DHL truck -VS- my Rx-7 -VS- Ins Co.
11-16-07 | 02:28 PM
#1
Thread Starter
"1ST GENS" THE REAL RX-7!
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
From: long island
DHL truck -VS- my Rx-7 -VS- Ins Co.
Hey everyone. I had a very sad day last week when a DHL truck backed into the front of my car.
The damage wasnt too bad as you can see by the picture below but what happened next really hurt. The insurance company (Theirs since I was parked) offered me $714.00 for the car and declare it a total loss.
Knowing that I couldnt replace her for $700 I decided to write the ins company a little letter its a little long (read below)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason P Fachner
November 8 2007
To: Neil Graybill (Hartford Ins Co)
Mr Graybill, I am writing this letter to you to start the process of appealing the total loss offer of my 1984 Mazda Rx-7. I will outline all the relevant aspects of your offer and why I feel the value should be higher.
1) On November 7th 2007 I contacted you in regards to my claim against your client DHL, I was told by you that my car would be a total loss and that your offer was $714.00
2) On November 7th 2007 I requested a copy of the "CCC Valuescope" report to be faxed to me. Upon reading the report I have found some glaring errors.
a) CCC refers to the car as a "1984 Mazda Rx7 S", while in fact the car is a "GSL" this single error devalues the car by several hundred dollars.
b) CCC stated that "Phone Interviews" were conducted with selected local dealers.
b.1) Ultimate Auto Sales (Mark McGregor) According to Stacy from CCC Mr. McGregor was contacted and asked for an over the phone value for a 1984 Mazda Rx7. Mr McGregor told Stacy the car was worth $1400.00 without seeing the vehicle and or knowing any of the history of the car. On 11/9/2007 I contacted Mr McGregor and asked him the specifics of the conversation and was told "Some woman called me and asked what a car was worth so I told her $1400" I further asked Mr McGregor if he would be willing to appear in court to state the method he used to come up with his value and he responded that he would rather retract his value since it may be incorrect.
b.2) Greenwich Motor Sales (John Caviola) According to Stacy from CCC Mr Caviola was contacted and asked to give a value of an 1984 Mazda Rx7. Mr Caviola told Stacy that the car was worth $1100.00 without any knowledge of the actual car that he was giving the value for. on 11/7/2007 I contacted Mr Caviola and asked him if he had a 1984 Mazda Rx7 for sale on his lot "Not in about 20 years" was his reply. I then asked him if he had received an phone call from CCC about the above mentioned vehicle, Mr Caviola responded "Yes", I further asked how he came up with the reported value of $1100 for the car and he responded that he had not give that value and instead given a range to Stacy of anywhere from $400 to $4000 and if the car was a "real cherry" it could be worth as much as $8000.
c) Since it is the claim of CCC that they represent the value of a vehicle in my local market it would be my understanding that there would have to be a vehicle for sale in my local market. If there is not one for sale in my local market then either a larger area would have to be studied of a different valuation method.
d) If the "local market" was to be extended to the all US markets there would still only be a handful of vehicles to compare to as this is a 23 year old specialty car with a very small audience. I took the liberty of doing this marker study to see the values of vehicles across the US and below are the findings.
d.1) 1048 miles away 140,000 miles on the odometer $3995
d.2) 605 miles away 143,000 miles on the odometer $3850
d.3) 2253 miles away 139,000 miles on the odometer $2699
d.4) 1541 miles away 266,194 miles on the odometer $2499
d.5) 4 1983,1984 Rx7's recently went through the Kruse International auto auction and their prices were $6250, $6000, $2700, $3100
e) If the "local market" cannot be extended then a different valuation process should be explored. I chose to use the internet auto guides as my starting point for this.
e.1) NADA Guides has a low value of $1950 an average value of $2775 and a high value of $3775.
e.2) The Gold Book has a fair value of $1500 a good value of $2400 a excellent value of $3800 and a show car value of $5300.
f) Nothing on the actual vehicle was taken into account before the value was given. Examples as follows.
f.1) In 1984-1985 Mazda offered a "Targa" package on the Rx7 these are increasingly rare and the car in question has this option added.
f.2) In 1983 Mazda offered a "Limited edition" wheel and tire package of the over 100000 cars that were sold in this time frame only 5000 would have these wheels, again the car in question has this option added.
f.3) This vehicle has the rare "Glass Moonroof" option as well as the factory body color moonroof. No consideration was given for the moonroof let alone both.
g) The CCC report states that i was given consideration because my vehicle has 6% less then the average miles of 144,500 that the car should have. With that calculation that means that CCC feels that the national average is 6282 miles per year. In stark contrast the actual National average is 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year. Lets go on the low side of this average at 12,000 on a car that is 23 years old it should have 276,000. I am not sure of how CCC came up with the 144,500 figure but it is very low.
h) Lastly, an adjustment of $-536 was made to my vehicle for condition? I am not sure how CCC could have made any sort of decision on the condition of the car sight unseen.
I have stated above many of the glaring defects in the CCC Valuescope report. I have been in the automotive industry for 15 years, and have appraised hundreds if not thousands of automobiles. I have never seen such a dishonest and unlawful way to approach a total loss claim. The insurance carrier blames CCC and CCC states that they are only doing what is in the carriers best interest. What about what is in the best interest of the victim. I didn't ask for the DHL driver to back up the front of my car, nor did I make a big deal out of it when it happened, but to toss a value of $714.00 at me and expect me to say thank you for being so kind is insane. If either CCC or The Hartford knows how to replace my 1984 Mazda Rx7 with another for $714.00 please show me.
My damage appraisal is $1954 dollars and I will not accept a penny less. Furthermore I will not accept a total loss claim since it will destroy the future value of this classic sports car.
Respectfully
Jason P Fachner
631-3
631-4
516-4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the following day I get a call from the ins guy and he tells me they will give me $1700 to fix the car. I agree since I have already purchased a new front cowl piece already painted for $46 on e-bay......
The moral is dont ever accept what the ins company offers you, they are banking on you being an idiot...
Jason
The damage wasnt too bad as you can see by the picture below but what happened next really hurt. The insurance company (Theirs since I was parked) offered me $714.00 for the car and declare it a total loss.
Knowing that I couldnt replace her for $700 I decided to write the ins company a little letter its a little long (read below)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason P Fachner
November 8 2007
To: Neil Graybill (Hartford Ins Co)
Mr Graybill, I am writing this letter to you to start the process of appealing the total loss offer of my 1984 Mazda Rx-7. I will outline all the relevant aspects of your offer and why I feel the value should be higher.
1) On November 7th 2007 I contacted you in regards to my claim against your client DHL, I was told by you that my car would be a total loss and that your offer was $714.00
2) On November 7th 2007 I requested a copy of the "CCC Valuescope" report to be faxed to me. Upon reading the report I have found some glaring errors.
a) CCC refers to the car as a "1984 Mazda Rx7 S", while in fact the car is a "GSL" this single error devalues the car by several hundred dollars.
b) CCC stated that "Phone Interviews" were conducted with selected local dealers.
b.1) Ultimate Auto Sales (Mark McGregor) According to Stacy from CCC Mr. McGregor was contacted and asked for an over the phone value for a 1984 Mazda Rx7. Mr McGregor told Stacy the car was worth $1400.00 without seeing the vehicle and or knowing any of the history of the car. On 11/9/2007 I contacted Mr McGregor and asked him the specifics of the conversation and was told "Some woman called me and asked what a car was worth so I told her $1400" I further asked Mr McGregor if he would be willing to appear in court to state the method he used to come up with his value and he responded that he would rather retract his value since it may be incorrect.
b.2) Greenwich Motor Sales (John Caviola) According to Stacy from CCC Mr Caviola was contacted and asked to give a value of an 1984 Mazda Rx7. Mr Caviola told Stacy that the car was worth $1100.00 without any knowledge of the actual car that he was giving the value for. on 11/7/2007 I contacted Mr Caviola and asked him if he had a 1984 Mazda Rx7 for sale on his lot "Not in about 20 years" was his reply. I then asked him if he had received an phone call from CCC about the above mentioned vehicle, Mr Caviola responded "Yes", I further asked how he came up with the reported value of $1100 for the car and he responded that he had not give that value and instead given a range to Stacy of anywhere from $400 to $4000 and if the car was a "real cherry" it could be worth as much as $8000.
c) Since it is the claim of CCC that they represent the value of a vehicle in my local market it would be my understanding that there would have to be a vehicle for sale in my local market. If there is not one for sale in my local market then either a larger area would have to be studied of a different valuation method.
d) If the "local market" was to be extended to the all US markets there would still only be a handful of vehicles to compare to as this is a 23 year old specialty car with a very small audience. I took the liberty of doing this marker study to see the values of vehicles across the US and below are the findings.
d.1) 1048 miles away 140,000 miles on the odometer $3995
d.2) 605 miles away 143,000 miles on the odometer $3850
d.3) 2253 miles away 139,000 miles on the odometer $2699
d.4) 1541 miles away 266,194 miles on the odometer $2499
d.5) 4 1983,1984 Rx7's recently went through the Kruse International auto auction and their prices were $6250, $6000, $2700, $3100
e) If the "local market" cannot be extended then a different valuation process should be explored. I chose to use the internet auto guides as my starting point for this.
e.1) NADA Guides has a low value of $1950 an average value of $2775 and a high value of $3775.
e.2) The Gold Book has a fair value of $1500 a good value of $2400 a excellent value of $3800 and a show car value of $5300.
f) Nothing on the actual vehicle was taken into account before the value was given. Examples as follows.
f.1) In 1984-1985 Mazda offered a "Targa" package on the Rx7 these are increasingly rare and the car in question has this option added.
f.2) In 1983 Mazda offered a "Limited edition" wheel and tire package of the over 100000 cars that were sold in this time frame only 5000 would have these wheels, again the car in question has this option added.
f.3) This vehicle has the rare "Glass Moonroof" option as well as the factory body color moonroof. No consideration was given for the moonroof let alone both.
g) The CCC report states that i was given consideration because my vehicle has 6% less then the average miles of 144,500 that the car should have. With that calculation that means that CCC feels that the national average is 6282 miles per year. In stark contrast the actual National average is 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year. Lets go on the low side of this average at 12,000 on a car that is 23 years old it should have 276,000. I am not sure of how CCC came up with the 144,500 figure but it is very low.
h) Lastly, an adjustment of $-536 was made to my vehicle for condition? I am not sure how CCC could have made any sort of decision on the condition of the car sight unseen.
I have stated above many of the glaring defects in the CCC Valuescope report. I have been in the automotive industry for 15 years, and have appraised hundreds if not thousands of automobiles. I have never seen such a dishonest and unlawful way to approach a total loss claim. The insurance carrier blames CCC and CCC states that they are only doing what is in the carriers best interest. What about what is in the best interest of the victim. I didn't ask for the DHL driver to back up the front of my car, nor did I make a big deal out of it when it happened, but to toss a value of $714.00 at me and expect me to say thank you for being so kind is insane. If either CCC or The Hartford knows how to replace my 1984 Mazda Rx7 with another for $714.00 please show me.
My damage appraisal is $1954 dollars and I will not accept a penny less. Furthermore I will not accept a total loss claim since it will destroy the future value of this classic sports car.
Respectfully
Jason P Fachner
631-3
631-4
516-4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the following day I get a call from the ins guy and he tells me they will give me $1700 to fix the car. I agree since I have already purchased a new front cowl piece already painted for $46 on e-bay......
The moral is dont ever accept what the ins company offers you, they are banking on you being an idiot...
Jason
Last edited by jfachner72; 11-16-07 at 02:37 PM.
11-16-07 | 02:33 PM
#2
The moral is dont ever accept what the ins company offers you, they are banking on you being an idiot...
And if those phone#s are real you might want to scratch them out.
11-16-07 | 03:29 PM
#4
Nice car and great letter. It reminds me of the one "brownmound" wrote for his car. If my car is ever damaged, Im gonna plagerize both letters!
BTW was that all the damage done? Just the hood cowl? If so 1700$ is a pretty sweet deal. I got 2100$ for some cement water on my car. Ruined the paint but it was a peeling, faded crappy paint job anyways!
BTW was that all the damage done? Just the hood cowl? If so 1700$ is a pretty sweet deal. I got 2100$ for some cement water on my car. Ruined the paint but it was a peeling, faded crappy paint job anyways!
Trending Topics
11-17-07 | 12:36 AM
#9
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,162
Likes: 1
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Total write off my ***. And considering I bought my 84 GSL for $5K (although it is in awesome shape) they are blatantly trying to screw you. Although you could buy the car back if it does go for a total loss. However I'm sure any small claims judge would berate them for even thinking of saying that damage is total loss worthy. Total loss means the car is going to cost more to fix than the value of the car. Calling around to places that haven't seen these cars in decades, if at all is just ridiculous. Good work on sticking it to them and let us know how it goes.
11-17-07 | 09:16 AM
#10
Thread Starter
"1ST GENS" THE REAL RX-7!
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
From: long island
Well the story ends and it only took 14 days.
In the mail today was a nice check for $1700.00 and I recieved a new front cowl in the mail on thursday.
All is good in my world again...
Jason
In the mail today was a nice check for $1700.00 and I recieved a new front cowl in the mail on thursday.
All is good in my world again...
Jason
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
toplessFC3Sman
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
6
03-20-18 02:54 PM
The1Sun
1st Generation Specific (1979-1985)
7
09-18-15 08:13 PM
