-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Accident and Repairs
- Thread starter BLKMDL3
- Start date
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Actually, there are two separate issues at law:
1. What your insurer owes you for loss of use under your first party own policy coverage. The answer above is correct in this regard assuming the OP's policy has similar wordings to most policies with regard to loss of use coverage.
2. What the tortfeasor (at fault driver) owes you at law. In negligence law, damages are compensatory in nature and as such the award should make the plaintiff whole, sufficient to put the plaintiff back in the position he or she was before the defendant's negligent act. Anything more would unlawfully permit a plaintiff to profit from the tort. That is not allowed.
Arguably, the OP renting a Model X while his is being repaired does not mean he is profiting. Rather, he is simply attempting to be put back in the position he was in before the defendant's negligent act, and while his vehicle is being repaired. As such, he could pursue the at-fault driver for those costs, since renting that X during repairs simply put him back in the position had the negligent act not occurred.
The problem is that insurers for at-fault drivers strongly resist these claims, just like accelerated damages claims (so as not to open the floodgates) and it often it takes a lawsuit, or at least the threat of a lawsuit, before they pay.
How do I get full value for my crashed car?
Sorry. I've been through this in the USA with a lawyer. The USA does not recognize loss of use on a pleasure craft. An at-fault-party doesn't need to compensate you for loss of use on a vehicle that is not operated for financial purposes.
Thus, the only thing an at-fault party is liable for is making sure you can still get to and from work in your vehicle as that was the financial use of the vehicle. This does not require a specific vehicle.
The Conqueror, 166 U.S. 110 (1897) involved a yacht purchased in England and brought into the United States by a United States citizen for private pleasure use. The yacht was seized by the United States Treasury Department on the ground it was subject to taxation. The yacht owner sued to regain possession of his vessel, and for damages. The district court ordered the return of the vessel to its owner and awarded the owner $15,000 in loss of use damages. The court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment ordering the return of the vessel to its owner, but reversed the award of loss of use damages. It held there must be a pecuniary loss to the owner of a private pleasure vessel or a reasonable certainty of a pecuniary loss to justify an award of loss of use damages. The court noted: 1) the vessel was purchased for the owner’s personal pleasure; and 2) there was “not an atom of testimony” tending to show it was purchased for hire or other commercial purposes.
So basically, you are "made whole" if you get your property back in as-before condition, and if you suffered no other financial loss. As long as you could still get to and from work, you're compensated.
Seriously- I almost sued over this. I had a race car on a trailer once and was rear-ended on the way to the track. The race car was damaged. I didn't get to race it for months in the short summer season. Under US law, I wasn't owed anything as I raced only for fun, not for financial gain, and thus as long as they got me the car back then I was "whole." They didn't even have to reimburse me for the track fee I had pre-paid and didn't get to use that day. There was no way to recover the loss of use for those months, and if there was a way to rent a race car, they wouldn't have covered that. Only my direct losses were covered.
Maybe I had an atrocious lawyer, but looking at the case law he referenced it was pretty clear to me his analysis was reasonable.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Sorry (to borrow your word -- you're so polite to disagree with -- you're almost a Canadian -- given you're just down the road from me) but you won't convince me with an 1897 case dealing with marine law that is easily distinguished on its facts. Marine law is a whole different ball game. It's amazing what you can get away with in marine law but that was because we didn't want to discourage people from coming to America in the 1800's.
Here's something more recent and more on point:
What is Loss of Use?
The owner of personal property that has been wrongfully damaged by the act of another is entitled to recover damages for the loss of the use of that property. This means the claimant must be compensated for not having his or her personal property readily available as a result of the negligence of a wrongdoer. This particular type of claim is in addition to a claim for the physical damages to the vehicle. It makes no difference that the claimant’s vehicle is used solely for pleasure. Loss of use damages are generally measured by the period of time reasonably required to make repairs to the damaged vehicle, and the rental value of a similar vehicle which the claimant can rent for use during the repair period of the vehicle. The measure of damages for the loss of use is governed by the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 3903M. Loss of Use of Personal Property, which states:
“To recover damages for loss of use, [plaintiff] must prove the reasonable cost to rent a similar [personal property] for the amount of time reasonably necessary to repair or replace the [personal property].”
If a claimant attempts to recover for loss of use, he or she will be unable to recover for any rental expenses. In other words, a claimant cannot recover for both types of claims. The amount recoverable can vary significantly depending on the necessary time required to fully repair a claimant’s vehicle and the model and value of the vehicle before the accident.
Here's something more recent and more on point:
What is Loss of Use?
The owner of personal property that has been wrongfully damaged by the act of another is entitled to recover damages for the loss of the use of that property. This means the claimant must be compensated for not having his or her personal property readily available as a result of the negligence of a wrongdoer. This particular type of claim is in addition to a claim for the physical damages to the vehicle. It makes no difference that the claimant’s vehicle is used solely for pleasure. Loss of use damages are generally measured by the period of time reasonably required to make repairs to the damaged vehicle, and the rental value of a similar vehicle which the claimant can rent for use during the repair period of the vehicle. The measure of damages for the loss of use is governed by the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 3903M. Loss of Use of Personal Property, which states:
“To recover damages for loss of use, [plaintiff] must prove the reasonable cost to rent a similar [personal property] for the amount of time reasonably necessary to repair or replace the [personal property].”
If a claimant attempts to recover for loss of use, he or she will be unable to recover for any rental expenses. In other words, a claimant cannot recover for both types of claims. The amount recoverable can vary significantly depending on the necessary time required to fully repair a claimant’s vehicle and the model and value of the vehicle before the accident.
Last edited:
Nosken
Active Member
The chrome delete on the rear "TESLA" looks great, what did you use to make it black?
Exoticar in LA did it. Great people. Painted. Ask for anthony. Tell him Zack sent you. he'll give you a great deal
Limped the car home. Its worse that it looks. frunk WILL NOT open. I even tried the emergency latch. darn. I get a Nissan Armada as a rental. 9MPG life! They only cover $55 per day. Here is some more pics. Something is damaged in the front. I don't know what but something needs some loving. The nose of the car went over the suburban in front of me. Trying for total loss. It looks much WORSE in person. Going to cry myself to sleep now.
Attachments
The front T snapped in half and sensors fell out. The cover for the emergency latch to the front fell off. Something is out of line as the hood is so far forward. Thank god nobody was hurt, that is the most important thing, a car can be replaced. A human can't.
. Thank god nobody was hurt, that is the most important thing, a car can be replaced. A human can't.Given the way that looks, $55/day for a rental, how long a repair takes, plus $xx/day storage charges for when your car is at the shop, and a diminished value claim that looks like an easy total loss to me.
I can't tell from the pictures but if the rear quarter panels are damaged I would say there is a 99.99% chance they will total it. (Especially if you start asking up front about getting diminished value payment.)
Mark Z
Active Member
Ironic. Yesterday I talked to the auto body shop in Santa Ana about a lengthy repair wait. She mentioned 30 day insurance loaner limits. Those facing an extreme wait might be better off buying a cheap used car and reselling it after repairs are complete.
The physical repair work can usually be completed in a timely manner. Unfortunately, is the wait for parts and scheduling at a busy location that can add weeks or months to a repair.
After the insurance and auto body analysis of a minor fender bender, I would ask if a quick repair could make the vehicle usable. That would allow use while waiting for parts and scheduling. Then a rental could be obtained during the relatively short repair time.
The physical repair work can usually be completed in a timely manner. Unfortunately, is the wait for parts and scheduling at a busy location that can add weeks or months to a repair.
After the insurance and auto body analysis of a minor fender bender, I would ask if a quick repair could make the vehicle usable. That would allow use while waiting for parts and scheduling. Then a rental could be obtained during the relatively short repair time.
Last edited:
small ding in rear quarter panel. Will check tomorrow and send more pics. I hope its totaled then I can get my 75D. But will miss the 60D.
Damn that sucks! Wrecked Tesla's make me sad But if you need a laugh, her license plate frame is just golden and makes for a good punch line to the story. Too soon?
But if you need a laugh, her license plate frame is just golden and makes for a good punch line to the story. Too soon?
Peteybabes
redneck drivin' a tesla...
I don't think the hood has slidden forward, I think the other stuff is pushed in. It looks like the hood is even at least an inch further back than the fender. Is there even enough clearance for the wipers to come out of their parking spot between the hood and windshield?
