After spending some time dismantling the S4 I decided I would follow the next step in my insurance policy, hiring an independent appraiser to provide a market value of the car that I could submit for mediation.

I found someone local with a good background providing car appraisals and had them come out to look my car parts over, by this stage the car disassembly was moving along.  They informed me that it was common to only receive 25 cents on the dollar for aftermarket parts.  They also said that with the age and scarcity of the S4 that the market value could be all over the place.  They assessed the value at $16,500 which was near the upper end of the possible range they had established.

They told me the next step would be for me to contact the Insurance company to provide them with a copy of the appraisal.  Afterward the Insurance company’s appraiser would likely contact them to see if they could come to an agreement on the value.  They told me it was common for them to merely split the difference between what the two appraisers had reached for a value.

In the meantime the insurance company contacted me to see if I wanted to accept the uncontested amount that they were offering.  That is to say, they would pay the amount they had offered and the difference between that amount and what I wanted for the car would remain up for debate.  I agreed to this and took care of buying the car back at this point.  I made clear with the Insurance company representative that the car was now mine to do with as I wished, upon receiving confirmation I ratcheted up my dismantling efforts.

A few days later I was surprised to get a call from the Insurance companies appraiser, they were wanting to come out and do a another appraisal of my S4 (this would be the third that USAA had conducted).  I thought, you have got to be kidding, your company has already sent two appraisers before, and at this point there is not much left on the car to inspect.

The insurance company appraiser suggested that the amount of additional payout may not amount to much because they were finding in their research that the salvage value of my car should have been adjusted higher when the car’s value was adjusted upward following my efforts showing the incorrectly low value assigned by CCC.  They said they were trying harder than the previous appraisers to find salvage yards that would be willing to pay more for my car.

I didn’t care for the attitude from the appraiser, so I started thinking about how I would go about justifying an even higher payout.  If they were going to adjust their amounts after the investigations had been done I would too.

A couple of days later I was contacted by the Insurance claim handler offering to settle the claim for the amount my appraiser had valued the car at, no split the difference, I would receive what my guy felt the car was worth.  My number that I’d hoped to get was $17,000 and they were offering $16,500, I decided to accept and push forward with the business of locating a replacement S4.

Next: Lessons Learned

At this point I decided to stop fighting with the Insurance company, it was abundantly evident that facts did not matter if they cast doubt upon the validity of the CCC Market Value report and the insurance company was going to adhere to the value proposed by CCC no matter what.

That’s an important point to understand because ultimately the vehicle owner is entering a contract with the Insurance carrier, CCC merely provides a report suggesting what they think the insurance company should pay.  This is akin to a person buying a house, a home appraiser provides a suggested value of the property but a buyer can offer to pay whatever they want.  Likewise the Insurance company will pay out what they want to for a loss claim, CCC is merely providing a recommended amount.  In my situation with the abundance of evidence illustrating the shoddy manner in which CCC came to their market valuation for my car I was incensed at the Insurance company fools completely discounting facts I was putting before them.

When I tried to call and speak to a supervisor level employee the underling I got stuck talking to merely exacerbated the situation when they admitted to often disagreeing with the values CCC provided but having no recourse to do anything about the improper valuations sometimes provided.  Aside from the factual errors to the valuation reports were the dismissals of my concerns which was equally infuriating.  Again the underling did not help the situation when they informed me that all policy holders received this type of treatment, even those who had been with the company thirty years.  Lovely, I could expect to dutifully pay my premiums for decades and when the time came for the company to hold up its end of the bargain I could expect to receive such crappy service.

Getting nowhere with the Insurance company, and not needing to settle the matter right away, I decided to forget about it for a while.

Next: Re-engaging

The letter I submitted to my Insurance carrier raising concerns about the quality of the CCC market analysis.

Subj: CCC Market Value Report Errors

During a phone call with T.H. on November 15, 2012 I raised a concern about an adjustment that was made to each of the three comparable vehicles involving Privacy Glass. This adjustment caused each of the comparable vehicles to have their value reduced by $70, which would then reflect as a reduction in the valuation of the loss vehicle.

My concern was how the determination had been made that each of these vehicles has Privacy Glass installed. None of the listings for the comparable vehicles provided by CCC makes mention of the vehicles being equipped with Privacy Glass.

When Rebecca from CCC was contacted to help address the concern she stated that CCC looked at the pictures provided with the listings. I asked how they could be sure Privacy Glass was installed on the vehicles when some of the listings did not provide images sufficient to evaluate the window tinting. At that point Rebecca became indignant and stated that if I was concerned about a $70 item they would adjust the valuation upward.

Because Rebecca had done nothing but exacerbate my concern about the care being given to my claim, and because of the inappropriate manner in which she was addressing me, I requested T. remove Rebecca from the conference call.

I reiterated my concerns to T. and pointed to comparable 3 from the CCC Valuescope report as an example. The Listing Description for comparable 3 makes no mention of Privacy Glass or even Tinted Windows. In the Vehicle Modification sidebar of the advertisement Tinted Windows is listed. The listing provides a single photo of the automobile, shown below.

It is quite obvious from looking at the listing photograph of comparable 3 that determining that the vehicle is equipped with Privacy Glass from that image is not possible. If anything, the view through the vehicle and out the back window suggests that if there is tinting on the rear window it is light, as the objects behind the vehicle can easily be seen through the window.

When I pointed these facts out to T. and explained my concern I was assured that CCC’s report was accurate. Being told a report is correct when all evidence suggests contrary is not something that builds my confidence in USAA. When I asked what would be done if it was determined that the vehicle did not have Privacy Glass I was told that speculating about that situation would not be done.

I then contacted the seller of comparable 3 and inquired about the type of Window Tinting on the car, if it was dark and would be considered Privacy Glass. The response from the seller of comparable 3 is shown below. (In the letter I provided a screen shot of the conversation I had with the vehicle seller)

The response from the seller is: “Its 30-35%. Not too dark.” There should be no question that comparable 3 does not have Privacy Glass, contrary to what the CCC Valuescope report states.

My primary concern about the Loss Unit Value being presented to me is the manner in which the value has been arrived at, and specifically about errors that exist in the report. A growing concern is the attitude being taken by USAA employees toward me about my concerns. I have a sense that USAA is more concerned with quickly settling the claim rather than providing a correct value for the loss vehicle.

As I have shown above, the facts make valid my concern about errors in the report. I will provide USAA with a summary of the errors and discrepancies I have found in the CCC report for review.

Next: Step Away