My friend Maria’s
automobile insurance company
tried to cheat her
out of a fair valuation
of her total-loss vehicle.

Maria’s automobile insurance company
sent her a deeply flawed
CCC market valuation report.

Maria wrote a strong letter
to her automobile insurance company.

In her letter, Maria found fault
with the valuation of her total-loss vehicle
in the CCC market valuation report.

Maria rejected
her automobile insurance company’s
valuation offer.

Maria proposed a fair valuation
of her total-loss vehicle.

Maria argued for the valuation amount
that she proposed.

Maria’s letter got her a fair valuation
of her total-loss vehicle.

---

If the automobile insurance company
that you are dealing with
sent you a CCC market valuation report,
then you can do what Maria did.

You can write a strong letter
to the automobile insurance company
that you are dealing with.

In your letter, you can find fault
with the valuation of your total-loss vehicle
in the CCC market valuation report.

You can reject
the insurance company’s valuation offer.

You can propose a fair valuation.

You can argue
for the valuation amount of money
that you propose.

Then, instead of hiring an attorney
to negotiate a fair valuation for you,
you can hire an attorney for an hour or so
to review the letter that you wrote,
to vet your letter against your state’s laws,
to edit your letter,
and to strengthen your letter.

---

I can teach you how to find fault
with the valuation of your total-loss vehicle
in the CCC market valuation report.

I can teach you how to find a fair valuation
of your total-loss vehicle.

I can teach you how to write a letter
like the letter that Maria wrote
to her automobile insurance company.

---

If you draft a powerful letter
to the automobile insurance company
and then have an attorney
review, vet, edit, and strengthen that letter;
then you have a good chance
that your letter will get you
a fair valuation
of your total-loss vehicle.

Maria’s letter
got her thousands of dollars more
for her total-loss vehicle
than the valuation of her total-loss vehicle
in the CCC market valuation report.

---

If your letter does not get you
a fair valuation
of your total-loss vehicle,
your state’s laws may give you
other ways to get a fair valuation.

I can teach you about those backup ways
to get a fair valuation
of your total-loss vehicle.

---

If_you_have_not_yet_settled_write_a_strong_letterSubchapter

If your total-loss claim
was a third-party claim
in which you dealt
with the automobile insurance company
of an at-fault driver whose negligent act
caused the destruction of your vehicle
and you never agreed
either in writing or on a recorded phone call
to the settlement amount,
then you likely can sue
the at-fault driver
and his or her automobile insurance company
for the amount of money
that the automobile insurance company
cheated you out of.

If you sue in a small-claims lawsuit,
then you can easily file the lawsuit yourself.

You can easily represent yourself in court.

---

If you’ve never before
filed a small-claims lawsuit
and represented yourself in court,
you’ll be surprised to discover
how cheap, quick, simple, and easy
it is both to file the lawsuit yourself
and to represent yourself in court.

---

In most states, to file a small-claims lawsuit,
you fill out a one-page statement of claim.

You likely can obtain the form
from the court’s website.

For example,
the Statement of Claim form
for the Court
of the City of New York
Small Claims Part
asks for this information:

• Your name, address, phone number,
  and email address

• The at-fault driver’s name, address,
  phone number, and email address

• The amount of money that you seek

• The date that the collision occurred

• The place that the collision occured

• What you’re suing them for:
  Damage caused to automobile

• The license plate number
  of the at-fault driver’s vehicle

• Today’s date

---

Filing a small-claims lawsuit is cheap.

Filing fees vary from state to state.

In most states, the filing fee
is somewhere between $15 and $85.

---

In most states, you can choose
whether you want to have your lawsuit
heard by a small-claims-court judge
or by a small-claims-court arbitrator.

(If you choose to have your lawsuit
heard by a small-claims-court arbitrator,
the court may agree to your choice
only if the attorney who represents
the automobile insurance company
agrees to your choice.)

---

Small-claims proceedings are informal.

You tell your judge or arbitrator
what happened.

You show your judge or arbitrator
the paperwork that supports your argument
that the automobile insurance company
undervalued your total-loss vehicle
by the amount of money that you seek.

You ask your judge or arbitrator
to award you the amount of money
by which the automobile insurance company
undervalued your total-loss vehicle.

Your judge or arbitrator asks you questions.

You answer his or her questions.

If an attorney
from the automobile insurance company
shows up for the proceedings,
your judge or arbitrator will give
the automobile insurance company’s attorney
an opportunity to argue
that the automobile insurance company
valued your total-loss vehicle
fairly and accurately.

---

Small claims court judges and arbitrators
are fair.

You likely are far, far, far better off
letting a small claims judge or arbitrator
decide the value of your total-loss vehicle
than you are letting
an automobile insurance company
decide the value of your total-loss vehicle.

---

Small claims proceedings are quick.

Your entire proceeding likely
will last less than an hour.

---

In a small-claims lawsuit, justice is swift.

You likely will receive notification
of the court’s decision
in the mail within a week or so
after the proceeding.

If you win, a week or two
after you receive the notification
of the decision,
you likely will receive a check
from the automobile insurance company
for the court’s judgement amount.

---

If the court does not award you
the amount of money that you asked for,
the court will award you
the amount of money
that your judge or arbitrator thinks
the automobile insurance company
cheated you out of
up to the court’s maximum award limit
plus interest
plus a refund of the small fee
that you paid to file your lawsuit.

---

You need not sue the at-fault driver
for the full valuation amount.

You need sue him or her
only for the amount of money
that the at-fault driver’s
automobile insurance company
cheated you out of.

In most states, you can sue
in a small-claims lawsuit
for thousands of dollars.

To find out how much money
you can sue for in a small-claims lawsuit
in your state,
Google the name of your state and
court system small claims award maximum.

---

In most states, you can sue
for inadequate settlement of a third-party
total-loss automobile insurance claim
up to two or three years
after the total-loss event
or, perhaps, up to two or three years
after you received the settlement check
for your total-loss vehicle.

To find out how long you have in your state
to sue the at-fault driver
for the money
that his or her automobile insurance company
cheated you out of,
Google the name of your state and
court system statute of limitations negligence tort automobile accident property damage.

---

I procrastinated for two years
after my total-loss event
before I sued the at-fault driver
and her automobile insurance company
in a small-claims lawsuit
for the amount of money
that her automobile insurance company
cheated me out of.

---

When I finally sued,
I did everything myself.

I researched a fair valuation
for my total-loss vehicle myself.

I calculated how much money
the automobile insurance company
cheated me out of.

I organized my paperwork myself.

I filed the lawsuit myself.

I represented myself in court.

I explained to a small-claims-court arbitrator
how the at-fault driver’s
automobile insurance company
failed to value my total-loss vehicle fairly
and failed to settle my total-loss claim fairly.

I told my small-claims-court arbitrator
how much money
the automobile insurance company
cheated me out of.

I got thousands of more dollars
for my total-loss vehicle
than the automobile insurance company
initally offered me.

---

You can do the same.

You can find fault
with the automobile insurance company’s
valuation of your total-loss vehicle.

You can research a fair valuation
for your total-loss vehicle yourself.

You can calculate how much money
the automobile insurance company
cheated you out of.

You can organize the paperwork
that you wish to present as evidence
at trial.

---

I can teach you how I would do these things.

---

Then, you can can hire an attorney
for an hour or so
to act as your legal coach.

You can ask your legal coach
to review the paperwork
that you plan to use as evidence.

You can ask your legal coach
to give you legal guidance
on how best to present and argue your case.

You can ask your legal coach
to rehearse with you
what you should say in court.

---

You can file the lawsuit yourself.

You can represent yourself in court.

---

If you do these things,
then you have a good chance
that your small-claim lawsuit
will get you the money
that the automobile insurance company
cheated you out of
in their valuation
of your total-loss vehicle.

---

If_you_already_settled_sue_if_you_canSubchapter

Let me, Jerry Marlow, tell you
how the automobile insurance company
that Maria dealt with
and how the automobile insurance company
that I dealt with
tried to cheat us
out of fair valuations
of our total‑loss vehicles.

Let me teach you
what Maria did and what I did
to get thousands of more dollars
for our total‑loss vehicles—
without either one of us being a lawyer;
without either one of us hiring a lawyer
to negotiate for us,
to file a lawsuit for us,
or to represent us in court.

---

Let me show you the letter
that Maria wrote
to get a fair valuation
of her total-loss vehicle.

Let me teach you how to write a letter
like the one that I would write today
to get a fair valuation
of my total-loss vehicle.

---

Let me show you the check
that I received via FedEx
a few weeks after I explained
to a small claims arbitrator
how the at-fault driver’s
automobile insurance company
cheated me
out of a fair valuation
of my total-loss vehicle
and out of a fair settlement
of my total-loss claim.

Let me teach you
what I would do today
to prepare to sue
an at-fault negligent driver
for the money
that his or her automobile insurance company
cheated me out of
in their valuation
of my total-loss vehicle.

---

What Maria did you can do.

What I did you can do.

Let me teach you how.

---

Let_me_teach_how_to_keep_from_getting_cheatedSubchapter

If an automobile insurance company
is out to cheat you, then, quite likely,
they will make their boldest attempt
to cheat you
when they send you
a CCC market valuation report
for your total-loss vehicle.

In the CCC market valuation report,
the description
of your total‑loss vehicle
may contain omissions,
errors, and other misrepresentations.

The description may leave out
options on your vehicle
that add value to it.

---

The CCC market valuation report
may describe your vehicle
or components of your vehicle
as having been in worse condition
than they were.

Misrepresentation of your vehicle’s condition
allows the automobile insurance company
or its valuation services vendor
to deduct money from the prices
of its comp vehicles because, supposedly,
those comp vehicles
were in better condition
than your vehicle was in
before your vehicle
was destroyed or stolen.

---

The automobile insurance company
that I was dealing with
on my total‑loss claim
and the automobile insurance company
that Maria was dealing with
on her total‑loss claim
both hired the valuation‑services vendor
CCC Information Services Inc.
to come up with valuations
for our vehicles.

(After CCC Information Services Inc.
valued my total‑loss vehicle
and valued Maria’s total‑loss vehicle,
the company changed its name
to CCC Intelligent Solutions Inc.
Below I refer to the company the same way
that many court decisions do— as CCC.)

---

When Maria examined
the CCC market valuation report
for her totaled vehicle,
she found that the description of her Mazda3
left out many of the vehicle’s options.
CCC’s description left out
the car’s communications system,
intelligent cruise‑control system,
lane‑departure warning system,
lane keep assist, metallic paint,
wheel‑lock anti‑theft tire‑protection system,
heated steering wheel, automatic braking,
Homelink universal remote garage door
opener, and auto‑dim rearview mirror.

---

In the CCC market valuation report
for my vintage 1986 Jeep Cherokee,
CCC
described the transmission as four‑speed;
described the paint as having numerous
deep chips, deep scratches, heavy peeling,
flaking, and significant fading;
described the glass
as having stone damage,
having a crack on the windshield,
having scratches, being heavily pitted,
and having numerous chips;
described the engine as having
numerous old and new leaks;
described belts and hoses as worn;
and described the transmission
as having numerous leaks.

J e e e e z u s s s !

Sounds like a real jalopy, huh?

I think they were trying to hurt my feelings.

---

In truth, my vehicle’s transmission
was five‑speed with overdrive;
the paint had no peeling or flaking;
the paint had minimal fading;
the windshield had a small, repaired crack
below the wiper area,
and had one BB‑size chip
outside the inside rearview mirror;
the engine had neither old nor new leaks;
belts and hoses had recently been replaced;
and the transmission did not leak.

---

Omissions like these,
errors like these,
plus other misrepresentations
are all designed
to lower the valuation amount
for your total-loss vehicle.

(In court, you’re not allowed to say “lies.”
You have to say “misrepresentations.”)

---

How else might the automobile insurance company
try to cheat you out of a fair valuation?

---

Description_may_contain_omissions_and_errorsSubchapter

In many states,
state law requires
an automobile insurance company
to value a total-loss vehicle
at the total-loss vehicle’s
actual cash value.

If your total-loss claim
is a first-party claim,
your automobile insurance policy
may require
that your automobile insurance company
value your total-loss vehicle
at its actual cash value.

In many states,
state law defines
the actual cash value
of a total-loss vehicle
as the amount of money
at which the claimant
can reasonably be expected
to replace the total-loss vehicle
with a substantially similar vehicle.

---

In many states, state law defines
what substantially similar means.
Substantially similar almost always means:
same make, same model, same model year,
same trim level, same major options,
and similar mileage.

In some states,
to qualify as substantially similar
to a total-loss vehicle,
a vehicle must be in the same condition
that the total‑loss vehicle was in
before it was totaled or stolen.

In other states, state law says that,
to qualify as substantially similar
to a total-loss vehicle,
a comp vehicle
must be in as good as or in better condition
than the total‑loss vehicle was in
before it was totaled or stolen.

---

For example, Maria and I researched
the laws of the state in which she lives—
New Jersey.

In the New Jersey Administrative Code,
we found N.J.A.C. 11:3‑10.2. It defines
“substantially similar vehicle” this way:

---

In New Jersey’s definition
of a substantially similar vehicle,
note the limit on the difference in mileages—
4,000 miles. Note well the phrase,
“at the option of the insured.”

Maria’s totaled Mazda3 had 30,440 miles
on the odometer.

When Maria and I examined
the CCC market valuation report
for her total-loss vehicle,
we discovered
that CCC’s three “comp” vehicles
had mileages of
  4,020 miles,
  5,186 miles, and
  7,706 miles— for an average mileage of
  5,637 miles.

Maria’s vehicle’s mileage of
30,440 miles minus the“comp” vehicles’
average mileage of
  5,637 miles equals
24,803 miles.

---

A difference in mileages
of 24,803 miles
is more than six times
New Jersey’s legal limit
of 4,000 miles
for a substantially similar vehicle.

I call “comp” vehicles
that are not substantially similar
to total-loss vehicles
non-comp comps.

---

Nonetheless, CCC—
without Maria’s consent—
used the difference in mileages
to subtract a whopping $3,186
from the value of her totaled vehicle.

“W T F ! ? !”

(No, sweetheart, in this context,
W T F does not stand for
Wednesday Thursday Friday.)

---

May_use_non_comp_compsSubchapter

Could there possibly be a greater swindle
than outlandish deductions
from the purported prices
of non‑comp comps?

How about the use of imaginary comps?

---

When I examined
the CCC market valuation report
for my total-loss vehicle,
I discovered that CCC listed
two “comp vehicles”
that were so similar
to my total-loss vehicle that,
on their odometers,
both of these two comp vehicles
had precisely the same mileage
that my vehicle had on its odometer:
186,713 miles.

No big difference in mileages here, huh?

---

What kind of stunt was CCC trying to pull?

I was curious to find out.

I drove out to the dealership
that allegedly had one of the comp vehicles
for sale.

The dealership was closed.

I looked around the lot.

With my forehead,
I pressed the blade
of my open hand
against the glass
of the dealership’s window.

I peered in.

No such vehicle was to be found.

I gazed up at the sky.

I stroked my chin.

“Hmmmm.”

---

Next day, I telephoned the dealer.

“Do you have a 1986 Jeep Cherokee
for sale?”

“No.”

“Did you have one for sale recently?”

“No.”

(“W T F ! ? !”)

---

I telephoned the other dealership where,
according to CCC,
the other comp was for sale.

My conversation with that dealer
went something like this:

“Do you have a 1986 Jeep Cherokee
for sale?”

“No.”

“Did you have one for sale recently?”

“No.”

“I have a CCC market valuation report
in front of me. It says that you have
a 1986 Jeep Cherokee for sale.
I don’t understand.”

“When they call, if I don’t have a vehicle
for sale like the one they’re looking for,
they ask me, ‘If I did have such a vehicle,
how much do I think I might sell it for?’
I give them a number.”

---

How about that?

To value my total-loss vehicle,
the folks at CCC used
the imaginary prices
of imaginary comp vehicles.

---

As if using imaginary prices
of imaginary comp vehicles
were not preposterous enough,
CCC deducted value
from my total-loss vehicle
because, according to CCC,
my total-loss vehicle
was in worse condition
than their non-existent comp vehicles.

---

Loopier yet, CCC also deducted value
from my total-loss vehicle because,
according to CCC,
my total-loss vehicle
had 2% greater mileage
than CCC’s two imaginary comp vehicles
that had the exact same mileage.

“Jerry, that don’t make logical sense!”

Exactly!

---

If you receive
a CCC market valuation report,
then, at first glance,
you may be mightily impressed—
by the printout’s graphic design,
by its heap of calculations,
and by its authoritative tone.

Don’t be.

The CCC market valuation reports
that Maria and I received
were GIGO.

Garbage in.

Garbage out.

---

From my and Maria’s experiences,
I get the feeling
that CCC Information Services
a.k.a. CCC Intelligent Solutions
may be in business simply
to provide automobile insurance companies
with lowball valuations
of total‑loss vehicles.

I get the feeling
that the folks at CCC
may be delighted to do
whatever it takes
to generate
those lowball valuations.

---

If, for your total-loss vehicle,
the automobile insurance company
that you’re dealing with sends you
a CCC market valuation report,
beware!

Beware, my friend.

Beware big time!

---

Valuation_services_vendor_may_make_stuff_upSubchapter

In many states,
when state legislators wrote the law
that governs how automobile insurance companies
that do business in their state
must value total‑loss vehicles
and settle total‑loss claims,
the legislators wanted to ensure
that each total‑loss claimant
could get his or her total‑loss vehicle
valued at enough money
to buy locally
a replacement vehicle
that is substantially similar
to his or her total‑loss vehicle.

Accordingly, the legislators wrote the law
to require automobile insurance companies
to value total‑loss vehicles,
either directly or indirectly,
on the basis of retail prices
of substantially similar vehicles
for sale at local automobile dealerships.

So far, so good.

---

But, let’s say, you live in a state
that requires automobile insurance companies
to value total‑loss vehicles
on the basis of retail prices
of substantially similar vehicles
for sale at local automobile dealerships
and you receive a settlement check.

Then, when you go shopping locally
for a substantially similar vehicle
that you can buy
for the amount of money
at which your vehicle was valued;
you discover
that all the substantially similar vehicles
that you find
cost more money
than yours was valued at.

What then?

---

Must you shortchange your children
on their school lunch money
so you can come up with
the additional cash yourself?

Or, if you want your kids to eat,
must you settle for whatever lesser vehicle
you can buy with the amount of money
at which your total‑loss vehicle was valued?

Instead of being made whole,
must you accept being diminished?

Instead of being made as well off
as you were before;
must you accept being worse off?

---

If such an outcome were to occur
and there were no remedy,
then your state’s legislators
would have failed to achieve their goal!

They would suffer great vexation of spirit!

---

Fortunately, in many states,
state legislators,
in their plentitude of wisdom,
foresaw the possibility
of such a cruel and unfair turn of events.

Accordingly,
into the law,
they wrote
a remedy.

That remedy
is called
a right of recourse.

---

If your state’s legislators
are on the side of righteousness
(as opposed to being on the side
of the automobile insurance companies
and their shareholders),
then they likely have given you
a right of recourse.

That right likely kicks in
when you receive
the initial settlement check
from the automobile insurance company.

---

Typically, in states
that give total‑loss claimants
a right of recourse,
if you cannot find
a substantially similar replacement vehicle
for sale at a nearby automobile dealership
that you can buy
for the amount of money
at which the automobile insurance company
valued your total‑loss vehicle;
then you can demand
of the automobile insurance company
that they do one of two things:

• Either they find
  a substantially similar vehicle for sale
  at a nearby automobile dealership
  that you can buy
  for the amount of money
  at which they valued
  your total‑loss vehicle;

• Or, they give you
  enough additional money
  to bring their valuation amount
  up to the amount of money
  that it would cost you to buy
  a substantially similar vehicle for sale
  at a nearby automobile dealership
  that you have found .

That’s right.

If your state’s legislators
have written a right of recourse
into your state’s laws and regulations,
then you likely can demand
of the automobile insurance company:
“Either show me
the substantially similar vehicle
that I can buy
with the valuation amount of money;
or give me more money!”

---

If your state’s legislators
have given you a right of recourse,
that right likely kicks in
when you receive
the initial settlement check
from the automobile insurance company.

(Counting from the day
that the automobile insurance company
mails to you the initial settlment check,
you likely have only a month or so
in which to exercise your right of recourse.
If you do not exercise it
during that time window,
then you lose your right of recourse.)

---

Greedy, amoral automobile insurance companies
hate for total‑loss claimants
to have a right of recourse.

They hate it so much
that they may try multiple tactics
to keep you from realizing that you have it;
to keep you from exercising it; and
to keep you from getting its full benefit.

---

Won_t_tell_you_if_you_have_a_right_of_recourseSubchapter

After the automobile insurance company
comes up with a valuation amount
for your total‑loss vehicle,
most likely, they will ask you
to confirm in writing
that you agree
to the valuation amount
and to the claim‑settlement amount
that the valuation amount produces.

The automobile insurance company
may not say a word to you
about your having a right of recourse.

They may be assuming—
or at least hoping—
that, if you have a right of recourse,
you do not know about it.

---

When the automobile insurance company
asks you to agree
to the valuation amount
and to the settlement amount,
they are playing a psychological game
with you.

They are cleverly trying
to use your human nature
and your presumed ignorance of the law
against you.

The automobile insurance company
wants you
to subconsciously jump
to the conclusion
that the settlement
to which you have agreed
is the final settlement.

They want you to believe
that the settlement process
is over.

Why would you think
that the settlement process is over?

Because you’ve agreed
to a settlement amount
based on a valuation amount.

---

An evil automobile insurance company
may try a similar psychological trick
if you received the initial settlement check,
deposited it,
and then communicated to them
that you find the settlement amount
inadequate and unfair.

When I telephoned Travelers
about the unfair amount
of the settlement check
that they sent to me,
the Travelers representative,
in a condescending, bullying,
sneering tone of voice, asked,
“Did you deposit the check?”

(He asked this question
kinda quickly and automatically.
Sounded like he
asks claimants this question
day in and day out—
first chance he gets.)

Yes, I had deposited the check.

From the representative’s attitude
and from his tone of voice,
the implication of his question was clear:

If I had deposited the check,
then I had accepted their settlement offer.

I had forfeited my right
to challenge their valuation.

Case closed!

Right?

Makes sense doesn’t it?

Well, yes.

Yes, unless you know— or learn—
perhaps from me— what the law says.

---

New York State law, for example,
does not say that your rights end
when you receive
the initial settlement check.

New York State law does not say
that your rights end when you deposit
the initial settlement check.

New York State law says the exact opposite!

It says that,
when the automobile insurance company
drops the initial settlement check
into the mail,
that’s when your right of recourse
kicks in.

---

If your state’s legislators
have given you a right of recourse,
then, most likely, you have it
even if you’ve deposited or cashed
the initial settlement check.

(I call it “the initial settlement check.”
The automobile insurance company
will call it “the settlement check.”
If you are attuned to nuances of language,
you may notice a subtle difference
in implications.)

---

Some states’ laws even go so far
as to say that insurance companies
cannot print on the back
of any settlement check
the stipulation that,
“Deposit of this check signifies
that this claim is settled in full.”

By the way, while I’m thinking about it,
if you do not know the meanings
of the words “stipulation” and “stipulate,”
learn them!

They’re dangerous words.

They can be used against you.

They can harm you.

They can harm people you love.

---

In some situations, such as this one,
the word “stipulation” means
an if‑then conditional agreement.

In this instance, it means:
“ If you deposit this check,
then, by doing so,
you agree
that this claim is settled in full.”

---

In other situations, the word “stipulate”
means “agree.”

For example, if you are in a situation
in which you are suing someone
or someone is suing you
and your adversary’s attorney
wants to say to the judge
something that isn’t true
and that the attorney thinks
you won’t understand,
the attorney may say to the judge,
“Your honor, we stipulate
that blah, blah, blah.”

If you are not versed in lawyers’ terms of art,
you may mistakenly assume that,
when your adversary’s attorney says,
“We stipulate,” by “We” she means
her and her client.

But no o o O O O !

If your adversary’s attorney says
to the judge, “We stipulate blah, blah, blah;”
then she is telling the judge that
you agreed to blah, blah, blah—
something that, in fact,
you may not have agreed to.

If that ever happens to you,
pop up out of your seat!

Blurt out to the judge in a panicked voice,
“Your honor, I never agreed to that!

“I was not party to that stipulation!”

---

Travelers may not have printed
on the back of the check
that they sent to me the stipulation,
“Deposit of this check signifies
that this claim is settled in full;”
but that did not stop their representative
from insinuating the same message
on the telephone.

---

When people who are trained
in the art and science of deception
seek to deceive us, much of the time,
they don’t exactly deceive us. Rather,
they set us up to deceive ourselves—
which is something most of us
are pretty good at.

Through an unfortunate quirk
in human evolution that may have occurred
a hundred thousand or so years ago,
our brains have a propensity to fill in
missing information with misinformation.

We then jump to erroneous conclusions
on the basis of the misinformation
that we’ve filled in.

We then say to ourselves things
for which we have no evidence.

For example,
early Sunday morning,  December 7, 1941,
U.S. military personnel saw lots of airplanes
flying toward Pearl Harbor.

What did they say to themselves?

To themselves said they,
“Oh, those must be the planes
that we were expecting later in the day.”

“I guess they decided to come early.”

---

Maybe you’ve had that sort of experience?

I have.

Maybe you’ve even, more than once,
looked in the mirror
and seen your palm print
on your forehead?

I have.

---

But, give the Travelers guy credit!

His sneaky, unethical, deceptive tactic
probably works nine times out of ten!

This skill, this talent of his,
at Travelers,
may have earned him
promotions, bonuses, and
all expense‑paid trips to Hawaii.

---

When I imagine him
in my mind’s eye,
I see him at Waikiki,
sprawled
in a beach chair.

He wears his Hawaiian shirt
unbuttoned all the way down
to his baggy bathing trunks.

A dainty lei
d r a p e s
around his thuggish neck.

In his hairy, meaty paw;
he rests a Mai Tai
on his big, bloated, self‑satisfied,
“Did‑you‑cash-the‑check?”
belly.

When my mind’s eye zooms in,
I see his Mai Tai
is festooned
with an itty bitty,
red,
Travelers umbrella.

---

May_trick_you_into_thinking_initial_check_is_final_checkSubchapter

If your state’s legislators
have given you a right of recourse,
the automobile insurance company
may try to preclude your exercise of it.
(Preclude is a legalistic word
that means prevent in advance.)

In states that give total-loss claimants
a right of recourse, the law often says
that an automobile insurance company
can preclude or satisfy
a claimant’s right of recourse
if the automobile insurance company
identifies to the claimant
a substantially similar vehicle
for sale at a local automobile dealership
that the claimant can buy
for the valuation amount of money.

This bit of language in the law
provides automobile insurance companies
with an escape clause
with which to deny you
a fair valuation or your total-loss vehicle!

A cynical person might even wonder,
“How much money
did automobile insurance companies
or their executives
have to contribute
to legislators’ political campaigns
to get this nifty escape clause
inserted into the law?”

---

To take advantage of this insertion,
the automobile insurance company,
when it makes its final settlement offer,
or when it sends you
the initial settlement check,
may identify
a vehicle for sale
at a nearby automobile dealership
that, allegedly, is substantially similar
to your total‑loss vehicle
and that, allegedly,
you can buy for the amount of money
at which they valued your total‑loss vehicle.

But the candidate right‑of‑recourse vehicle
that they have identified may not,
in fact, be substantially similar
to your total‑loss vehicle.

It may not have the same trim level
and same major options
as your total‑loss vehicle.

It may not have similar mileage.

---

If, in its CCC market valuation report,
the automobile insurance company’s description of your total‑loss vehicle
contained omissions and errors;
then the automobile insurance company’s
candidate right‑of‑recourse vehicle
likely will not be substantially similar
to your total‑loss vehicle.

Instead, it will be substantially similar
to their falsified description
of your total‑loss vehicle.

---

Even if the candidate
right‑of‑recourse vehicle
has the same trim level,
same major options,
and similar mileage
as your total‑loss vehicle;
it may not be in as good or better condition.

It may previously have been in a flood
or in an accident and, therefore,
have diminished market value.

You may have owned or leased
your total-loss vehicle for personal use.

The automobile insurance company’s
candidate right-of-recourse vehicle
may have been part of a rental fleet.

Or it may have been owned or leased
for commercial use.

---

Or, the candidate right‑of‑recourse vehicle
that the automobile insurance company
has identified
may be substantially similar
to your total‑loss vehicle;
but is not for sale at the low price
the automobile insurance company claims.

The automobile insurance company
may even have pulled
the substantially similar vehicle
off a website
that purports to sell vehicles at low prices,
but, when you try to buy
one of their vehicles
at the low advertised price,
you cannot do so.

The low advertised price
is just click bait
to pull people into the website.

---

After you exercise your right of recourse,
the automobile insurance company
may try similar tactics.

The automobile insurance company
may identify
a candidate right‑of‑recourse vehicle
for sale locally
that they claim is substantially similar
to your total‑loss vehicle
and that you can buy
for the amount of money
at which they valued your total‑loss vehicle.

But that vehicle too may not, in fact,
be substantially similar
to your total‑loss vehicle.

---

Or, you may go to a dealership
to inspect the automobile insurance company’s
candidate right-of-recourse vehicle.

Unbeknownst to you,
the automobile insurance company
or its valuation services vendor may have
a “special” relationship with that dealership.

If so, the dealer,
in search of the candidate vehicle,
may lead you in circles
all around the lot.

Finally, the dealer
may run his fingers
through his wavy but thinning hair
and, with great consternation, say,
“I just don‘t know
where that darn car can be!

“It was here the day before yesterday!”

Uh huh.

---

May_try_other_tactics_to_deny_you_right_of_recourseSubchapter