Accident insurance / Tax Rebate Question after totaling car

[xiaodiandian]

Hi Everyone-

Latest update, looks like the car didn't total. The car sustained roughly 14k in body damage. They took it to the dealership and there was no damage to the battery or engine.

So the body shop will make the repairs. Not sure how I feel about that. While I don't want to lose money on the totaled car, I also don't want a car that might have problems in the future.

Any thoughts?

 

[RonDawg]

Considering what used Leafs are going for, I'm surprised they're going to fix it. I personally wouldn't want the car back; as I've said earlier, I once had a car that suffered a lot of rear-end damage in an accident, and it just never drove the same again. I ended up getting rid of it when it was only 4 years old (the car was a year old when the accident happened), that's how much I ended up hating the car.

Are you leasing? If so just ride out the lease as much as possible; sometimes you may be able to turn it in a bit early if you lease/purchase another Nissan.

 

[johnrhansen]

Anything can be repaired to be like new. It all depends on the shop how well it turns out!

 

[RonDawg]

Anything can be repaired to be like new. It all depends on the shop how well it turns out!

If that were true, then why is previous accident damage disclosure so important to buyers? Why is a car with no accident damage worth more than one that has been repaired, even if done well?

 

[Klayfish]

If that were true, then why is previous accident damage disclosure so important to buyers? Why is a car with no accident damage worth more than one that has been repaired, even if done well?

It's important to buyers because fear mongerers like CarFax want everyone to believe that if a car has any "strike" on their report, it's a problem. Unfortunately, most people buy into that. I'm not saying services like CarFax are totally useless, but they're not what the company wants you to believe.

It's highly debatable if a car with prior repairs is worth less than one without. If the car is properly repaired, the only real difference is someone's perception or stigma of a repaired car. I've often seen it where the car is in better shape after repairs than it was before.

xiaodiandian,
You don't have a lot of choice on whether to total the car or not, that's really up to the insurance company. At 14k, my guess is that's roughly (I'm talking ballpark figure) 50% of the cars' value. As a rule of thumb, cars are totalled at the 70-75% mark, though I've totalled them for significantly less. Just be sure to stay on top of the shop.

 

[RonDawg]

If that were true, then why is previous accident damage disclosure so important to buyers? Why is a car with no accident damage worth more than one that has been repaired, even if done well?

It's important to buyers because fear mongerers like CarFax want everyone to believe that if a car has any "strike" on their report, it's a problem. Unfortunately, most people buy into that. I'm not saying services like CarFax are totally useless, but they're not what the company wants you to believe.

Looking out for previous accident repair has been advised on any used car long before there was such a thing as CarFax.

But now that you mention it, that's another issue the OP has to deal with if the car was purchased: the Scarlet Letter of disclosed previous accident damage. He will never get as much for it as an identical un-damaged version.

It's highly debatable if a car with prior repairs is worth less than one without. If the car is properly repaired, the only real difference is someone's perception or stigma of a repaired car. I've often seen it where the car is in better shape after repairs than it was before.

That may be your opinion, but is not one of the buying public at large.

The problem is that repair quality does vary, and when insurance companies are only willing to pay so much, they're naturally going to take shortcuts. And you often don't find out until after the repair is done.

If the welding is a few mm off but noticeable enough to cause panels, lights, etc. to be noticeably mis-aligned, or unusual tire wear developing despite the best efforts of an alignment shop, how likely is that shop going to cut out and re-weld the offending piece?

 

[Klayfish]

You're right, it's always been good advice to look for signs of poor prior repairs. However, services like Carfax have done a very good marketing job in getting people to believe that they're the be all and end all and that any car with something less than "perfect" is worth less.

I'd agree with you that if a body shop does a crappy job, than the car is worth less. That's out of control of the insurance company or customer, that's the shops' responsibility. I can assure you insurance companies don't ask any shop to cut corners. Shops do it to increase their profit margin. Not all shops do, but some. If a shop does substandard repairs, that's up to the owner of the car to pursue resolution.

But let's put the inferior repair part aside. Let's go on the premise that a shop does a proper job and fully repairs the car. Is it worth less? Why? The basis for making it is public perception of what a previously repaired car is. It's definitely an interesting and polarizing topic. Of all the things I do at my job, this is one that creates the most discussion.

 

[xiaodiandian]

Geico valued the car at 24k. The body shop repairs are at 14k.

I'm asking Geico for a 2nd repair quote, since the car is already at the dealership, which was checking the internals of the car. The body shop didn't know enough about the car to check the battery, engine, etc.., Which makes me doubly hesitant to trust the body shop.

I spoke to a guy at my work who knows a lot about cars, and he advised totalling it. He said it's not your choice, of course, but if you don't feel safe in it, it's worth conveying that to the insurance company. If a poor repair job causes further trouble down the line, then it's probably in the company's best interest to total.

We'll see. Will keep updating as info comes in.

Thanks!

 

[Klayfish]

When you say 2nd repair qoute, can you clarify? Insurance companies usually send a staff appraiser to inspect a vehicle, or have a shop of choice do it. They generally don't get "second opinions". The normal procedure would be to then have the shop begin repairs and if additional damage is found, a supplement is called in. Was this a shop of your choice or a network shop GEICO recommended?

If they're valuing it at $24k and have a $14k initial estimate, it's getting close to the total loss threshold. The best thing to do is to tell GEICO you want the shop to do what's called a tear down. That's where the shop will spend 2-3 hours quickly removing the obviously damaged items so that they can expose any hidden damage. That'll give a really good idea if the car is repairable or not. Obviously, make sure the shop is familiar with the unique drive system of the LEAF.

GEICO is probably also going to consider the salvage value on the car. For example, if they have the car valued at $24k, but historical data shows they can sell the salvage for $10,000, then their net loss is $14k. Compare that to the repair costs. If the repair costs are higher, it can be justified to total the car. That's often how I wind up totaling cars at 55-60% of their value. Ask if they've obtained a salvage qoute on it. The challenge from GEICO's end is there probably isn't much historical data on the LEAFs salvage value. So it's hard to gauge what the salvage is worth.

 

[xiaodiandian]

Yes it seems like they don't want to do a second quote.

They initially took it to a shop they recommended and I approved. Not sure if this was the right idea.

After getting a quote on the body work, they took it to a Nissan dealership shop, who vouched for the engine and battery. I just spoke with that guy on the phone, and he said the repairs from this body shop should be OK. But it's not his job to offer an opinion and he seemed more to tow the insurance company's line.

Thanks for the rec about the teardown.

Looks like I'm going to get a repaired car. Not sure how I feel about that.

 

[davewill]

Yes it seems like they don't want to do a second quote.

They initially took it to a shop they recommended and I approved. Not sure if this was the right idea.

After getting a quote on the body work, they took it to a Nissan dealership shop, who vouched for the engine and battery. I just spoke with that guy on the phone, and he said the repairs from this body shop should be OK. But it's not his job to offer an opinion and he seemed more to tow the insurance company's line.

Thanks for the rec about the teardown.

Looks like I'm going to get a repaired car. Not sure how I feel about that.

Find out what your rights are. In most places, you have the repairs done where you WANT them done, not where the insurance company wants them done. If you don't trust this shop, get your car taken someplace else, ASAP.

My son wrecked my brand new 2005 Prius, and the insurance company insisted on repairing it to the tune of $20+. You can bet I was picky about the shop that repaired it. I still have that car with 150,000 miles on it, and it's been one of the most reliable cars I've ever owned. Go figure.

 

[user 10599]

From what I've been reading, I'd think the salvage value would be quite high considering that there are cars that need good batteries and those don't seem to be readily available. The batteries alone are probably more than most cars' salvage values.

 

[johnrhansen]

From what I've been reading, I'd think the salvage value would be quite high considering that there are cars that need good batteries and those don't seem to be readily available. The batteries alone are probably more than most cars' salvage values.

If that's the case, It might be a good idea to not get the car fixed, keep the money and part the car out

 

[Klayfish]

Yes it seems like they don't want to do a second quote.

They initially took it to a shop they recommended and I approved. Not sure if this was the right idea.

After getting a quote on the body work, they took it to a Nissan dealership shop, who vouched for the engine and battery. I just spoke with that guy on the phone, and he said the repairs from this body shop should be OK. But it's not his job to offer an opinion and he seemed more to tow the insurance company's line.

Thanks for the rec about the teardown.

Looks like I'm going to get a repaired car. Not sure how I feel about that.

If you're not comfortable with the shop, find one you are comfortable with and move it there quickly. GEICO can recommend a shop, as they did here, but they cannot require you to get it repaired anywhere. That's your choice. As I mentioned, keep on top of the shop, check in on the car, stop by and ask to look at it as repairs commence. Trust me, the shop isn't towing the insurance company line. Even if they're a shop that GEICO recommends, they're still out to make sure it's a job they can do, want to do and can earn a profit on. Keep in mind the insurance company has no financial stake in the shop. That same shop is probably a network shop for State Farm, Allstate, Nationwide, etc...so they're not "loyal" to one particular company.

 

[QueenBee]

But let's put the inferior repair part aside. Let's go on the premise that a shop does a proper job and fully repairs the car. Is it worth less? Why? The basis for making it is public perception of what a previously repaired car is. It's definitely an interesting and polarizing topic. Of all the things I do at my job, this is one that creates the most discussion.

I'm looking at a car for 10 minutes. I can see or carfax tells me that it has had a major repair. There is another identical car that is next to it that has no noticeable repairs and carfax backs that up. Which one do you buy? Most people will say the one without repairs therefore it's worth more. Is that decision rationale? I certainly think so. While both cars carry risk of issues what car is more likely to have issues? When buying a car it's very difficult to determine that a proper and fully repair job has been done. I'd say basically impossible. Sure it's easy to see when a horrible job has been done.

 

[Klayfish]

QueenBee,
You basically illustrated my point. You're comparing cars side by side and saying Carfax backs up the fact that you can't see any major repairs. Carfax wants you to believe that they're the holy grail and that you need Carfax to back you up. That Carfax report may not be worth the paper it's printed on (uh...smartphone screen it's looked at? :lol: ). Carfax accuracy is spotty, at best. I can assure you that there's a huge mountain of things that Carfax misses. Many accidents, title issues, etc...never make it to Carfax. So to say that one car with a clean Carfax is worth more than one with a hit on Carfax is buying into the myth the sell. I'm not completely knocking Carfax. It's a nice tool that can be useful, but that's it. It's not the bible they want you to believe it is.

Sure, I'd agree that a car with obvious signs of poorly done repairs has lower value, no argument there. My point is going on the assumption that the damaged car was repaired properly. If it was, what's the reduction in value? Why? It's public perception. I understand the stigma it can have, and sometimes diminished value is warranted. But how much? Try this...go to Autotrader.com, use the Honda Accord or Camry since they're fairly common. Search within a 50 mile radius for a specific car, i.e. 2009 models. You're almost gauranteed to find 2 nearly identical cars with nearly identical prices. One has a clean Carfax, one doesn't. Yet they have the same price. Yes, I'm sure people try to use the Carfax as a negotiator, but I bet if anything they may get a couple hundred knocked off the price...if that.

 

[Boourns]

Of the last three cars I owned before the Leaf (G37, Scion Tc, WRX) all had been in accidents* and none of the repairs showed on a Carfax. Based on that experience I don't really put too much faith in them, though if offered a Carfax report by the dealer when car shopping I always accept.

*Before any of you start avoiding Blue Leafs in the Austin area, only one was my fault: I learned very quickly my first winter in Wisconsin (having grown up in Texas) that braking on ice/snow is not always a great idea. :lol:

 

[Ichorny]

Had my 2013 Leaf SL for two weeks before rear ending someone on the freeway. I think my insurance company is going to total it. They are claiming that the value based on DMV records is 27K. That is about what I paid if I subtract the federal rebate. Can the insurance company subtract the federal rebate from the price of the car?

Thanks!!

 

[QueenBee]

Had my 2013 Leaf SL for two weeks before rear ending someone on the freeway. I think my insurance company is going to total it. They are claiming that the value based on DMV records is 27K. That is about what I paid if I subtract the federal rebate. Can the insurance company subtract the federal rebate from the price of the car?

Sad
Not really but the market can and that's what the insurance companies will use. For example if a new LEAF is MSRP $35,000, it would be absurd to buy a used one for more than $27,500 since that's essentially cost of a brand new one.

 

[Ichorny]

Had my 2013 Leaf SL for two weeks before rear ending someone on the freeway. I think my insurance company is going to total it. They are claiming that the value based on DMV records is 27K. That is about what I paid if I subtract the federal rebate. Can the insurance company subtract the federal rebate from the price of the car?

Sad
Not really but the market can and that's what the insurance companies will use. For example if a new LEAF is MSRP $35,000, it would be absurd to buy a used one for more than $27,500 since that's essentially cost of a brand new one.

The insurance company is using records for new sales. There are no comparable used sales. I had less than 400 miles. They showed me sales records of cars with less than 10 miles on it.