I haven't traded a car to a dealer in many moons, but I understand it's not uncommon for dealerships to ask for statements and/or affidavits from the owner regarding accident history. As in many buy and sell transactions, while the starting point may be caveat emptor, particularly when selling to an expert, if questions are asked, you'd better be truthful.

 

agreed, but I think hes talking about liability.


I've had to sign affidavits on every car I traded.


to the OP, do a cost analysis on the hiring a lawyer. Good luck.

 

I've sold several cars to CarMax and never had to sign any such waiver or statement as to the car's history. They run the CarFax and rely on it, just as other dealers do. I find that CarMax tends to give more than a dealer will on trade-in allowance. A recent example was my son's Acura that had two minor fender benders which diminished the value from $20K (KBB trade-in value) down to $14K (what Acura would give on trade for the new car purchase). He sold it at CarMax next door to the Acura dealer for $17K. So, if those numbers can be relied upon, a dirty CarFax can reduce value by 15% to 30%.

Another experience I had was with my son's VW Jetta: It was worth $10K according to KBB but since it had been in an accident that required the frame to be straightened, all that CarMax would give us was $5K, a 50% reduction in value.

Don't lie to anyone but if you can sell or trade now before the CarFax report diminishes value, I'd recommend acting now.

As for suing to get compensated for loss in value, you have to actually lose the value, not guess what loss you might have once you sell the car. That means actually selling the car and getting documentation of your damages. Courts don't award damages that haven't been actually incurred.

 

I see no reason why an expert appraisal wouldn't be perfectly admissible evidence as to diminished value.

 

What's reasonable isn't necessarily the law. Surely there is a litigation lawyer here on the forum to speak up about this?

 

I did and how damages are measured varies state by state.


The answer is: perhaps.

The courts in Pennsylvania (where I have been licensed for 33 years) have held that where a person is entitled to a judgment for damage to an automobile that does not amount to a total destruction in value, the damages include compensation for: (1) the cost of repair, or the difference in value before damage and after repair plus the cost of repair; and (2) the loss of use, which includes the cost of renting a substitute vehicle.

See also:

Plaintiffs in an automobile property damage case are entitled to either the reasonable cost of repairs or the diminution in fair market value of the vehicle, whichever is less. Paulson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2002 WI App 168, 649 N.W.2d 645 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).

Owner of classic car which had appreciated in value before it was struck and damaged by a legally intoxicated motorist was not limited, as damages for injury to car, to the lesser of cost of repair or diminution in car's value, but as owner of appreciating asset, was entitled to elect the diminution in car's value as measure of his damages, on theory that, even if car was repaired, as classic motor vehicle which had been involved in accident, it would not be restored to appreciated value that it held prior to accident. Franklin Corp. v. Prahler, 932 N.Y.S.2d 610 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 2011).

In a case involving damages to an automobile, where the measure of damages is the cost of repair, additional damages for depreciation may be recovered for the diminution of value due to the vehicle's involvement in an accident; however, there must be proof of such diminished value. Defraites v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 864 So. 2d 254 (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004).

Trial court was correct in not aggregating amount of award for loss of use of damaged car with amount for cost of repairs in making its comparison with diminution in value to decide on which measure of damages to use, and, no matter which award would be proper, plaintiff should recover for damages suffered as result of being without any vehicle for period of time reasonably necessary to replace or repair car. Gamble v Smith (1978, Dist Col App) 386 A2d 692 (citing annotation).

Vehicle owner may recover for loss of use of his automobile reasonable and necessary length of time during which vehicle is being repaired, but aggregate of amount for loss of use together with amount of repairs made necessary by accident and value of any permanent impairment may not exceed value of automobile before injury together with interest. Apostle v Prince (1981) 158 Ga App 56, 279 SE2d 304.

 

Bottom line is: suing the guy might result in a judgment in the favor of the O.P. but collecting it is another matter altogether if the other guy isn't insured. That, plus won't he end up having to eat his legal fees?

Cutting your losses and trading the car in now before you get hit with the added appreciation solves those issues as well as the uncertainty of even winning the suit. Just being realistic.

 

perhaps, the uninsured can serve the OP as a Bulter!

 

I was referring to the potential liability one faces by trading in a "clean" car, knowing full-well that it has been in an accident.

And to make matters worse, trading it in within the Carfax time lag for the sole purpose of avoiding detection.

 

Just curious, is a car that has been in OP's accident and been thoroughly repaired at top dollar price, any worse than a brand new car? My 911 had slight damage to the front after getting hit by a large piece of debris from the car in front of me. Financial stuff aside, is the car any worse than before?

Sorry to go off topic

 

it's state-by-state. but many states have laws that require sellers (dealers and individuals) to disclose of certain accidents and damages to buyers. It's not just a matter of "buyer beware" or "they didn't ask". you must disclose things like flooding. it's also bad karma, so I wouldn't try to pull a fast one before the carfax report comes in...

 

+1

Yup, karma is a beeeeeeyatch, and I'm a firm believer.

 

Try and get rid of the car asap imo. You're depreciation is affected by how bad the crash was and where repaired if the car is a total loss and somehow rebuilt with a salvaged title that car is worth 40% off what retail is. Obviously dealers **** people over all the time as stated in this thread of the shady carmax carfax leeway period of the accident not being official filed yet. It's ridiculous how many cars dealers sell this way, that are completely accidented cars selling them as never accidented it's insane

 

I have never been asked to sign an oath as to a car's condition whether selling or trading. In both the above reasons you cited, caveat emptor applies.

 

http://www.dmv.org/articles/what-to-...ng-a-used-car/

"In most states you, by law, must disclose whether the vehicle has been:

Salvaged.
Damaged in a flood.
Rebuilt"

I'm not an expert, just pointing out that you MUST disclose CERTAIN things. Would definitely do more research, otherwise might end up being a very big headache in terms of liability, fraud, etc.