On February 24 our unoccupied Lexus automobile
was legally parked on Main Street in Aspen, CO. A waste removal truck
owned by Mountain Roll Offs, Inc. Based in Glenwood Springs, CO collided
with our vehicle resulting in extensive damage to its left side. The culpable partys insurance
was provided by Colorado Casualty Insurance Company (Colorado Casualty).in
accordance with its obligations, Colorado Casualty covered the expenses
associated with the repair and the use of a rental car.
However, at this time Colorado Casualty is unresponsive to our
claim for diminished value despite a previous commitment in writing to address
the issue upon completion of the necessary repairs. Furthermore, our request for the adjustors
report has not been satisfied.in a
letter dated March 4 the senior claims representative, Mr. Ryan Schoendaler,
who is handling our claim, stated that any diminished value claim for your
vehicle will be addressed upon completion of the repairs to your auto (#of
the rental car to how the process for recovering diminished value would be
conducted as I realized that I would face a substantial reduction on the
trade-in value following the incident.
I informed Mr. Schoendaler, as well as his supervisor Mr. David Rickman,
that my concern was that the market for used vehicles would discount the value
of our vehicle as a result of the accident and that restoring the vehicle to
what the adjustor might deem pre-accident condition would not significantly
limit the diminished value. Both Mr.
Schoendaler and Mr. Rickman assured me that we would be dealt with fairly.
We have since confirmed my expectations with the director of
pre-owned sales at Stevinson Lexus in Lakewood, CO. They have provided a document that clearly substantiates
my claim, estimating the diminished value at $3500 based on the vehicles age,
make, model, and the $8395.93 of damage.
Additionally, it emphatically states that the increased popularity of
the Carfax service has resulted in lower used car values for any vehicle
involved in an accident despite the quality of the repair.in complying with the conditions outlined in
Mr. Schoendalers correspondence, following the completion of repairs I contacted
Mr. Schoendaler to inquire about the adjustors determination of the diminished
value. He informed me that his firms evaluation of
the diminished value was $1000.in attempting to defend his estimate of the
diminished value Mr. Schoendaler stated that many of the replacement parts were
new. However, in speaking with Stevinson
Lexus in Lakewood, CO it was clear that the value of the vehicle in the secondary
market was not correlated to whether the parts were new or used. I informed him that based on the research that
I had done, this offer was entirely unacceptable and requested that he
reconsider his offer. We spoke again
several days later at which time Mr. Schoendaler increased his offer to
$1500. I replied that a diminished value
of $2000 was the lowest settlement I would find acceptable. We agreed to use our best efforts to reach a
final resolution by the end of business on April 7. Despite both my repeated efforts to contact
Mr. Schoendaler and his pledge to resolve our claim within an agreed upon
timeframe, I have not received a response to my request for a $2000 remedy. We would
prefer to avoid litigation; but remain determined to be fairly compensated for
our loss and see no legitimate reason that under these circumstances we should
be shortchanged.
0 comments