Cars—Stigma and Inconvenience after the Wreck

About five months after getting hit by a valet driver I was able to pick up my car. Nice to have it back. But what a hassle.

Here are two things I learned/figured out during the process.

1. Stigma. It doesn’t matter if it gets you from point A to point B. We buy vehicles based on how they make us feel when we’re driving. It doesn’t feel good to drive a car with collision damage. This is a big deal when it takes so long to schedule repairs.

I posted the idea to our trial lawyers list serve. Some the lawyers thought I was stupid. But last month we received our first check for loss of use stigma damages. It’s now part of the playbook.

2. Inconvenience. The adjuster and I disagreed about diminished value. I said that diminished value was just one of my claims. Another was inconvenience. And having to deal with the insurance company, repair facility, dropping my car off, walking home, etc. was pretty inconvenient. The adjuster said there was no way she was paying for my inconvenience because it wasn’t covered under Washington law.

I don’t think she knew I was a lawyer. I responded by dropping this on her:

In the context of damage to a vehicle it’s been the law in Washington for over 60 years. See, e.g., Holmes v. Raffo, 60 Wn.2d 421 (1962) ("The law cannot condone such a condition. He would be denied compensation for his inconvenience resulting from the defendant's wrongful act.”)

After that the claim settled for a lot more than she was originally going to pay.

(Hopefully I can use all of that to help other people rather than working on any more of my own claims.)