I am submitting a customer criticism versus CCC Valuescope (CCCG) and my insurer USAA for falsely alleging a fair “marketplace value” of my vehicle.
My insurer USAA has breached its responsibility to exercising the utmost very good religion to me its insured. By working with CCC Valuescope (a organization I allege violates the U.S. federal RICO Act) USAA has intentionally presented me a small and fraudulent valuation of my vehicle in hopes of obtaining an unreasonable and unfair settlement.
CCC Valuescope (previously acknowledged as CCC Facts Providers Group Inc – CCCG) can by no suggests be considered a fair and sector price of vehicles as CCC Valuescope performs exclusively for insurers and hence has an financial interest to provide valuations that are deliberately down below the genuine truthful sector benefit of what insured vehicles are truly value.
It is recognized fact in the course of the insurance plan marketplace that CCC gathers its values from what car or truck sellers would sell a car for at basement wholesale rates, not the legitimate “retail benefit of an vehicle of like form and quality prior to the accident” as mandated by FL insurance policies polices. Also CCC Valuescope employs a blend of autos formerly leased, applied, and abused amid wrecked cars and trucks when compiling valuations to afford to pay for their coverage business shoppers spending out total losses the lowest feasible “values” to current their insured.
Ironically, virtually each individual vehicle in CCC Valuescope’s appraisal of my automobile report consisted of vehicles that had over 20 records indicative of challenges these as mishaps and faulty autos. Among the report, some automobiles experienced 28, 31, and 32 documents.
Reducing costs and denying its insured “the utmost because of treatment” traditionally can be documented versus USAA commencing with the course motion lawsuit against USAA in Washington’s King County (March 12, 1999) for persuasive car mend shops to use “imitation” pieces in repairs, while concurrently hiding this apply from policyholders. Over and above automobile insurance policies, USAA has numerous grievances filed against it in 27 states throughout the nation.
CCC Valuescope is not unbiased in their valuations since they are a employed gun for the insurance policies corporations! On conducting a VIN research on the cars within the CCC report 39813905, numerous autos experienced around 20 information indicative of many collisions, challenges with the car or truck, and several adjustments of ownership. By relying on CCC’s deliberately low valuation of my vehicle, USAA is breaching its fiduciary obligation to act in excellent religion in handling my claim. No reasonable and straightforward analysis of my assert can be done by CCC as it is contracted by insurers for the primary function of reducing monies compensated out by insurers to its fiduciaries. By employing CCC Valuescope, USAA is evidently not doing exercises the “utmost owing care” in the curiosity of me its insured as necessary by Baxter v. Royal Indemnity.
CCC admitted itself in its SEC Filing on 3-16-2005 that “the Company occasionally pays a new purchaser for the remaining motivation of its past deal with third get-togethers as an incentive”. In regard to regulation, CCC mentions in the very same filing “in most states, having said that, there is no official approval process for full decline valuation products”. CCC by itself confesses in the exact same report “specific state departments of insurance policy have taken positions as to regardless of whether the use of CCC Valuescope valuations is in compliance with a states declare handling regulations”.
“The Firm is knowledgeable that due to the fact 2002 the California Section of Insurance policies has encouraged some of the Firm’s customers (which administration estimates to be somewhere around 14% of the whole revenue earned in 2004 from the Firm’s CCC Valuescope valuation products and provider) that the Department thought that their use of CCC Valuescope had not been in compliance with the California insurance rules in result prior to October 4, 2004, with regard to certain factors of the solutions methodology. The Organization thinks the merchandise was in compliance with the applicable California laws.”
“On April 24, 2003, the California Department of Insurance policy formally adopted new rules that expected the Corporation to alter its methodology for computing total loss valuations in California.” There is excellent rationale for that reason to believe CCC Valuescope’s valuation methodology is terribly flawed and skewed to favor its coverage business clients.
In CCC’s once-a-year report submitted February 13, 2004 the authorized proceedings and quite a few course action lawsuits towards CCC are documented in pages 35, 42, 43, and 44 of the 53 web site report.
On web site 35, CCC Valuescope admits to placing apart $4.3 million as an estimate towards potential settlement to “solve likely claims arising out of somewhere around 30% of the transaction volume of CCC Valuescope”.
By acknowledging 30% of transaction quantity becoming possible statements, CCC Valuescope thus would make it general public report that it anticipates a sizeable percentage of lawsuits for unfair and fraudulent valuations. These types of a large proportion of transaction quantity on your own attests to the flawed methodology of CCC’s report, its unscrupulous dealings, and wholehearted motivation to protect the fiscal passions of the insurers it serves.
Ironically, 4 of CCC Valuescope’s auto coverage business clients have designed contractual and, in some scenarios, also prevalent regulation indemnification statements against CCC for litigation fees, attorneys’ expenses, settlement payments and other charges allegedly incurred by them in link with litigation relating to their use of CCC’s flawed Full Loss valuation product.
Definitely the a great number of class motion lawsuits filed throughout the United States versus CCC Valuescape presents further proof regarding the grossly low and inaccurate valuations of vehicles they give the insurers they serve. Between the quite a few are:
CCC Settles Class Action Suit on Valuation of Full Loss Cars (July 15, 2005)
Chicago-based promises program-maker CCC Info Services Inc. announced that it and 15 of its consumers signed a settlement settlement with the plaintiffs in several class action fits pending in Madison County, Ill. These consolidated satisfies, Circumstance Nos. 01 L 157, et al., relate to the valuation of motor vehicles that have been declared whole losses by insurers.
Terms of the settlement arrangement will have to have CCC to pay back notice and administration service fees and other expenses associated with the settlement. The enterprise estimates that these charges will complete about $8 million, and including offered insurance policy proceeds of $1.8 million, the firm is totally reserved for these payments. Other settlement expenses, like claims by course associates, will be compensated by the insurance policy organizations that are collaborating in the settlement.
August 23, 2000, a putative statewide course action was submitted in the Circuit Court docket for Hillsborough County, FL, in opposition to CCC and USAA Casualty Insurance Firm (Peter Sintes et al. v. USAA Casualty Insurance plan Business and CCC Facts Providers, Inc., Situation No. 00-006308). Plaintiffs allege that USAA contracted with CCC to present valuations of “total loss” automobiles and that CCC provided valuations that have been intentionally underneath the real truthful current market value of the insured automobile.
Iinsurance providers “owe a duty to the insured to training the utmost very good faith.” Baxter v. Royal Indemnity Enterprise, 285 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
Supplied the innumerable and ongoing course motion lawsuits towards CCC Valuescope there ought to now be no question that CCC Valuescope is not independent in its auto valuations and is responsible of violating the U.S. federal RICO Act and Countrywide Insurance Restrictions, alongside with lots of of the complicit coverage firms these as USAA who willingly and knowingly use their product or service with the intent to deceive.