I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below My vehicle never had a [redacted] report when I bought it in February [redacted] is lying on every ground to try to not pay what he knows is the LAW in VAIn a 3rd party incident, the law states that I am supposed to be left in the same financial situation as I was before the negligent driving of their clientI was going to trade in the vehicle weeks before the vehicle and had an offer for trade inNow that the car has been in an accident and I am trading it in at the exact same dealership, I lost $6,in value that I had to pay out of my pocketI wouldn't call that putting me back in the same financial situationI am $6,in the hole because of negligence of his clientIt is the law that he should payMr [redacted] tried to lie to me right on the phone and tell me that, [redacted] vs [redacted] stated there was no diminished value in VA because of this rulingWell after further review of the case, the one he tried to lie and hide behind, states that I am to be left in the same financial situation after the negligence of his clientI just want the crooked insurance company to abide by the lawsWhat is this? [redacted] all over again? Big company gets to lie and cheat to get out of abiding by the law and having a little business ethics and couth? Regards, [redacted]
I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Mr [redacted] admitted on the phone that vehicles have a life spanI said yes, years or 100,milesMy vehicle is half thatSo my vehicle still had years and 50,left of its "life span"I lost $6,and have proven it by the applicable LAW of VAIn the [redacted] vs [redacted] case from 1977, for this reason, I want my $6,diminished valueAlso rockingham group never paid for the loss of time with my vehicle, the sign that was damaged or the grass that was damaged Regards, [redacted]
We are in receipt of your inquiry from October 27th referencing the complaint filed by Mr [redacted] The complaint is a result of Rockingham's determination that Mr [redacted] 's vehicle did not incur diminished value as a result of the September 25th loss with our insured Mr [redacted] 's Infiniti QXwas damaged in an accident with Rockingham's insured As the vehicle was parked, Rockingham agreed to pay for the repairs to the vehicle The vehicle was expertly repaired at the shop of Mr [redacted] 's choice As part of our decision it is important to note that all damaged parts were replaced with new parts versus being straightened and repaired It is also important to note that vehicle is model year with total mileage of 49, This is not a new vehicle Claims for diminished value are allowed in Virginia and Mr [redacted] was directed by Rockingham to the applicable case law for his review The denial of diminished value for this loss was based on the type of repairs, the age of the vehicle along with the mileage, and the fact that the vehicle had been in a prior collision on December 22, Since the vehicle had a prior accident history, the claim that the title was stigmatized by a subsequent accident is not valid Based on the facts of this loss, Rockingham believes that its denial of diminished value was appropriate The car was returned to its pre-accident condition by expert repairs that included replacing all damaged areas with new parts The vehicle also had a prior accident history, so Mr [redacted] cannot claim the vehicle had a "clear" history prior to this accident We have confirmed that the [redacted] reporting service does not indicate that there was a prior loss to Mr [redacted] 's vehicle Although [redacted] does capture a lot of pre-existing vehicle history it is not a comprehensive data base Not all losses are reported to their service There was a prior loss as indicated by the ISO database report that we have included The fact that [redacted] did not capture the loss does not change our evaluation Given the quality of repairs and that there was a prior accident, we do not believe the car was stigmatized or incurred additional depreciation by the second accident with our insured Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any additional questions Sincerely, [redacted]
I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below My vehicle never had a [redacted] report when I bought it in February [redacted] is lying on every ground to try to not pay what he knows is the LAW in VAIn a 3rd party incident, the law states that I am supposed to be left in the same financial situation as I was before the negligent driving of their clientI was going to trade in the vehicle weeks before the vehicle and had an offer for trade inNow that the car has been in an accident and I am trading it in at the exact same dealership, I lost $6,in value that I had to pay out of my pocketI wouldn't call that putting me back in the same financial situationI am $6,in the hole because of negligence of his clientIt is the law that he should payMr [redacted] tried to lie to me right on the phone and tell me that, [redacted] vs [redacted] stated there was no diminished value in VA because of this rulingWell after further review of the case, the one he tried to lie and hide behind, states that I am to be left in the same financial situation after the negligence of his clientI just want the crooked insurance company to abide by the lawsWhat is this? [redacted] all over again? Big company gets to lie and cheat to get out of abiding by the law and having a little business ethics and couth? Regards, [redacted]
I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Mr [redacted] admitted on the phone that vehicles have a life spanI said yes, years or 100,milesMy vehicle is half thatSo my vehicle still had years and 50,left of its "life span"I lost $6,and have proven it by the applicable LAW of VAIn the [redacted] vs [redacted] case from 1977, for this reason, I want my $6,diminished valueAlso rockingham group never paid for the loss of time with my vehicle, the sign that was damaged or the grass that was damaged Regards, [redacted]
We are in receipt of your inquiry from October 27th referencing the complaint filed by Mr [redacted] The complaint is a result of Rockingham's determination that Mr [redacted] 's vehicle did not incur diminished value as a result of the September 25th loss with our insured Mr [redacted] 's Infiniti QXwas damaged in an accident with Rockingham's insured As the vehicle was parked, Rockingham agreed to pay for the repairs to the vehicle The vehicle was expertly repaired at the shop of Mr [redacted] 's choice As part of our decision it is important to note that all damaged parts were replaced with new parts versus being straightened and repaired It is also important to note that vehicle is model year with total mileage of 49, This is not a new vehicle Claims for diminished value are allowed in Virginia and Mr [redacted] was directed by Rockingham to the applicable case law for his review The denial of diminished value for this loss was based on the type of repairs, the age of the vehicle along with the mileage, and the fact that the vehicle had been in a prior collision on December 22, Since the vehicle had a prior accident history, the claim that the title was stigmatized by a subsequent accident is not valid Based on the facts of this loss, Rockingham believes that its denial of diminished value was appropriate The car was returned to its pre-accident condition by expert repairs that included replacing all damaged areas with new parts The vehicle also had a prior accident history, so Mr [redacted] cannot claim the vehicle had a "clear" history prior to this accident We have confirmed that the [redacted] reporting service does not indicate that there was a prior loss to Mr [redacted] 's vehicle Although [redacted] does capture a lot of pre-existing vehicle history it is not a comprehensive data base Not all losses are reported to their service There was a prior loss as indicated by the ISO database report that we have included The fact that [redacted] did not capture the loss does not change our evaluation Given the quality of repairs and that there was a prior accident, we do not believe the car was stigmatized or incurred additional depreciation by the second accident with our insured Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any additional questions Sincerely, [redacted]