When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
On my way to an early morning tee time Saturday, minding my own business when a lady going the opposite direction pulled a left without looking, right in front of me. I had a green light and no time to stop. Hit her on her passenger rear. We were both OK and the officer said it was 100% her fault (she's being charged) but my 507 will never be the same. Only has 7,500 KMs (~4,600 miles) on it. I'm devastated .
Not sure if I should hope it gets written off or if it's repairable. It'll never be the same (not to mention depreciation) but I'll also never be able to find another one in this condition.
Yikes! I doubt it’ll be written off due to the relatively young age/low mileage of the vehicle. Don’t stress it too much. Most important part is to take it to a certified MB body shop that specializes in Magno paint. When I was working at BMW, our body shop was able to tackle frozen paint (same as Magno) repairs without a problem.
Not sure what they call it in Canada, but you can look into a diminished value claim. Plus, you already said it’s going to be difficult to find another one similar. I’d just keep it if they can get paint to match and repairs done correctly.
Yes, it's at a certified MB shop now and I agree, I doubt they'll write it off. Will definitely be looking into a diminished value claim. As long as I can get some compensation, I'll feel better. Not counting on it though.
Curious on the frozen paint matching. Did your shop do a total repaint or just blend?
Saw this on the facebook group and already commented. This is very sad and I'm sure that anything we say won't help much... Such ridiculous drivers all around the GTA, its like they don't even look. Sorry for this loss OP. Hope insurance can make you whole. Perhaps look into getting a lawyer to file for damages for your neck pain, back pain, loss of mobility in your shoulders/arms, and other health treatment costs for all the ailments that you have experienced as a result of this accident.
I know my parents made out okay financially when they were involved in the exact same crash as you. They were going straight on Steeles, when a lady in a white ML350 turned left and got Tboned. Be careful everyone!
Last edited by NotABaller; 09-25-2017 at 01:23 PM.
Just spoke to insurance. There's no such thing as depreciation insurance in Ontario, so I'm SOL. This accident (which was totally not my fault) is going to cost me $10-$15k... Pissed.
Just spoke to insurance. There's no such thing as depreciation insurance in Ontario, so I'm SOL. This accident (which was totally not my fault) is going to cost me $10-$15k... Pissed.
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.
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.
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.
I'll definitely be pushing for a full repaint. No question.
I wouldn't want the entire car painted unless it simply cannot be done in a visually acceptable manner (with some acceptance of imperfection) any other way. The repaint (and all the associated disassembly) will NEVER look acceptable to a discerning person. As a buyer, I'd rather buy a car that had the hood, door, bumper and fender repainted over a full repaint any day. But that may be just me.
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.
False. Proving the claim in a manner that isn't speculative is difficult. You need to prove actual damages. Unless he sells the car, arguably he hasn't suffered any loss.
Further, when he sells the car is a factor. The speculative loss 5 years out is different than the speculative loss 10 years out.
Your basic statement of the law is correct. Taking that law 101 and turning it into a successful claim is more nuanced and difficult.
False. Proving the claim in a manner that isn't speculative is difficult. You need to prove actual damages. Unless he sells the car, arguably he hasn't suffered any loss.
Further, when he sells the car is a factor. The speculative loss 5 years out is different than the speculative loss 10 years out.
Your basic statement of the law is correct. Taking that law 101 and turning it into a successful claim is more nuanced and difficult.
Unless he sells the car, arguably he hasn't suffered any loss.
Further, when he sells the car is a factor. The speculative loss 5 years out is different than the speculative loss 10 years out.
Those arguments have been recently rejected in many jurisdictions. His loss is based upon values presently, not in the future. But not all courts and jurisdictions are in agreement. Proving present day value before and after repair is not hard. Most every damage assessment is speculative to some degree.
It's certainly worth a shot when we're talking $10K+/-.
I'm a lawyer. I'm not saying he has nothing, seeking local legal advice is a good idea, but acting like this is an easy claim isn't helpful and sets the OP up for disaapointment if the claim doesn't go how he thinks it should.
Those arguments have been recently rejected in many jurisdictions. His loss is based upon values presently, not in the future. But not all courts and jurisdictions are in agreement. Proving present day value before and after repair is not hard. Most every damage assessment is speculative to some degree.
It's certainly worth a shot when we're talking $10K+/-.
I have no idea what jurisdictions you're talking about because I'm personally aware of the difficulties inherent in a loss of resale value claim.
12 C63BS Magno Alanite Grey, 22 X3M Brooklyn Grey, 08 BMW E93, 22 Ducati Desert Sled, John Deere 3R
Originally Posted by HBC350
I wouldn't want the entire car painted unless it simply cannot be done in a visually acceptable manner (with some acceptance of imperfection) any other way. The repaint (and all the associated disassembly) will NEVER look acceptable to a discerning person. As a buyer, I'd rather buy a car that had the hood, door, bumper and fender repainted over a full repaint any day. But that may be just me.
+1 would not want more than necessary painted probably everything ahead of the a pillars in this case as long as they can match well.
Based on the research I've done, it'll be almost impossible to win any depreciation claim case in Ontario seeing as we have no fault insurance. It's possible in other provinces, but not Ontario. I've found a few examples of similar situations that have all been dismissed.
I have no idea what jurisdictions you're talking about because I'm personally aware of the difficulties inherent in a loss of resale value claim.
I'm in so Cal and I have personally resolved such claims in my own cases over a few phone calls with adjusters. I have also talked an Ohio relative through 2 of them in just the past two years. His matters were also resolved successfully without the involvement of legal representation. While I may be guilty of over-simplifying it because of the ease with which I've personally handled these cases, I believe you as guilty by gloom and dooming the issue unnecessarily. It's not as difficult as you make it sound and I would hate for this guy to not even try because of what you've said. That's all.
I'm in so Cal and I have personally resolved such claims in my own cases over a few phone calls with adjusters. I have also talked an Ohio relative through 2 of them in just the past two years. His matters were also resolved successfully without the involvement of legal representation. While I may be guilty of over-simplifying it because of the ease with which I've personally handled these cases, I believe you as guilty by gloom and dooming the issue unnecessarily. It's not as difficult as you make it sound and I would hate for this guy to not even try because of what you've said. That's all.
Great, so you're not from Ontario, or even Canada in general. You're not familiar with Canadian insurance law, much less Ontario law, and you're not a legal professional in a relevant jurisdiction.
I recommended the OP speak to a lawyer if he wants to pursue that claim. It looks like he's done his own research and found that, shockingly, it's not as simple as a phone call.
Great, so you're not from Ontario, or even Canada in general. You're not familiar with Canadian insurance law, much less Ontario law, and you you're not a legal professional in a relevant jurisdiction.
I recommended the OP speak to a lawyer if he wants to pursue that claim. It looks like he's done his own research and found that, shockingly, it's not as simple as a phone call.
Easy killer. I recognized the fact that I'm not in Canada right from the start. However, I would venture to guess that the US and Canada share more legally than they differ. We're not talking about Nigeria for God's sake.
You think the insurance company is going to encourage him to pursue a diminished value claim based upon a simple first phone call from him? You gotta be a little more assertive than that.
Easy killer. I recognized the fact that I'm not in Canada right from the start. However, I would venture to guess that the US and Canada share more legally than they differ. We're not talking about Nigeria for God's sake.
You think the insurance company is going to encourage him to pursue a diminished value claim based upon a simple first phone call from him? You gotta be a little more assertive than that.
Go grab a cocktail.
They disagree in key aspects that materially change the way that companies operate, and the way cases are decided across Canada.
I have no idea what you're saying in your second paragraph. Insurance companies generally don't encourage claimants to sue them.
Edit: should say claimants, not insured.
Last edited by Ambystom01; 09-25-2017 at 04:12 PM.
09-25-2017, 11:46 AM
.
. Be sure to check out the rim/tire to see if it was damaged or scraped up as well.
