Diminished value claim denied by Arbella

Diminished value claim denied by Arbella
0

I need some help from experts in this forum. Last month I was hit by a lady causing $2.5K worth of damages. My insurance (Hanover) issued me a check and filed a claim with Arbella (the other party insurance) for the repairs. I got the repairs done and I also ended up filing a diminished value claim directly with Arbella by providing documentation from an independent assessment company. Now, Arbella denied my claim citing the other party does not carry diminished value coverage in their policy. Is this a valid reason for them to deny my claim? Is it worth it to fight this more? What are my options?

My car is 2008 corolla and diminished value claim was $750

1 Like

This is an automatically-generated Wiki post for this new topic. Any member can edit this post and use it as a summary of the topic’s highlights.

Maybe file in small claims court? They will realize it’s not worth their lawyer’s time to spend a day off in court and just cut you a check.

1 Like

Thank you for the response. I was thinking of that, should I file in small claims court against Arbella or against the person who hit me? I am assuming it is easier to claim against Arbella as I dont have much details of the other person (I have the police report and the address).

No such thing as DV coverage. Diminished value is covered under their liability. They are trying to weasel out of paying you.

6 Likes

I can’t say for sure this doesn’t vary by state, but generally, you would file against the person who hit you. You have no contract with Arbella; Arbella has a contract with the person who hit you to indemnify them against liability arising from their operation of a vehicle.

Since this is a third-party liability claim, my understanding is that the insurer is only really obligated to pay you anything if a court rules as such (i.e. a judgment against their insured). The confusion is that, from your perspective, your insurer has filed a claim (subrogation) with Arbella and already had your repairs paid for. That, to my understanding, is basically the same as a pre-litigation settlement – the insurer reviews the case and determines their insured would likely be found liable by a court for the loss (if the case proceeded to litigation). Maybe they could take a hardline stance and say “we don’t settle claims; get a judgment against our insured and then we’ll pay for your repairs” (although this sounds like bad faith), but they have an obligation to defend their insured (which means paying for legal fees), and they know it would be foolish to pay legal fees to defend against a case they’ve determined they’re likely to lose.

It sounds like Arbella agrees that their insured was likely at fault for the collision, and they agree that their insured (and by extension, them as the insurer) is likely liable for the vehicle repairs, which is why they’ve paid those already without litigation. The disagreement (or more realistically, from what I hear, bad-faith blanket denial) is over whether their insured is liable for diminished value, and how much. As with any other legal dispute, if you can’t come to an agreement on your own, only a court can force the other party to do something. (Simplified, and assuming there is no arbitration agreement in play.)

3 Likes

I wonder, if by accepting Hanover’s check, you’ve settled.

No, because Arbella initially entertained paying for diminished value however, only later they back peddled citing the lack of coverage for that component in the policy being held by their insured.

There is no such thing as “diminished value coverage.” The Arbella rep is just trying to make you away. The “backpedal” is just a standard maneuver part of their dance to try to get you to avoid going after what you are due.

You suffered a loss as a result of the other driver. That is their liability to you, whether the loss is due to damage, medical, or diminished value. You need your evidence (e.g. the valuation loss you already have). File a small claims suit for that amount against the driver or vehicle owner. It’s up to them to turn it over to their insurance company (or not, if they aren’t smart).

You are almost certainly will receive a settlement offer before trial date, but with your evidence and documentation, a trial should be quite fun for you.

Too bad the insurance company refused your offer to deal directly and avoid the lawsuit, which will require them to spend a lot of money just to respond. But they figured you wouldn’t bother to fill out a form in the courthouse.

By the way: DO NOT THREATEN TO SUE. That’s a no-no. Just do it with a smile.

4 Likes

Funny I just had an accident and the person that hit me has the same insurance company as me.
I was contemplating doing a DV claim but wondered if it would work as we both have the same company.

The fact that you have the same insurance company should make absolutely no difference. You’ve suffered a loss and the person who hit you should make you whole.

2 Likes