I had requested the insurance company send me a copy of the CCC Market Valuation report so that I could review it.  My research into CCC had caused concern about the accuracy and fairness of their assessment and I intended to scrutinize the report they had generated for my vehicle.

I sent a letter to the insurance adjuster raising my concerns, the body of the letter follows:

Subj: CCC One Market Valuation Report and Claim Payment

Part 1: CCC One Market Valuation Report

I have had the opportunity to review the CCC One Market Valuation report and a number of aspects of the report concern me.

These concerns are related to the following sections:

1)   Vehicle allowances

2)   Vehicles chosen for comparison

3)   Loss vehicle component description

4)   Comparison vehicle options

5)   Comparison vehicle baseline adjustments

6)   Lack of independently verifiable information about comparison vehicles

 

My explanation for why I have concern about each of these sections follows.

1)   Vehicle allowances

The report defines these as “factors influencing value of loss vehicle when compared to typical vehicle.”  The loss vehicle has numerous factors that increase the value of the vehicle when compared to a typical vehicle which were not reflected in the market valuation report.

a) The loss vehicle has extensive custom equipment that is not comprised of original manufacturer parts or equipment.  A few of these items are as follows:

• Full window tint ($180)
• FrankenTurbo upgraded Turbochargers ($1175)
• StopTech ST40 Brake kit with 332×32 slotted rotors and stainless steel brake lines ($1807)
• SSR Comp Ultra lightweight wheels ($1556)
• Aquamist “Water Injection” System ($825)
• Autospeed TSB Driveline stabilizer bar ($250)
• INA Engineering/034Motorsport Exhaust system ($1790)
• Autspeed PerformanceS4 downpipe set ($1175)
• HB Motorwerks/Southbend Stage 3 clutch ($749)
• KW V3 Coilover suspension ($1677)
• Induktion Motorsports Stainless Steel Oil Lines ($175)
• AMD intercoolers ($1000)

A complete list of the custom improvements to this car is contained in part 2.  These improvements produced a vehicle that is far more reliable and higher performing than a typical vehicle.

 

b) The loss vehicle has been subjected to rigorous preventative maintenance practices to ensure it functions optimally.  This includes:

• Strict adherence to manufacturers’ service intervals.
• Fuel filter changes every 30k miles; manufacturer allows for lifetime use of single filter.
• Timing belt and water pump replacement every 30k miles; manufacturer allows for change every 105k miles.
• Oil sample analysis, to ensure motor is healthy, performed every 5-10k miles. (Enclosure 1)
• Engine compression analysis, to ensure efficient engine operation, performed at 70k and 100k miles.  (Enclosure 2 and 3)

 

2) Vehicles chosen for comparison

The vehicles selected for comparison have little in common with the loss vehicle aside from the name of the manufacturer and the vehicle model designation.

Similarly equipped vehicles being made available to the marketplace via a sales site that caters to consumers interested in this type of vehicle, with the type of custom equipment installed on the loss vehicle should be chosen.  The Audizine Audi car owners website (www.audizine.com) contains a classifieds section where vehicles similarly configured to the loss vehicle can be found.  A sampling of some of the vehicle for sale from that site can be found in the attached screen shot (Enclosure 4)

Two of the five comparison vehicles were selected from an Internet website called Swapride.com, an obscure website that has a 301 redirect to the website fyiauto.com.  The fyiauto.com domain has been registered for only 1 year.  A better-known site such as Cars.com or Autotrader.com would inspire more confidence in the quality of the cars being chosen from the website for comparison to the loss vehicle.

A sampling of comparison vehicles for sale via dealership and private party on Cars.com and Autotrader showed an average listing price $1300 higher than the average listing price developed in the market valuation report.  This further erodes my confidence in the accuracy of the report.

 

3) Loss vehicle component description

There are some errors in the report description of the loss vehicle configuration, these errors are as follows:

Report incorrectly states vehicle is equipped with Standard Aluminum/Alloy wheels.

Loss vehicle is equipped with Ultra lightweight SSR Comp performance wheels purchased for the vehicle on July 26 of 2003 at a cost of $1556.

Report incorrectly states loss vehicle is equipped with a 5 speed transmission.

Loss vehicle is equipped with a 6 speed transmission.

Report incorrectly states vehicle is equipped with Standard 4-wheel disc brakes.

Loss vehicle is equipped with StopTech ST40 calipers, 332×32 slotted rotors, and stainless steel brake lines purchased for the vehicle in August of 2003 at a cost of $1807.

Report incorrectly states vehicle is not equipped with Tinted Glass.

Loss vehicle has full tint application that was purchased and installed on September 1, 2000 at a cost of $180.

Report incorrectly states vehicle has Wood Interior Trim.

Loss vehicle has manufacturer supplied Sport Trim Package which includes Silver Aluminum Trim that was an optional item at vehicle purchase for an additional cost of $400.

 

4) Comparison vehicle options

In checking the advertisements for the comparison vehicles some discrepancies with the valuation report were noted.

Comparison vehicle 1 is listed for sale with LA Auto Star in Virginia Beach, Virginia. (Enclosure 5)

Report incorrectly states Comp 1 does not have Heated Seats.

Comp 1 advertisement states vehicle has Heated Seats and picture of center console shows controls for heated seats.

Report incorrectly states Comp 1 does not have a CD Changer.

Comp 1 advertisement states vehicle has a CD Changer.

Report incorrectly states Comp 1 does not have Tinted Glass.

Comp 1 advertisement states vehicle has Tinted Glass.

Report states loss vehicle has clear coat paint and none of the comparison vehicles have clear coat paint.

Clear coat paint was not an option item for the 2001 Audi S4; all of the vehicles were supplied with clear coat paint.

 

5) Comparison vehicle baseline adjustments

Some of the comparison vehicle values seem to be lowered due to the vehicles being in good condition, compared to what condition an average vehicle may be in.

Comp 1 vehicle has the value reduce by $1121 apparently because it is in good condition.

 

6) Lack of information about comparison vehicles

The only comparison vehicle that is still listed for sale is Comp 1.  Verification of the accuracy of the report for the other four vehicles could not be done.  The numerous errors identifying the options on the loss vehicle and Comp 1 cause me concern about the accuracy of the values assigned to the comparison vehicles.

 

Part 1 summary:

Significant factors affecting the value of the loss vehicle have been omitted from the report.  Factors included in the loss vehicle valuation have been incorrectly specified.  Inappropriate comparison vehicles have been chosen for establishing loss vehicle value.  There are errors with the description of the comparison vehicles and four of the five comparison vehicles do not have information available to cross check against the report.  The only comparison vehicle that I could find a listing for has had the value of the vehicle reduced for being in good condition, despite the loss vehicle being in outstanding condition.

Due to the errors and omissions contained in the loss valuation report I do not find the reported valuation for the loss vehicle to be valid.

Next: Round 1 Challenging Market Value Report

One of the unique aspects of my loss claim was that custom equipment permanently installed on the vehicle was covered by my insurance policy.  I contacted the insurance company policy department and confirmed that the accessories I had installed, from the snub mount back to the 3.5″ exhaust were included in the coverage and that they were valued at replacement cost.  This was one of the greatest sticking points when it came to my policy paying out  since the policy terms said Actual Cash Value and the insurance company was really paying Market Value.  The actual cash value of components I had installed on the car exceeded the market value of the car, even accounting for depreciation.  I knew this was going to be an issue but fortunately I had just about every receipt I’d ever received for an aftermarket part dating back to the time that I had acquired the car in 2000.  Of course the insurance company wanted to see these receipts as proof and so I faxed them 40 pages of individual invoices for the major components I had installed on the car.

After a couple of days I was notified that they would need to send an appraiser back out to inspect the car.  I deduced that with the loss payout having increased with the addition of the aftermarket parts that they needed to reconsider if the car was going to be a total loss.  I was well into the process of taking parts off the car so that I could get the motor out and this made the damage to the frame more apparent.  The second appraiser came out and looked at the car and told me that even though the payout amount the insurance company would provide to me had gone up, so would the damage estimate, and the car would in all likelihood still be declared a total loss.

 

A day later I heard from the insurance company informing me that the car was still being declared a total loss and now the payout amount was $14,063 and the salvage buyback price was $1280.  The person I spoke with said I would get actual cash value (their terminology for market value) for the aftermarket parts, not replacement cost, which contradicted what the policy specialist had told me.  This would not be the last time that I found the policy side of the insurance company saying something that differed from what the claims side said.

Next: Market Valuation Report Concerns