of miles on it

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

Am i missing something? what about insurance?

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

Both people had insurance.

The problem is, if there is more damage than the car is worth, they just give me the 'value' of the car.

However, this 'value' is almost always lower than what it would actually cost to replace the car.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

You're f'd unfortunately. Take the money they give you for totaling the car and be pissed off you can't find a car of equal value (to you).

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

yuck. hope things work out for you.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

The thing is, the damage being more than the value of the car - even when repaired the car isn't worth its full value anymore. That's why it's a write-off. So it's a false economy to invest money repairing the car when you could add that money to the money the insurance people give you and buy a car instead. It's only really worth paying that sort of money on repairs if the car has some sort of sentimental value, and you can easily afford it.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, the damage being more than the value of the car - even when repaired the car isn't worth its full value anymore. That's why it's a write-off. So it's a false economy to invest money repairing the car when you could add that money to the money the insurance people give you and buy a car instead. It's only really worth paying that sort of money on repairs if the car has some sort of sentimental value, and you can easily afford it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The car definitely has no 'sentimental' value. I've really wanted a new car for a while, but it just didn't make financial sense.

The question is - how much would be reasonable to save the car?

Example, $4000 in repairs, they offer me $3500.

For $500, I could basically keep the car, and still drive it forever (only 75k miles!).

The alternative is putting the $3500 towards a new car, but take for example a car worth $10,000, I still owe $6500, which works out to about $200 per month over 3 years on a loan.

So, in 3 months, I'd already have spent more than what the repairs would have been.

However, I would have a new car 'worth' more, but still depreciating.

Does anyone know how insurance companies determine the AVC (actual vehicle cost)? Is it based on blue-books trade in value or retail value?

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

Now I'm confused (maybe things are done differently in the U.S. compared to the U.K).

Where are you getting the repair figure of $500 from?

In the U.K. if the insurance co. offers you $3500 and the car is a write off, you get $3500 and they keep the wreck. I.e. you are given $3500 to buy another car with (their estimate of the cars value).

So in order to keep your car you would need to spend the $4000 repairs yourself and tell the insurance co. you aren't making a claim. So you would need to find $4000 of your own money.

In this case, you would be better served to take the $3500, and use the $4000 you were prepared to spend, and put it all towards a new car.

Maybe it works differently in the U.S.?

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

Well, if there was a police report and the description is favorable to you, I would go ahead and sue in small claims court. You'll have to pay a $50-$150 filing fee and take a day off work and you might have a hard time collecting a judgment, but you should be able to win a judgment for the full cost of your repairs and maybe court costs as well.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if there was a police report and the description is favorable to you, I would go ahead and sue in small claims court. You'll have to pay a $50-$150 filing fee and take a day off work and you might have a hard time collecting a judgment, but you should be able to win a judgment for the full cost of your repairs and maybe court costs as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just wrong. If a car is totaled, the maximum you will receive is the blue book value...and maybe a little more if there were add-ons or recent repairs (as when my car was totaled, and the adjuster added to the value of the car an axle job I had just had done the prior month).

But it is extremely unlikely that a judge would award you, say $4000, to repair a car that is only worth $2500.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

Why is everyone ready to get a lawyer and sue here? This doesn't make any sense to me, the op is going to get the value for his car which the insurance company figures out to be fair, why should they have to pay more then the car is worth?

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

You can get the parts at a junkyard for a lot less and repair it yourself. It won't look like new but none of those repairs are too difficult. Worst comes to worst, get one of the junkyard guys to help you out and pay him. Depending on the make / model and availability of parts you can most likely bring the whole thing in under 1k. See if the Asian kid will give you 1500 for repairs in cash to keep it off the books.

NT

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, because I'm the last person to advocate insurance fraud, but I do believe in fairness:

My truck got hit last year by a woman who missed a stop sign. It was considered totalled, which doesn't take much these days as repair costs are beyond belief.

The woman's insurance company lowballed me on the value. The only leverage I had was to 1) get checked by a doctor and 2) start documenting every minute I spent getting estimates, away from work, arranging alternate transportation, everything.

Re: the doctor visit- I had no intention of claiming non-existent injuries. But I know from experience that certain injuries are not initially apparent, and it's good to have this visit on record in the event of a LEGITIMATE injury.

Re: compensation for lost time

I believe it's reasonable to be compensated for time spent dealing with replacing a car due to an accident that's not your fault. There is a "lost wages/medical costs" component of the insurance claim that's separate from the car damage and by not signing off on this you can pressure the insurer to make a fair settlement.

Ultimately, the insurance adjuster just wants to get your case over with and has a lot of flexibility to accomplish this. If you truly wish to keep the car you may be able to get the adjuster not to total it and offer you a bit less on the car damage side, and make up for it on the lost wages side.

Again- I'm not saying you should scam your way into coming out better than you were going in. But in my opinion you shouldn't have to come out worse.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible to take someone to small claims court for the difference in value? (I assume not)

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be if you had called the cops and they had found the asian kid at fault. The kid's insurance would then be responsible for all of damage to your car, not just the difference. Since I gather you didn't, you'll have a hell of a time proving your case in court and you'll probably lose.

That said, I can't imagine spending more to fix a car than its worth unless it has sentimental value. The value of a car takes into account its mechanical condition and mileage.

[ QUOTE ]
Using your own money to repair your car if it's totaled would be pretty dumb

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention illegal. But totaled doesn't mean costs more to fix than its worth, it means that the car is so badly damaged that it is no longer safe to drive regardless of resonable repairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't know something, don't state it as fact, because you are wrong here.

When an insurance company totals a car, it means the amount it takes to repair the car would cost more than 80% of the value of the car pre-accident. It has nothing to do with "the car is so badly damaged that it is no longer safe to drive regardless of resonable repairs". In fact, it is perfectly legal for you to purchase the totaled vehicle from the insurance company and fix it up yourself.

I was in a major accident two years or so ago and this comes from direct experience. You get enough to cover your repairs and no more unless your insurance covers depreciation due to the accident. You *might* luck out and get the other person's insurance to cover that, but it's unlikely.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

I just don't understand this... Doesn't an estimation of the car's value take into account the mileage?

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't understand this... Doesn't an estimation of the car's value take into account the mileage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does, but in my experience, mileage doesn't really make too much of a difference.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

PA,

Say what? The mileage is the best approximation of remaining life on a vehicle. A given model with 25K vs 50K has a major (but non linear) difference in value.

J

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

Perhaps it depends on the model. I've done comparisons (for curiousity's sake) and big mileage difference like your 25k vs 50k only made a small difference, maybe a few hundred dollars on an $10k car.

As an example, in early 2003, I bought a 1998 vehicle with around 30k miles on it, about half what the normal mileage on a 5 year old car would be. The cost of the vehicle was around $13k. With the normal mileage of 60k, the vehicle would've cost maybe $700 less.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

Probably the main reason mileage doesn't matter as much as many people think is b/c relatively higher mileage often means more highway miles which are not that hard on the car.

Relatively recent vintage used cars w/ high mileage are often great values for the money.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

Based upon the admittedly generic description of the damage, and your estimate of value, the insurance company is going to total out the car. There is no way you are going to get a reputable company to repair all of that damage for less than 3-4K. However, as a prior poster stated, you should be insured for "replacement value"

That means the amount you get back should be the retail value less your deductable. NOT TRADE IN or PRIVATE PARTY value.

Keep in mind, the insurance adjusters will often try to lowball these values, and you can use the online valuation sites to dispute the value they try to give you. IE if they say $3500, but Edmunds says $4200 and KBB says $4500, you can make the case and get them to change it. I've seen this done succesfully.

At that point, if you want to buy it back from them, it usually costs 400-600$ and then you can try and piece it back together at a minimal cost just to drive it around.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Example, $4000 in repairs, they offer me $3500.

For $500, I could basically keep the car, and still drive it forever (only 75k miles!).


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you are not grasping the basic economics of your situation. It never makes rational economic sense to spend $4,000.00 on something that is worth only $3,500.00. You lose $500 bucks by doing this. It is -EV. Period.

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Example, $4000 in repairs, they offer me $3500.

For $500, I could basically keep the car, and still drive it forever (only 75k miles!).


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you are not grasping the basic economics of your situation. It never makes rational economic sense to spend $4,000.00 on something that is worth only $3,500.00. You lose $500 bucks by doing this. It is -EV. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what you're missing out on is the fact that it's going to be -very- difficult to find a car for $4000 with similar mileage to mine, though I do see your point.

In addition, purchasing a car is VERY -EV. Buy purchasing anything worth more than $4k, I immediately have to absorb more depreciation over the next few years than I would have with my current car.

The only exception is if I actually find a car for 4k that's decent.

That said, with $4k, what would you buy?

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

[ QUOTE ]

In addition, purchasing a car is VERY -EV. Buy purchasing anything worth more than $4k, I immediately have to absorb more depreciation over the next few years than I would have with my current car.

The only exception is if I actually find a car for 4k that's decent.

That said, with $4k, what would you buy?


[/ QUOTE ]

Hands down, I would buy a Chevy Prism. Its not sexy, but it is reliable and gets 40mpg on the Highway.

I've had 3 Prisms and 1 Corolla over the past 15 years. The Prism is the same exact car as the Toyota Corolla, but usually less bells & whistles and much cheaper. I bought a 2002 2 years ago for $6000 with 69,000 miles on it. The only money outside of oil changes I've put into it was for new tires. I'm now at 118,000 miles. (yeah, I drive a lot)

Re: Car accident - damage might be > value of car...what\'s my play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, purchasing a car is VERY -EV. Buy purchasing anything worth more than $4k, I immediately have to absorb more depreciation over the next few years than I would have with my current car.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are failing to recognize just how much a "majorly repaired" car depreciates in value. I'm no expert but i would guess chop another 50 percent or more off the value of the "repaired" car and depreciate from there.