[sokoloff]

Our CR-V was rear-ended. It's a great car and it's pretty likely to be totaled because the cost of repairs is going to end up being higher than the insurance company is willing to pay. (And then I expect it's going to be a massive fight for me to get paid enough to replace it like-for-like, but that's a separate issue from the overall footprint.)

I don't see any reasonable way around this, though. If I have a car that I could replace for $8K plus the cost of replicating some mods [CarPlay head unit, tow hitch, and heated seats] and would salvage for $1K, I can't reasonably expect someone else's insurance company to pay $12.5K in costs (for repairs plus rentals/loss of use plus diminished value plus incidentals) to put me back in a place where I then have a crash-repaired car worth $7K plus $1K in cash in my pocket for diminished value. What other carbon reduction could be bought for that extra $3K in costs vs. repairing our damaged car?

From the at-fault driver's and their insurance company's point of view: the driver's negligence caused around $8-9K of direct damages to me plus several hundred in incidental/related expenses. That's what the driver is liable for (and the insurance company on the hook to cover as per their agreement), not a $12+K figure for a liability for damages amount that was thousands lower.

[kd5bjo]

> I don't see any reasonable way around this, though. If I have a car that I could replace for $8K and would salvage for $1K, I can't reasonably expect someone else's insurance company to pay $12.5K in costs (for repairs plus rentals/loss of use plus diminished value plus incidentals) to put me back in a place where I then have a crash-repaired car worth $7K plus $1K in cash in my pocket for diminished value.

The problem with that logic is the assumption that the car can be replaced for $8K. To some (maybe most) people, cars are non-fungible and there is a significant amount of personal, non-transferrable value in one particular vehicle, due e.g. to the memories acquired in connection with it.

Part of the reason that people get upset when the insurance company decides to declare their car totaled is that the replacement value offered is significantly lower than they would have accepted for the car had it not been in an accident-- The actuarial value assigned isn't properly valuing the intangibles.

Edit to add: Or, in other words, if the market-clearing price of "comparable" vehicles represented the actual value of the car to its owner, the car would have already been on the used market. The fact that it wasn't signals that there must be some premium over the market price that's necessary to make the owner whole.

[jandrese]

Here is another angle on that "sentimentality" you're talking about. If I've been following the book on every maintenance item, driving gently, and proactively going after any rust that starts to form on the vehicle that is then smashed up in an accident I don't want an "equivalent market value" used vehicle that was neglected and beat to shit by the previous owner just because it's the same make, model, and age. Especially since that previous owner was a chain smoker.

[sokoloff]

True. As a car person, I’m expecting an annoying battle here, and that’s over just replacing the utilitarian aspects of what is a pure utility car for us.

If it was my fairly modified (by me) ‘66 Mustang, that would be very difficult to get to a settlement figure that I’d find fair.

[throwaway173738]

I literally can’t get another light truck that’s as compact and as useful as the one I have. My choice is to buy a giant semi truck or an suv with a 4-foot box bed. There’s more to vehicles then sentimental or book value.

As it stands I’ll probably try to get a mini van and put vinyl floors in.

[linuxftw]

What you describe would be insurance over the minimum coverage, which is available. If you take the minimum, expect to get the 'market value' of a replacement because that's what you agreed to when you initiated the policy.

[sokoloff]

There are two key cases: when you are forced to deal with your insurance company because no one else is at fault. In that case, you get what you bought.

When another driver is at fault and you elect to not use your insurance company for whatever reason. In that case, you didn't have any opportunity to pre-arrange with this other driver's insurance company and you have to fall back on the law as a backstop.

[vel0city]

All dozen of my kids were conceived in the back of that 1997 Toyota Camry. The car was given to me from my Grandpa after he passed. All those memories from the past 27 years clearly has a ton of sentimental value; I put it at $2M. I'll settle for half of that though.

[philwelch]

When you buy car insurance, you're insuring the car for its market value, not for its sentimental value to you personally.

[nytesky]

The total valued does not include the significant time of finding an equivalent vehicle at that price in the rough and tumble used car market.

It also does not price in the significant risk that a used car of this vintage significant undisclosed defects that are hard to detect by inspection at purchase.

[sokoloff]

Agree on the first.

In theory (and I think in practice), the second is priced into the used car market already.

[quadyeast]

... including the gently driven car that just got totaled.

[nytesky]

So if someone else is at fault, their insurance can total your car? I thought that was only a factor for your own comprehensive/collision insurance. I would expect if my car is damaged and the repairs are $X, that is the other drivers liability regardless of the value of my car??

[sokoloff]

Imagine your 1990 Honda Accord is smashed into a 2’ x 2’ x 2’ cube or caught fire and burned to the ground as a result of the accident that was someone else’s fault.

Do you think that the other insurance should be on the hook to repair the remains of your car into a functioning 1990 Honda Accord?

Or is paying to replace the car with like sufficient? (I hate it, but I have to agree that it’s far more practical to allow the replacement.)

[bluGill]

That depends. In the general case I'd call a 2000 Toyota close enough because I don't consider the 1990 Honda collectable. However if you are a collector that 1990 is a 30 year old classic and you can demand more. To demand more than means you need to show you will - get a special insurance policy that will demand a 1990 Honda if anything happens. You also won't be driving this 1990 Honda on the roads except in context of a parade (you put it on a trailer to get to the parade).