I'm submitting a client criticism in opposition to CCC Valuescope (CCCG) and my insurer USAA for falsely alleging a good "market value" of my vehicle.
My insurer USAA has breached its responsibility to train the utmost good religion to me its insured. By utilizing CCC Valuescope (an organization I allege violates the U.S. federal RICO Act) USAA has deliberately supplied me a low and fraudulent valuation of my vehicle in hopes of acquiring an unreasonable and unfair settlement.
CCC Valuescope (previously often known as CCC Information Services Group Inc - CCCG) can not at all be deemed a good and market worth of cars as CCC Valuescope works completely for insurers and due to this fact has an financial curiosity to produce valuations which are deliberately beneath the precise honest market worth of what insured automobiles are really value.
It is understood truth all through the insurance coverage trade that CCC gathers its values from what automobile sellers would promote a automobile for at basement wholesale costs, not the true "retail value of an auto of like kind and quality prior to the accident" as mandated by FL insurance coverage laws. Moreover CCC Valuescope makes use of a mixture of automobiles previously leased, used, and abused amongst wrecked vehicles when compiling valuations to afford their insurance coverage firm prospects paying out whole losses the bottom attainable "values" to current their insured.
Ironically, almost each automobile in CCC Valuescope's appraisal of my automobile report consisted of automobiles that had over 20 information indicative of points corresponding to accidents and defective vehicles. Among the report, some vehicles had 28, 31, and 32 information.
Cutting prices and denying its insured "the utmost due care" traditionally might be documented in opposition to USAA starting with the category motion lawsuit in opposition to USAA in Washington's King County (March 12, 1999) for compelling auto restore outlets to make use of "imitation" elements in repairs, whereas concurrently hiding this follow from policyholders. Beyond auto insurance coverage, USAA has numerous complaints filed in opposition to it in 27 states throughout the nation.
CCC Valuescope just isn't impartial of their valuations since they're a employed gun for the insurance coverage corporations! Upon conducting a VIN search on the automobiles throughout the CCC report 39813905, many vehicles had over 20 information indicative of quite a few collisions, points with the automobile, and a number of other adjustments of possession. By relying upon CCC's deliberately low valuation of my automobile, USAA is breaching its fiduciary responsibility to behave in good religion in dealing with my declare. No honest and sincere analysis of my declare might be carried out by CCC as it's contracted by insurers for the first goal of minimizing monies paid out by insurers to its fiduciaries. By utilizing CCC Valuescope, USAA is clearly not exercising the "utmost due care" within the curiosity of me its insured as required by Baxter v. Royal Indemnity.
CCC admitted itself in its SEC Filing on 3-16-2005 that "the Company sometimes pays a new customer for the remaining commitment of its previous contract with third parties as an incentive". In regard to regulation, CCC mentions in the identical submitting "in most states, however, there is no formal approval process for total loss valuation products". CCC itself confesses in the identical report "individual state departments of insurance have taken positions as to whether the use of CCC Valuescope valuations is in compliance with a states claim handling regulations".
"The Company is aware that since 2002 the California Department of Insurance has advised some of the Company's customers (which management estimates to be approximately 14% of the total revenue earned in 2004 from the Company's CCC Valuescope valuation product and service) that the Department believed that their use of CCC Valuescope had not been in compliance with the California insurance regulations in effect prior to October 4, 2004, with respect to certain components of the products methodology. The Company believes the product was in compliance with the applicable California regulations."
"On April 24, 2003, the California Department of Insurance formally adopted new regulations that required the Company to change its methodology for computing total loss valuations in California." There is nice purpose due to this fact to consider CCC Valuescope's valuation methodology is very flawed and skewed to favor its insurance coverage firm prospects.
In CCC's annual report filed February 13, 2004 the authorized proceedings and quite a few class motion lawsuits in opposition to CCC are documented in pages 35, 42, 43, and 44 of the 53 web page report.
On web page 35, CCC Valuescope admits to setting apart $4.3 million as an estimate in direction of potential settlement to "resolve potential claims arising out of approximately 30% of the transaction volume of CCC Valuescope".
By acknowledging 30% of transaction quantity turning into potential claims, CCC Valuescope thereby makes it public document that it anticipates a sizeable share of lawsuits for unfair and fraudulent valuations. Such a excessive share of transaction quantity alone attests to the flawed methodology of CCC's report, its unscrupulous dealings, and wholehearted dedication to guard the monetary pursuits of the insurers it serves.
Ironically, 4 of CCC Valuescope's vehicle insurance coverage firm prospects have made contractual and, in some instances, additionally widespread regulation indemnification claims in opposition to CCC for litigation prices, attorneys' charges, settlement funds and different prices allegedly incurred by them in reference to litigation regarding their use of CCC's flawed TOTAL LOSS valuation product.
Certainly the numerous class motion lawsuits filed throughout the United States in opposition to CCC Valuescape gives additional proof in regards to the grossly low and inaccurate valuations of automobiles they provide the insurers they serve. Among the numerous are:
CCC Settles Class Action Suit on Valuation of Total Loss Vehicles (July 15, 2005)
Chicago-based claims software-maker CCC Information Services Inc. introduced that it and 15 of its prospects signed a settlement settlement with the plaintiffs in numerous class motion fits pending in Madison County, Ill. These consolidated fits, Case Nos. 01 L 157, et al., relate to the valuation of automobiles which have been declared whole losses by insurers.
Terms of the settlement settlement would require CCC to pay discover and administration charges and different prices related to the settlement. The firm estimates that these prices will whole about $8 million, and together with out there insurance coverage proceeds of $1.8 million, the corporate is absolutely reserved for these funds. Other settlement prices, together with claims by class members, might be paid by the insurance coverage corporations which are taking part within the settlement.
August 23, 2000, a putative statewide class motion was filed within the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, FL, in opposition to CCC and USAA Casualty Insurance Company (Peter Sintes et al. v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company and CCC Information Services, Inc., Case No. 00-006308). Plaintiffs allege that USAA contracted with CCC to offer valuations of "total loss" automobiles and that CCC equipped valuations that have been deliberately beneath the precise honest market worth of the insured automobile.
Iinsurance corporations "owe a duty to the insured to exercise the utmost good faith." Baxter v. Royal Indemnity Company, 285 So.second 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
Given the numerous and ongoing class motion lawsuits in opposition to CCC Valuescope there ought to now be no query that CCC Valuescope just isn't impartial in its auto valuations and is responsible of violating the U.S. federal RICO Act and National Insurance Regulations, together with most of the complicit insurance coverage corporations corresponding to USAA who willingly and knowingly use their product with the intent to deceive.
.jpg)
0 Comments