HBC350

"Wrong." Again. But without support. Not a word I said was "wrong."

And your initial concern with a diminished value claim was only the difficulty in proof, not Ontario's no-fault laws, so don't take credit where it is not due. You posted that article AFTER many posts back forth in which you didn't even mention the issues it raised, and the article itself didn't even support your position that the cases are hard to prove because damages are speculative. Its thrust was that the claim has been legislated out in areas of no-fault insurance for auto accidents. Two different things, pal. I think lawyers call it distinguishable.

Carry on counselor.

Ambystom01

Still upset about being proven wrong I see. I hope with time you will come to terms with it, and move on with your life.

Jasonoff

I am sorry for the car BUT more sorry for your thread getting derailed....

Chin up brah

Savage-wp

That is terrible. Sorry for the damage to your car, glad you're ok though.
Hopefully they can fix it properly, and you can get back behind the wheel soon.

Adi-Benz

Yeah man good luck hope for the best...

and sorry about the massive derail, even this thread somehow has gotten a bit ripped.

Ludedude

Time for the lawyers (armchair and other) to holster their e-peens.

OP: sorry about the car. All things considered, I'd let the shop repair it to the best of their abilities and then make a decision about what to do, if anything. I had some similar damage to my Z06 from an on-track incident but I found a competent shop to sew it all back together and then kept the car for a few more years. Didn't really lose anything on the sale either.

bluejae

sorry for your loss... hopefully it gets back to you quickly...

the rest of the thread was an interesting read as well... since i was curious, i did some searching as well... found another forum talking about DV and seems pretty informative... especially post #80

if you want to read from the start
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/dimin...anada-1019513/

or just look at post 80
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/dimin...3/6/#p26672974

i've had my own experiences with claiming for DV and they've been successful for me especially on a somewhat new car... but that's here in the US... i've seen people sue the other driver directly through small claims for DV and win... but it seems to be a whole different story for ontario...

good luck either way

Ambystom01

The issue in other Canadian provinces isn't whether diminished value claims are possible, but the difficulty a plaintiff faces in proving their claim. Canadian courts are less open to speculative claims than American courts - at least that is my perspective as a Canadian lawyer who has had some interactions with American lawyers and claims.

Our legal system is more conservative, practically not politically, and slow to respond to technological changes and changes in society that aren't connected to human rights. In some provinces, electronic filing is still a project in the works. In some provinces, you still have to wear a gown for Court.

Diminished value claims make sense from a common sense perspective, but establishing a legal loss and the value of that loss is tough.

604 C63

I ran through the theoreticals and hypotheticals on this here in BC after getting rear ended and almost but not quite being written off in an 09.

Its the speculative nature that makes it nearly impossible, because as far as the court is concerned I don't even have a loss or damages until I have resold the car. So...suppose I do sell the car? Well, who can say for sure what your car would have sold for if that hadn't happened? Used car prices are all over the board. Its not a fixed priced item, and it was repaired back to manufacturers standards. There's "nothing wrong with it", it still performs as before, no warranties are voided, its just a buyers preference thing.

Here in Canada, in BC at least, even if it was possible you would spend far more on lawyers and far more time, energy and heartache than it could ever possibly be worth.

Ambystom01

Bingo.

The claim likely exists, but is the value of the claim enough to make up for the costs you will incur in proving the claim - costs that you will only be partially compensated for if you succeed at trial given the reluctance of Canadian courts to award anything approaching full indemnification costs in small claims matters.

HBC350

Hell, man. I'm still waiting on the proof.

Ambystom01

Still butthurt I see, and unable to read too. Great combination.

HBC350

Here in the US (got that Google Esquire?) they usually calculate the value of the loss as of the date of the loss. And it makes sense.
Otherwise, how could you ever calculate the loss of value in ANYTHING, not just a car, until you dispose of the asset? Insurance companies could just say "well, what are you complaining about? In twenty years it won't be worth beans anyhow. You have no provable damage." That's a terrible argument. The car is worth less even in its repaired state and even if the repairs were of top notch quality. If you're on this forum you're probably an enthusiast of some level and you probably agree that, all else being equal, you would buy and pay more for a pristine example than a crashed and repaired car. It's common sense. Ask the guy with the true classic or exotic car whether he's been made whole when you crash into his previously unmolested automobile and your insurance company offers no more than to pay to fix it. You're a defendant in the blink of an eye. And rightfully so. Why Canada is behind the times on this is a good question. Maybe Google Esquire and his massive legal skills can be a mover and shaker and get the law changed.

Ambystom01

You're really hung up on the fact that you were wrong, eh? It clearly rubs you the wrong way that you're not knowledgeable on the law as a lawyer. Do you suffer from feelings of inadequacy?

Your grasp of the law is elementary, and I think it'd be best if you stopped trying to provide information on the law that others may rely on.

HBC350

I'll help you out by getting you started. Just fill in the blanks.

Statement of fact:

Factual evidence that it was "wrong":

HBC350

Canadian law? Admittedly so eh.

Ambystom01

I trust the people of mbworld to be capable of reading and forming their own conclusions.

This **** should be filtered out and put in it's thread. It's not helping mbworld and it's certainly not helping the OP.

604 C63

Canada isn't behind the times. If this was a big enough case it could be done.

We just don't shoot, sue or slander at the same rate as some countries.

Ambystom01

Canadian law is consistent with that of other common law countries. What is being discussed here is thr basic principles of damages.

toosteeley

Well, the decision has been made for me; the car will NOT be written off (not surprised). $25k CDN worth of damage though. Also sounds like I won't have it back till the beginning of November.

The only positives: I'll be able to get all the trim blacked out, the PPF I had installed will be replaced and the shop won't reinstall the front side marker lights (the bumpers apparently come without the holes cut). Gotta look on the bright side :/

Ambystom01

No frame damage?

betrezra

Just for reference I am going through a dim value claim now on my wifes vehicle.

It is a new luxury ute that was rear-ended by an uninsured motorist. Car only had 4K miles when hit.

No airbag deployment, but damage still @ 16K.

Our appraiser/(hired expert rep) is thinking dim value is around $8K-10K. Just to give you an order of magnitude in this instance.

Funny thing we tried to get the dim value from dealer.... and they gave me the line... if no air bags deployed... then only $1K...... I quipped back... would you like to me make me an offer on this car with that basis???? they declined to talk to me further on the issue at that point

.....

GL.

Alex.currie44

To D's point. There is no way to determine the value until a buyer decides what he will pay for the car.
My 2003 E320 had a hell of a hit in 2006. The bill was $26K and the insurer in Ontario insisted they would fix it. It went to a shop I had confidence in but they lacked one piece of equipment and as such the buyer walked. I took it to BC and decided to trade it and got even less but not because of the accident but it was judged to have come from a salt using province. BS but there it was.
My 2011 E350 wagon had a couple of minor accidents and it never bothered the buyer.
As to painting this repair you do not need to paint the whole car. A good shop will be able to blend it back into the original paint if they know what they are doing. The finish you have is tricky but they should be able to do it.

toosteeley

The certified MB shop who's doing the work apparently has a tool to measure the shine of the clear coat so the match should be perfect. It's the clear the produces the matte finish afterall. Once replaced, the matte PPF should also help mask any differences in finish.

toosteeley

It doesn't sound like it. They have to replace the front bumper frame, but it just bolts to the main frame from what I understand.