Diminished Value or Diminution in Value is defined as that portion of a damage vehicle’s Pre-Loss Value that cannot be restored through the repair process.
Repair to "Insurance Industry Typical"; means the repairers may have used some OEM and some parts from sources other than the original manufacturer called imitation parts**. The repairers may have used Salvaged parts that were untested or history verified. Areas of the vehicle may have been repaired using a plastic auto body filler material. These typical shop procedures and materials were used in the repair WITHOUT consulting the manufacturer specifications or guidelines. The repair was controlled and financed by an insurance company who's focus was monetarily limited. The body shop who repaired the vehicle was somehow influenced by an insurance company.
This repair is not to be considered "industry standard." An expert has concluded that flaws or defects remain from the collision. It has also been concluded that evidence of the repair process exists that subsequent buyers may find. An expert has determined that the paintwork has been restored but evidence indicates that it may age and wear in a manner NOT EQUAL to the undamaged portion of the vehicle. A more than normal amount of contaminant exists in the paint in the form of dirt, dust or flaws. No effort was made to polish or buff the painted surface to create a uniform appearance. Diminished value would be more severe and include inherent loss, insurance induced DV from limiting repairs, selecting or directing the body shop and DV caused by body shop negligence. The potential for repair fraud is present in cost shifting without authorization.
A. Minimal repair specifications were consulted or followed. No documentation exists to prove factory specification was followed. A third party provider ex. Chief, Continental Frame Information Service or Kansas Jack may have been used to reference dimensions. No specifications were referenced for the limits of structural repair or replacement needs. Replacement of structural components were limited to visible items. Damage may still exist and be visible. Integrity of HLSA or Composites and Alloys were not addressed. No after-repair testing has been performed.
B. Structural measuring was not documented and there is evidence of obvious variance in the panel gaps and alignment. It is not known with any degree of certainty that the vehicle will perform in a subsequent crash in a predictable manner as originally intended.
C. If the vehicle has a separate steel frame: The vehicle's frame has been repaired. There is evidence of hold down damage and repair areas are readily visible to a knowledgeable buyer or expert. The damage extended past the suspension area at either end of the vehicle. The drive train of the vehicle may have sustained compression damage. Un-documented heat may have been applied to the frame during repair. The frame may still have a twist, buckle, kink, diamond, or have visible corrosion or integrity issues where performance will be hindered.
D. That the vehicle was not disassembled subsequent to repair, electronically tested, x-rayed, or further examined to identify the existence or lack of the existence of kinetic damage caused from the impact in areas such as electronic components, mountings, mechanical or structural components. The vehicle exhibits obvious performance issues regarding handling and drivability. As a result, there is documented proof that accident-related damage remains or is identified as repaired poorly.
E. Some areas of the vehicle reveal there may have been prior damage that may be related to multiple impacts at different times. The vehicle is clearly distinguishable from an undamaged vehicle of the exact same make, year and model in the opinion of most informed buyers. An automotive expert would definitely be able to determine the vehicle was damaged. The factory warranty is limited and risk of forfeit is possible.
F. This vehicle is not in a pre-loss condition relative to other makes or models of similar year. There is credible evidence that this vehicle will not function, perform and wear in a manner similar to that of an undamaged vehicle of the same year, make and model. Welded seams, joints and spot-welds were not inspected and the repair sites lack evidence of anti-corrosion coatings. There exists no documented proof internal and external coatings were applied.
G. Aluminium vehicles that sustain structural damage require a qualified repair shop to perform all repairs.
** Imitation parts: Have been determined by the courts to be inferior to OEM parts in many respects. Imitation parts void factory warranties on the imitation component itself and on all other related-connected components that fail due to the presence of the imitation part. Imitation parts have no effective recall system, should the manufacturer discover a design or material defect after installation. Imitation parts have been found NOT to be of like kind and quality in fit, finish, warranty and performance; as a result, using them may cause additional loss of value and additional potential safety hazards. Reconditioned or re-manufactured are also considered to be inferior unless sponsored by the OEM manufacturer.