Don't rely on what an insurance company representative tells you, especially if they are the ones responsible to pay you on someone else's behalf. In every case I've dealt with their initial response was "that's not recoverable in CA" or "we don't pay that." In every case they were lying. Surprise.

OP, get a legal opinion from a competent Ontario, Canada lawyer.

 

He isn't relying on what an adjuster told him. You're ignoring posts to fit your "I know the law" narrative.

I, a Canadian lawyer, don't think a claim based on speculative valuation loss is as strong as you want it to appear.

The OPs research has supported this view.

 

Oh look. An article on the subject, from a Canadian law firm, confirming what this Canadian lawyer has said, fancy that.

http://www.millerthomson.com/en/blog/mt-insurance-law-blog/the-worth-of-diminished-value-claims-in/

 

My comment was directed at this quote from the OP:

"Just spoke to insurance. There's no such thing as depreciation insurance in Ontario, so I'm SOL. ."

I do not know Canada law. Never said I did. I couched everything in terms of the US and identified the distinction so there wasn't the confusion you apparently feel.

 

You're wrong. Flat out wrong. See my recent post.

Your posts are unhelpful and misguided.

 

So sorry to see this bud.

Hopefully its just cosmetic and nothing wrong with engine / chassis.

I don't see them totalling the car, I believe the repairs have to be at-least 50% of the value of the car for that to even be considered.

Not seeing under the hood and judging from the pics, its a couple grand worth of work. New fenders / hood / head lights / brackets / front bumper / grill etc) luckily none of these things really affect the cars performance after repair.

She is a beauty and a rare one at that! I wouldn't let her go, I'm sure the car will be just like new once they repair it.

Hope everything works out.

 

That's great. And you think based upon that article that he should not have inquired and obtained proper legal advice?

And how exactly am I wrong? I never said the claim was easy. I said it's easy to prove the diminution in value. Whether the claim is valid is jurisdictional and everything I wrote anecdotally was in reference to my experience and knowledge with US law.

Have a cocktail.

 

Sorry to see this. Not sure how depreciation claims work in Canada but do look into that. Depreciate hits hard.

Time to look for the next C63 black series.

 

Wow, that's crap, so sorry to see it OP. Hope it gets resolved to your liking.

 

Find the exact post where I say he shouldn't talk to a lawyer. Like I said, you're ignoring posts to make up your own story.

Your entire narrative, up to now, is how easy the claim was for you in the past and how easy it should be for the OP. You expressly took issue with my suggestion that it was a hard claim to make out in Canada - and claimed you were successful with just a phone call in the past.

You're now changing your story.

You're also ignoring the fact that this is with respect to an Ontario action, which the article, from a top teer Canadian firm mind you, says doesn't allow such claims.

So yeah, you're flat out wrong. Your "advice" is meaningless here. It has no application to these facts and is useless for the OP - so all your posts telling him to do something are garbage.

 

OP - Here's my advice about full vs partial paint jobs. I've had both done. Does Magno paint actually work with a blend? I'm clueless, but if it does and that is absolutely how you want it, then make sure they blend. It sounds difficult and I expect the shop in general to want to finish to the trailing edge of the new fender and leave it at that if the match is close. Also - and I always do this even on non-metallics - have the shop call you to approve test-sprayed paint samples in person. You'll want to see the paint in direct sunlight, on a cloudy day and under artificial light too. You'll be looking for odd hues or tones come out in different conditions. Lastly, if you do a complete paint job the glass will have to come out and all the trim popped off. Body shop dust will infiltrate everywhere in the interior so be proactive and prepared for that. I guarantee some scratches and small dings or subtle ripples, depressions or bends will appear on the trim. I would push for all new trim pieces as part of the settlement. I personally wouldn't settle for less. GL.

 

Good advise! The car is at one of only 3 MB certified body shops in Ontario. I have confidence they'll know how to handle the magno paint, but will definitely discuss this with them.

 

Yes, this is the same article I found as well. I don't have much hope it seems:

"Recent cases adjudicated in the Small Claims Court in Ontario have consistently dismissed claims for diminished value where the claims are founded in tort arising from motor vehicle accidents. Ontario’s no-fault legislative scheme trumps the common law, notwithstanding that the common law acknowledges the viability of diminished value claims. The case law trend clearly establishes that diminished value claims with a basis in tort will not succeed in Ontario."

 

Thanks for the kind words. Apparently the repairs need to total over 75% according to my policy. Unless there's engine/frame damage (the latter is quite possible) I don't see them totaling it either. Keeping my fingers crossed it will be as good as new.

I suppose the one positive from all of this is it's making me realize just how much I love this car! Only been 2 days with the rental (Cadillac CTS) and it's killing me.

 

Read the entire thread Mr. Lawyer. Here's where I started:

"Just because the insurance company doesn't "cover" depreciation doesn't mean you can't file a claim (lawsuit) against the negligent driver for all of the "damages" she caused, including the amount the vehicle's value will be diminished even after the repair is paid for. Check into it. Insurance companies can certainly contractually dictate what they cover (for example the case where you cause damage to your own vehicle and want compensation for the repair cost and diminished value) but they cannot contractually dictate a reduction in the common law of negligence when they are involved in paying for damage their insured did to another. Her insurance company might be able to write-out or limit coverage payable to a third party like yourself but that would not allow the actual tortfeasor (the lady) to escape any liability imposed on her by law."

To which you responded:

"Good luck. Diminution of value claims are hard to prove because they're typically speculative in nature and there are a lot of other factors in play."

Notice you didn't mention any special Canadian procedural problems. You said they were difficult because they were speculative. I disagreed.

I responded by saying:

"To the contrary, they're actually quite easy to prove. There's not a person on the planet that would buy a repaired car over a pristine example all else, including price, being equal. You simply hire a qualified appraiser and get a declaration attesting to what the car would be worth had it not been hit and what it is now worth given its history. My estimate, given what I see in the pic, is somewhere between 15-20% reduction.

In most US jurisdictions a negligent driver is legally responsible for all damage that reasonably flows from his/her conduct. Period. It might be different in Canada, but it's certainly not limited by anything an insurance company does or says and it, in my experience, is not hard to prove."

Note my reference to US jurisdictions. That's where I recognize we're talking about two different countries and I'm only speaking with regard to the US and how things are handled here.

You can start relying on your "see, Canadian law prohibits such claims and there's even a Canadian law firm that says so" bull**** now if you want. But that's not what you were saying at the beginning. You were saying these claims are hard because damages are speculative. Two different animals. So until you found that Canadian article that appears to be on point, you were full of ****.

Good job doing a Google search for the law. You should have went there first so you had some (arguable) authority to back you up. However, I can show you countless websites that give incorrect legal advice so I'm still not entirely convinced but I stand by my initial suggestion. The OP should contact a competent attorney in his area for an opinion. And hopefully not one who relies on another firm's website as the basis for said opinion.

 

That's a lot of talking when all you need and should say is that you were wrong and shouldn't be offering legal advice on a car forum.

Frankly you're just embarrassing yourself now. Despite me being right, I'm apparently full of ****. It's also my fault that you didn't offer any evidence of your claims, because I apparently have a duty to provide you with evidence proving that you're wrong before you make an *** of yourself.

If you knew anything about Canadian law firms, or cared to look into it, you'd know Miller Thompson is a top tier firm. Their articles are pretty reliable, and should not be compared to whatever crap articles you've stumbled upon. It is common in Canada for lawyers to rely on articles published by well-known law firms because it saves their client's money, and is at least a good jumping point for further research. There's no point reinventing the wheel and most clients aren't gonna be happy to pay you $300 an hour to do research.

But whatever you gotta do to save face after being proven flat out wrong.

 

lol. Oh. One of them top tier law firms that doesn't fight every day all day with other top tier law firms who disagree with most of what they say? Get over yourself, pal.

You came on gangbusters to my recommendation about looking into diminished value by saying damages are speculative. They aren't and you're wrong. You then pivoted by talking about technical provisions of Canadian law and cited a "top tier" law firm's website as your authority. Way to do legal research. The judges in your area buy it when you cite websites instead of precedent and statutes? I don't. And I hope your E&O policy is up to date if you're practicing law that way. You should call yourself Google, Esquire.

 

What are you even trying to say? Canadian firms do not publish articles to deceive the practice. Courts would rip them apart, and Law Societies across the country would have a field day, if that happened. You're advancing a stupid conspiracy theory rather than admit you're wrong here.

By their nature, these are speculative damages because they have not crystallized. I'm not going to debate this with you because it's not relevant to the OP's issue, and I suspect I'd be bringing a gun to a knife fight arguing the law with you.

These are not technical provisions of Canadian law. Even if the OP was in another province that didn't have no fault coverage, the difficulties in making out a reduced value claim would remain.

You're not a judge, and this isn't a Court. The article I posted cites cases. You obviously don't care, and you're just embarrassing yourself more by digging in and acting like a child.

 

I had a 2012 C63 BS with the gray matte paint. I was skeptical about the whole concept of matte paint. It looked cool, cleaned super easy and generally was awesome. The car was used and had a scrape on the rear fender flare. Brought into the local ceritfied mercedes body shop-it took them 6 months of trial and error to get it to match. They painted the whole rocker panel off the car. It was in the end a perfect match. There is actually a cool video on YouTube about repairing matte paint.

Good luck and sorry to see this mess.

 

You're giving law firms and websites way too much credit. Law firms, US & Canadian included, post articles with the intention of passing along their legal opinions on the subject matter to the public and sometimes even other professionals. That's it. I never said they intend to deceive. Those are your words. And sometimes, maybe even often, they are wrong. In the US you'd have a hard time even introducing a website into evidence over a hearsay objection because they are so unreliable. That may be different in Canada. I don't know. I hope not.

Research a topic near and dear to my heart... lemon law. Look at the massive number of websites that come up. Most of them contain incorrect statements of the law. Do they intend to mislead?
No. They've just resolved a point of law or interpreted a statute incorrectly. And these are "top tier" firms as well. So yes, your reliance on websites is dangerous to your clients and yourself.

Lastly, you're throwing around the word "wrong" a lot. Tell me, lawyer man, exactly what statement(s) of fact that I've written is provably wrong? Don't just be a blowhard. Back it up.

 

I had a clk55 with magno paint.... I hit road debris and trashed the lower front valence. they tried to color match the new lower fr valence... it was OK match but in certain light it was pretty clear (to me) it was painted at a later date.

If this does not bother you, AND if you consider your front bumper to be a paint every 2-4 yrs due to chips.... then just spray the front bits....... IF this does bother you, I would get it all sprayed. Ins co will probably do the cheapest option.

GL.

Great car, color...... I have the 2 door version and LOVE every mile of it.

 

I think its time for a couple of us to head over to the Cage Match.

In the meantime OP, sorry for what you are going through, about to go through.

My experience in BC is similar to yours (Ive posted the pic so many times I wont bore anyone again lol) and found that A) my adjuster did not realize that regular C class parts don't fit and was shocked by AMG prices when they came back and B) MB Canada stocks next to nothing in terms of parts. The upshot of that is that you will prolly be in the Caddy for awhile, sorry to say.

I hope that all works out for you and I wish you a speedy 'recovery'

 

No, I'm not. I posted an article. You've *****ed and moaned about it seemingly for the sole reason that it cements the fact you are wrong. There are cases referenced in the article that you can read. I know you won't.

I never said anything about admitting it as evidence at trial.
This isn't a trial. You're literally trying to tell a lawyer about admitting evidence at trial. Do you also try to teach doctors that it's bad to prescribe antibiotics for viral infections?

I don't give a **** about lemon laws. You're trying to distract away from the fact you were wrong and got called out for talking out your ***.

You were wrong. That is the conclusion to be reached here.

Like I said, I've brought a gun to a knife fight arguing with you.

 

"Canadian firms do not publish articles to deceive the practice. Courts would rip them apart"

I thought you said you weren't talking about admitting websites into evidence? How would a court become involved then? Courts up there just hop into the enforcement of website accuracy? They sure as **** don't down here.

You say legal websites are accurate because the courts would rip them to shreds of they weren't? You, sir, are an idiot if you think that. Go review websites that touch on the areas in which you practice (hopefully nothing really important since your legal research consists of Google searches and relying on websites) and see how much inaccurate information you find.

Again, I challenge you to quote the statement of fact that I wrote that was "wrong." You seem to keep sidestepping that one.

How long have you been a lawyer, anyhow?

 

I'm not going to rehash issues that have been addressed already. It's not helpful to the OP, and it's obvious you're just looking to be a douche after being called out for being demonstrably wrong given that you're now trying to question my competence as a lawyer based on the fact I posted an article that summarizes the law rather than getting into a lengthy case law review. On a car forum.