quick long and short of diminished value.
In most cases, it is a bogus invaluable argument because, it is only realized if the vehicle is actually sold, and sold for less than an otherwise "non" damaged condition. Trust me....I have seen too many liability situations where they people have been paid the loss in value, and either keep the car until it no longer matters, or sold it to another party for full price with no disclosure or qid pro quo discount for the amount of calculated loss in value.
There has been some rather bad for consumer litigation in the recent past making it a valid claim for not only liability situations, but also against your own company for comp and collision coverages. Those in GA know all about this. Hang on to your wallet folks, because you are going to see a HUGE HUGE HUGE raise in auto insurance premiums in states where this has become a valid argument.
It is in my opinion a valid argument on a vehicle that is for sale at the time of the loss with a legitimate asking retail value with a legally binding sales agreement. If the loss causes the buyer to back off from buying the repaired vehicle at the original price, and the seller decides to sell it anyway, you now have a 100% valid argument.
Otherwise, 99.9% of all vehicles made naturally depreciate, and if they are driven on the street they are expected to get dinged and bruised. I have a personal prejudice against those making dimished value claims on vehicles that are not classics, were not in the middle of sales agreements at the time of loss, and ANY claim made against the person's own policy under comp or collision.
Look at it this way (and I am not talking about the car we are discussing in this thread). If you have a 1999 Tahoe that gets hit and has a damage estimate of $6,200 for repairs. The vehicle gets fixed, you get paid say $1,200 in dimished value, then keep the vehicle until it it has 192,000 miles and it is ready for the scrap heap---does it really matter that it was ever wrecked? Was the $1,200 a legitimate loss that was = to some personal loss experienced in the value of a vehicle that you never attempted to sell at the time the diminished value was at $1,200?
Would you agree that diminished value on a 2002 Tahoe wrecked in 2002 is worth more than a 1997 Tahoe wrecked in 2002? I think you would because the value of the vehicles is significantly different.
Do you guys get the picture here? You need to become polictially active in your state and do what you can to get this kind of law overturned. It is bad law, and it is costing everybody more money. The lawyers that have been successfull in tricking the judge and jury to buy into this mess should be ashamed of themselves. Believe me though, with the MILLIONS of dollars they earned on winning these cases, they personally won't sweat paying a couple hunder more per year for insurance. Also, those that see some benefit from this retro active settlement will see very little money per policy. In some cases, these cars have already been sold for normal actual cash value with no diminished loss, yet the settlement entitles them to be paid. Go figure. Only in America, where we no longer fight battles by the sword, we just take each other to court and satisfy our need for greed.
Anyhow, the guy put the shoe polish in the cracks in the stripe. From what I've known of these cars, the hood stripe usually goes first. 78SilvAnniv, Do "your" vettes stripes have the same problem???? 
I'll be on the lookout for a 78SA t-shirt.
