Legal Question in Insurance Law in California

Re: Diminished value and injury in auto claim

Generally an at fault party (or their insurance company) is only obligated to pay for the cost of the repair or the value of the car, whichever is less. I do not believe that you can get damages for diminution in value as well as cost of repair.

As to how injuries are valued, there are 2 components. First is economic damages. This includes things like medical expenses and lost earnings. These are usually hard numbers and easy to prove. Unfortunately, insurance companies will frequently complain that the victim has "overtreated," i.e. the treatment was unnecessary. (Of course that's easy for the insurance adjustor to say, because it's not his/her pain). When this occurs payment becomes a matter of negotiation or the decision of a judge or jury. Insurance companies use this tactic to scare off and intimidate people. They can much better afford the cost of litigation and even if they lose, they discourage so many people from pursuing claims by taking a hard line attitude, that it is worth the cost losing every now and then.

The second part of damages is pain and suffering. This is usually the most difficult part of the negotiations. Contrary to what you may hear, there is no set formula. I have gotten six figure damages with medical bills less than $6,000 and I have gotten damages equal to little more than the cost of the medical treatment. The more serious the injury, the greater amount the damages should be. If the injury is permanent the damages should be even more. Further if there is any doubt as to which party is at fault, damages are generally less if a settlement is negotiated. It's really just a matter of negotiations and the willingness to show the insurance company that you really will go to court. If you have a good case and they see you are determined to get a fair award, even if you have to go through a jury trial, they are usually willing to pay you more.