Insurance companies have become emboldened to force vehicle owners into taking legal action against them. What has enabled them to increase their control over claimants is the lack of credible evidence provided by plaintiffs – the vehicle owners and the independent appraisal companies that they hire. All of the large insurers, State Farm among them, routinely deny and low ball claims for the diminished value of automobiles that were repaired after accidents caused by their insureds. This, in turn, has caused consumers to think twice about pursuing third-party claims for the inherent diminished value of their cars and trucks. Internet discussion groups are full of naysayers as well as a wealth of misinformation on the subject. Consumers in all 50 states lose hundreds of thousands of dollars each month due to an insufficient knowledge base on which to rely.
According to an article in the Body Shop Business website, written by Sue Martin, Regarding services that offer to provide software for evaluating DV, State Farm adds: “We are not aware of any system for determining DV subsequent to a collision repair and would be suspect of any such system used.”
In 2017, Franklin Colletta of AUTODIMINISHEDVALUE.COM testified in Palm Beach Circuit Civil Court (Case #502014CA006677XXXMB) in an auto diminished value case, brought by a Tesla owner, against a State Farm insured. The final judgement was for the owner of the Tesla in the amount of $39,000.00 plus all appraisal, expert witness and legal fees. On top of what State Farm paid their outside counsel, that one case probably cost the insurer close to one hundred thousand dollars. Many claims and court cases vs. State Farm have been successfully settled using our DV appraisals so this insurer is, in fact, aware of a valid methodology that can be used to determine diminished value.
In court, State Farm and other insurers realize that they do not need to offer any evidence to successfully defend their cases. They only need to cast doubt on evidence provided by plaintiffs. If one does an internet query for “diminished value appraiser” they will find many independent appraisal firms that advertise heavily on search engines. Unfortunately, all of these companies provide diminished value appraisals that are easily disallowed in courts of law. The use of short-cut methodologies such as formulas, algorithms, online ad comparisons and book value condition adjustments all fall short of providing the probative evidence necessary to convince a judge or jury. Insurance company claims personnel are well-aware of this and treat their claimants accordingly.
In 2024, CASE 50-2024SC005459 (RH) in The Palm Beach County Civil Court involved an automobile diminished value lawsuit made by the plaintiff Ralph R. Johnson vs. the defendant Charles L. Giles before Judge Debra Moses Stephens. Mr. Johnson represented himself while Mr. Giles was represented by Bruneley Lalanne, Esq. of Nicholas J Ryan & Associates on behalf of State Farm Insurance Company. The expert witness for the plaintiff was Franklin Colletta of AUTODIMINISHEDVALUE.COM. The expert witness for the defendant was Stuart Raskin of Vehicle Valuation Specialists, LLC. Additional evidence for the defendant was provided by Pinnacle Auto Appraisers. The final judgement was for the plaintiff, Ralph R. Johnson. dated 08/09/2024.
State Farm presented evidence from Patrick J. Dittrich, Jr. of Pinnacle Appraisers and Stuart Raskin of Vehicle Valuation Specialists. These were found to be lacking in credibility vs. the evidence prepared by Franklin Colletta of AUTODIMINISHEDVALUE.COM. State Farm’s attorney attempted to impeach Franklin Colletta as an expert witness. Judge Moses overruled the objection, finding that Mr. Colletta is considered an expert. State Farm’s attorney then objected to the appraisal presented by AUTODIMINISHEDVALUE.COM as hearsay. Judge Moses also overruled the objection made regarding hearsay.
THE COURT:· Okay.· I do have one question,
17· Mr. Colletta.· The database that you use, is that something that
18· everyone uses to determine the value of the diminished value?
19· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No, ma’am.· That’s our internal
20· database.
21· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· So this is a database that you
22· compiled?
23· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes.· So over time as we complete
24· these claims, they’re at the claim level, we add them to the
25· database.
So there are thousands of — of different appraisals
·2· in there, and many of them, of course, mirror Mr. Johnson’s
·3· situation, the type of car and the fact and this — and this is
·4· very important, the fact that the vehicle had structural damage.
·5· · · · · · I want you to understand that when it comes to
·6· diminished value —
·7· · · · · · THE COURT:· I’m not asking your opinion yet, sir.
·8· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I’m sorry.
·9· · · · · · THE COURT:· I haven’t qualified you.· I have not asked
10· your opinion.· I’m trying to find out the nature of your
11· database because the defense counsel objected because it was
12· hearsay.· But it is — it is information that has been entered
13· into your database over time, and it is unique to your business
14· and you have been using this as part of your business structure,
15· I’m not going to have it labeled as hearsay.· I’m going to have
16· it labeled as part of what you do in your business.· That’s why
17· I’m asking the question.
18· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes.· It absolutely is.· I
19· try to affirm what the approximate — and that’s an important
20· word, because I just want to be in the ballpark.· It
21· doesn’t matter if it comes to the penny or not,
22· because that’s open to negotiation between Mr. Johnson and the
23· insurance company.· But I just want to make sure that the
24· diminished value is reasonably accurate.
25· · · · · · So I’ll consult with my database, which told me that
this vehicle as a result —
·2· · · · · · THE COURT:· Again, you’re about to give an opinion,
·3· and I’m not there yet.
·4· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.
·5· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· So I’m going to, if there’s no
·6· objection, qualify him as an expert.· Is there any objection?
·7· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· Your Honor, I — I just I don’t — my
·8· objection is that I don’t believe he qualifies as a witness
·9· based — but I understand the Court’s ruling.
10· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Is there something that you can
11· point to or is just general to you?
12· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· Your Honor, some of the things I point
13· to is the fact that he’s saying that it’s based on his internal
14· database.· That internal database if we are going to allow that
15· report to come in, it does not state anything about the internal
16· database, anything that give me any inkling that he had an
17· internal database, because the way the report’s written, it
18· appears that he got information based off of what we already
19· discussed, which is the six different people that he spoke to.
20· · · · · · Again, Your Honor, I — I don’t know Mr. Colletta — I
21· know he testified to as such — to the expertise.· I have done
22· Google searches on Google searches regarding Mr. Colletta, and
23· honestly, nothing comes up, but it refers to him as an adjuster
24· or even a diminished value expert.
25· · · · · · THE COURT:· Did you use the name Colletti (phonetic)?
MS. LALANNE:· Colletta.
·2· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Because it is Colletta.
·3· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· Yeah, I keep saying Colletti, but it’s
·4· Colletta.· I did —
·5· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.
·6· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· Yes.
·7· · · · · · THE COURT:· And — and while Google seems to think
·8· it’s all knowing, it may not necessarily be all knowing.
·9· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· I understand, Your Honor.· I understand.
10· · · · · · THE COURT:· I think that it’s sufficient that he’s
11· been in this business since 1981 in New Jersey and all around
12· the country.· I — I think that that experience can’t be
13· ignored, nor am I going to ignore it.· I think that that in and
14· of itself would be sufficient.· He doesn’t have to be famous for
15· the Court to recognize him as an expert.· He just has to have
16· the proper experience.· He keeps up his licenses by continuing
17· legal education, and I think that’s good as well.
18· · · · · · So I am willing to qualify as an expert if you have
19· nothing else that you can place before the Court as a reason
20· why.
21· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· No, Your Honor.
22· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Good.· He is qualified as an
23· expert.· Now, you may ask him questions on his opinion.
24· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· Thank you, Your Honor.
25· BY MR. JOHNSON:
Q.· ·Mr. Colletta, you were — you were ready to speak
·2· about the significance of structural damage?· Would you continue
·3· that?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
·5· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· What was the question?· (Indiscernible),
·6· Your Honor.
·7· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Would you like me to elaborate upon
·8· that?
·9· · · · · · THE COURT:· One moment.· The question was to allow him
10· to continue what he was going to say on structural damage.
11· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· Understood, Your Honor.· That was
12· testimony that he was giving.· I just want to make sure I know
13· what the question is because the Court stopped Mr. Colletta from
14· testifying further because the Court hadn’t rendered him an
15· expert or not.
16· · · · · · THE COURT:· Right.
17· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· And there was no question by
18· Mr. Johnson.
19· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· Let me —
20· · · · · · THE COURT:· Excuse me.· But he just asked the
21· question.· He asked him to continue with his testimony on
22· structure, and I have no problem with that.· So let’s continue.
23· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· All right.· Should I speak now?
24· · · · · · THE COURT:· Yes.· It is your turn to speak.
25· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· All right.· There are two things to
consider when it comes to very large diminished value amounts.
·2· One is airbag deployment, the other is structural damage.
·3· Either of these if they have occurred, and in this case
·4· structural damage did occur.
·5· · · · · · For instance, a dealer would not be able to certify a
·6· car, they would not have put it on their lot.· Nobody would want
·7· to buy it.· They would send it directly to auction.· And I would
·8· say that’s 95 percent of the new car dealers in this country
·9· have the same policy.
10· · · · · · Structural damage can cause a vehicle to lose up to
11· half of its pre-accident trade-in value.· But I want to stress
12· that we use trade-in value rather than retail value, which is
13· higher.· If we had used retail value, it would make the
14· diminished value amount higher.
15· · · · · · But we don’t do that because that’s not the market
16· that Mr. Johnson is in.· He would experience a loss when he went
17· to trade in his car or sell his car privately.· So we use the
18· lower number to make this a fair appraisal.
19· · · · · · So structural damage, I estimated that the diminished
20· value would be somewhere between 30 and 50 percent of the
21· pre-accident trade-in value.· And this was borne out by my
22· conversations with these six — and I say again, unbiased
23· dealers because they were told they’re not getting the car.· So
24· there was no profit motive for them.· They
25· were just answering my questions, after I described the vehicle
the condition of the vehicle, the mileage of the vehicle, and
·2· then the repairs that were performed on the vehicle, how much
·3· less, if anything, would you typically deduct if this car or a
·4· similar car had come into your lot in trade?· And each one of
·5· these gentlemen, that day I called, it happened to be gentlemen,
·6· gave me their opinions.
·7· · · · · · And as I said, they’re unbiased opinions.· I recorded
·8· them, and they’re in my report as you can see.
·9· · · · · · THE COURT:· Next question, sir.
10· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· Your Honor, is it proper at this time to
11· introduce the actual appraisal?
12· · · · · · THE COURT:· I’m going to suggest you have him render
13· his opinion on everything, and then it would be relevant.
14· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· If we can speak a little louder, please.
15· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· Sorry.· I’m sorry, Mr. Colletta.
16· BY MR. JOHNSON:
17· · · ·Q.· ·If an appraisal did not include structural damage, how
18· much would that lessen approximately the diminished value?
19· · · ·A.· ·Approximately only 10 to 15 percent of the
20· pre-accident trade-in value, so a lot less than a vehicle that
21· did have structural damage.
22· · · · · · The only — if it didn’t have structural damage, a
23· dealer could still certify the vehicle if it was repaired
24· properly, they could still put it on their lot and sell it.
25· It’s got a bad CARFAX, but it’s not showing any kind of
structural damage or airbag deployment.· If it did, most
·2· potential buyers would simply walk away from that vehicle, which
·3· is why they don’t even bother trying to sell them on their lot.
·4· · · · · · And there are liability concerns as well.· Should the
·5· car be hit in the same place down the road and there’s a
·6· fatality, the dealer who sold that car may be held partially
·7· liable.
·8· · · · · · So there’s probably quite a few reasons why a dealer
·9· would shy away from a car that had structural damage or airbag
10· deployment, and that results in a very high” amount of diminished
11· value for a loss in value of the car.
12· · · ·Q.· ·Is it also true that banks may no longer finance this
13· vehicle because of the structural —
14· · · ·A.· ·Yes, that is absolutely true.· If the bank realizes
15· that a vehicle has structural damage or airbag deployment, they
16· won’t finance the car, which makes it obviously less desirable
17· to any buyer.
18· · · ·Q.· ·Anything else you can think of as significant to —
19· that should be mentioned —
20· · · ·A.· ·Well, unless Your Honor wants
21· me to delve more deeply into the conversations that I’ve had
22· with of all the dealers, which I’ll be happy to do, there’s
23· really not too much else to define this case.· It’s just a
24· matter of the car having significant damage, and I will pinpoint
25· what that damage was.
When you look at the estimate from Jupiter Auto Body,
·2· you will see that the rear body panel was replaced.· Now on the
·3· unibody car, rather than the old type cars that had frames or
·4· trucks that are still built with frames, unibody constructed
·5· cars are just different panels that are welded together.· They
·6· include the roof, the floor, the quarter panels, the panels
·7· around the doors, the rear body panel.· Now, when you carve out
·8· one of the panels that’s part of the unibody, you’re
·9· compromising the structural integrity of the car.
10· · · · · · So that is the reason that this car is considered
11· structurally damaged vehicle, because they removed a welded-on
12· panel and replaced it.· So as I said, the structural integrity
13· of the car is compromised no matter how well the repairs were
14· done.
15· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· All right.· Your Honor, that’s all I
16· have for this witness at this time.
17· · · · · · THE COURT:· Would you like to cross-examine?
18· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· Yes, Your Honor.
19· · · · · · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION
20· BY MS. LALANNE:
21· · · ·Q.· ·Good afternoon, Mr. Colletta.
22· · · ·A.· ·Hello.
23· · · ·Q.· ·Give me one second, Mr. Colletta.· I am just
24· getting —
25· · · · · · THE COURT:· One moment, Mr. Colletta.
LALANNE:
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Mr. Colletta, in your direct examination, you
·3· discussed structural damage and there’s two ways to determine
·4· structural damage.· You said airbag deployment, and what was the
·5· second thing?
·6· · · ·A.· ·(Indiscernible).· I’ll explain it again if you like.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·Please.· Yes, sir.
·8· · · ·A.· ·Structural damage — structural damage and airbag
·9· are very different things.
10· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
11· · · ·A.· ·So you could have a very minor accident and the
12· airbags could deploy.· There would be no structural damage on
13· the car, but just the airbag deployment would render the car
14· basically useless to any dealer.· They’re poison.
15· · · · · · Now, structural damage is completely different.· And
16· structural damage, if this helps to answer that
17· question, would consist of either of two things.· One would be
18· having to put the vehicle on a frame machine to align
19· the unibody which may have been twisted or mashed, and also the
20· other indication of structural damage is, as I explained
21· already, replacing the welded-on portion of the unibody.
22· · · · · · So either going on the frame machine or replacing the
23· welded-on panel would render the vehicle structurally
24· repaired.
25· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Now, Mr. Colletta, you have — you said that
you based your opinion by speaking to six, I believe, car
·2· dealers as well as the Jupiter Auto Body and as well as the
·3· information given to you by Mr. Johnson; is that correct?
·4· · · ·A.· ·I’m not sure I understand the question.· I’ll try to
·5· answer it by saying that —
·6· · · · · · THE COURT:· One moment, Mr. Colletta.
·7· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· — the diminished value was based on —
·8· · · · · · THE COURT:· One moment.
·9· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· — my — sorry.
10· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· I can repeat that —
11· · · · · · THE COURT:· Yeah.· If you could.· Thank you.
12· BY MS. LALANNE:
13· · · ·Q.· ·Mr. Colletta, in getting to your final opinion and
14· coming to your final opinion, you received information by
15· Mr. Johnson regarding the vehicle; is that correct?
16· · · ·A.· ·From Mr. Johnson and from the estimate he
17· provided from Jupiter Auto Body.
18· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Do you have the Jupiter Auto Body estimate in
19· front of you?
20· · · ·A.· ·It’s on my computer screen, if you don’t mind me
21· bringing it up, I’ll be glad to.
22· · · ·Q.· ·No.· I’m asking were you looking at it earlier?
23· · · ·A.· ·I’m not looking at it right at this moment, no.
24· But I can.
25· · · ·Q.· ·No, no, no.· I’m not asking you to.· I was asking did
you look at it earlier when you were testifying when Mr. Johnson
·2· was asking —
·3· · · ·A.· ·No, ma’am.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·– you a question.
·5· · · ·A.· ·No, ma’am.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·7· · · ·A.· ·No, ma’am.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·Let me ask you another question, Mr. Colletta.· You
·9· would agree with me that mileage plays into — of a vehicle
10· plays into a diminished value?
11· · · ·A.· ·I didn’t hear that one.· Please repeat the question.
12· · · ·Q.· ·Mr. Colletta, would you agree with me that mileage is
13· a variable to consider when calculating diminished value?
14· · · ·A.· ·Mileage?
15· · · ·Q.· ·Yes, sir.
16· · · ·A.· ·Yes.· Mileage is one factor.
17· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
18· · · ·A.· ·It’s not as big a factor as the other ones that I
19· described, in particular in this case, the structural damage.
20· But yes, that’s of course a consideration.· And it’s something
21· that I look at.
22· · · · · · And I looked at it when I made my comparison with
23· the vehicles in my database.· I certainly wouldn’t have used a
24· vehicle with 2,000 miles as a comparable vehicle. I
25· wouldn’t have used a car with a 150,000 miles.· So, yes, it
was — it did come into my research that I did.· And then it was
·2· also provided to the dealers who gave their opinions.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·4· · · · · · You also consider the age of the vehicle when you’re
·5· calculating diminished value; is that correct?
·6· · · ·A.· ·That was also provided to the dealers.· And again,
·7· when I was looking at my own database, I wouldn’t use any cars
·8· that were widely different in the year than the subject vehicle.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Understood.
10· · · · · · Now, Mr. Colletta, let’s go even further into your
11· report.· Within your report, you stated that the pre-loss fair
12· market value of the vehicle in November of 2022 was
13· approximately $18,000; is that correct?
14· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
15· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· How did you establish that value?
16· · · ·A.· ·Well, first, I came up with the retail value, which
17· you will find, I believe on page 4 of my report.
18· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
19· · · ·A.· ·Yeah.· And then I deducted $5,000 as your typical
20· dealer markup.· So the retail value is what a dealer would ask
21· for the car.· And the trade-in value, of course, is
22· theoretically what the dealer would pay for the car.
23· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Do — of the six dealers that you spoke to, do
24· you know how they establish that value?
25· · · ·A.· ·Their experience in buying, selling, trading, and
auctioning cars for many years.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Mr. Colletta, did you also research the —
·3· the — the ticket of the vehicle, same make and model of
·4· Mr. Johnson’s vehicle in 2020, the sticker price.· Did you
·5· research the sticker price of what the vehicle would be sold at
·6· in 2020?
·7· · · ·A.· ·We generally use the MSRP sticker for vehicles that have
·8· got less than 10,000 miles.· So in this case, and as in most
·9· cases, we use the J.D. Power NADA guidebooks to come up with the
10· pre-accident value.
11· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And what is the NADA?
12· · · ·A.· ·NADA stands for National Automobile Dealers
13· Association.· It’s one of the two recognized guidebooks, the
14· other one being KBB or Kelley Blue Book.· Okay.
15· · · ·Q.· ·So you didn’t look at the sticker price of the vehicle
16· in 2020?
17· · · ·A.· ·No, ma’am.
18· · · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
19· · · · · · Are you familiar with — are you familiar with the
20· term — are you familiar with the term “salvage” as it relates
21· to vehicles —
22· · · ·A.· ·Salvage?
23· · · ·Q.· ·Yes.
24· · · ·A.· ·Salvage?
25· · · ·Q.· ·Yes, sir.
A.· ·Yes.· Salvage is after — generally after a vehicle is
·2· a total loss, the salvage value is what a junkyard would pay for
·3· the remainder of the car.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·And was Mr. Johnson’s vehicle branded as a salvage
·5· vehicle?
·6· · · ·A.· ·No, ma’am.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·Are you familiar with the term “salvage rebuilt?”
·8· · · ·A.· ·Salvage what?· Sorry.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Salvage rebuilt?
10· · · ·A.· ·Salvage rebuilt would be if somebody buys, let’s say,
11· a salvage vehicle and then rebuilds it to either drive it
12· themselves or resell it, the State of Florida or whichever
13· state, would give them a rebuilt title.
14· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Now, Mr. Colletta, my next question to you is
15· that in your report you — you state that Mr. Johnson’s vehicle
16· lost about 45 percent of its value as a result of being in an
17· accident that required approximately $6,495.15 to repair.· If
18· this vehicle were branded a salvage rebuilt, what percentage of
19· its value would have its loss?
20· · · ·A.· ·If it were a salvage vehicle, I’m not sure that I
21· should answer this question because it’s a hypothetical, but I
22· will —
23· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· I’m going to object.
24· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· — I would generally deduct —
25· · · · · · THE COURT:· One moment.· Sir, there’s an objection.
MR. JOHNSON:· Sorry.· Relevance to this question?
·2· · · · · · THE COURT:· What is the relevance?
·3· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· Your Honor, the relevance is regarding
·4· the numbers that he came to.· He — he being Mr. Colletta,
·5· regarding diminished value — regarding diminished value and
·6· if — I wanted to know what would he call a salvage rebuilt in
·7· terms of — because he said a salvage means total loss.
·8· · · · · · THE COURT:· Right.
·9· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· And then he explained salvage rebuilt.
10· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.
11· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· And I’m — what I’m asking for are the
12· numbers that he would have —
13· · · · · · THE COURT:· Is that in the report that this is a
14· salvage rebuilt?
15· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· No, it’s not in the report as a
16· salvage —
17· · · · · · THE COURT:· Then I’m not sure of the relevance of the
18· salvage rebuilt.
19· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· Okay.· I’ll move on.
20· BY MS. LALANNE:
21· · · ·Q.· ·What does FLDFS mean, Mr. —
22· · · ·A.· ·Say that again.· I’m sorry.
23· · · ·Q.· ·FLDFS mean?
24· · · ·A.· ·FL — Florida Department of Financial Services.
25· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· What is that –
A.· ·That is the — that is the entity in Florida which
·2· houses the Florida Insurance Department.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· What does CID mean?
·4· · · ·A.· ·That is my license number.
·5· · · ·Q.· ·For?
·6· · · ·A.· ·For the State of Florida for my adjuster’s license.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·And CDL?
·8· · · ·A.· ·That is the — I think that’s the Connecticut or the
·9· California license.· And the other one that starts with a C
10· would be the other one.· And then the last one is in
11· North Carolina.
12· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· I have no other questions.
13· · · · · · THE COURT:· Do you have any further questions, sir?
14· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· Not at this time, Your Honor.· Thank
15· you.
16· · · · · · THE COURT:· I have a couple of questions.· If you
17· object to them, just go ahead and say objection, and I’ll stop
18· asking.· Okay?
19· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· Will do.
20· · · · · · THE COURT:· Mr. Colletta, you said that you formed an
21· opinion based on the database before you consulted the dealers.
22· What was the opinion you — you — the opinion you formed prior
23· to the dealers?
24· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That this vehicle was between 30 and 50
25· percent of its pre-accident trade-in value.
THE COURT:· And the pre-accident trade-in value was
·2· $18,000?
·3· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes, ma’am.
·4· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Thank you.
·5· · · · · · Okay.· Do we need Mr. Colletta anymore, or should I
·6· hold him a little bit longer?· What are we going to do here?
·7· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· Could I ask just one more question?
·8· · · · · · THE COURT:· You can.· Go ahead.
·9· · · · · · · · · · · · REDIRECT EXAMINATION
10· BY MR. JOHNSON:
11· · · ·Q.· ·Mr. Colletta, you mentioned the pre-accident value is
12· $18,000.· Did any of the dealers disagree with that or find a
13· different number?
14· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· I object for hearsay.
15· · · · · · THE COURT:· I will — it’s not rendering the opinion.
16· He’s just asking if any of the other people found it
17· differently.· I’m going to allow the question.
18· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sure.· Absolutely.· I’ll by happy to
19· answer that.· I don’t discuss the pre-accident values with the
20· dealers when I speak with them.
21· · · · · · I discussed, as I said before, the vehicle itself, the
22· condition of the vehicle and the damages that were repaired.· So
23· they will generally answer on a percentage basis.· They may say,
24· we would knock off 30 percent.· Occasionally, they’ll say, well,
25· we would knock off about $5,000, let’s say.· And then, of
course, I would have to do the math to see what percentage
·2· that would translate to.
·3· · · · · · But as far as the pre-accident value, I don’t discuss
·4· that with the dealers at all.
·5· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· Okay.· That’s all, Your Honor.
·6· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Thank you very much.
·7· · · · · · Did you have any questions based on what he asked?
·8· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· No, ma’am.
·9· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· You can have a seat.· And you, sir,
10· I’m going to release.· If they need to recall you, they will
11· call you on your cell phone, but hopefully not.· Okay?
12· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes, ma’am.· Thank you very much.
13· · · · · · THE COURT:· Thank you.· You take care.· Bye-bye.
14· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· You, too.· Bye-bye.
15· · · · · · THE COURT:· I’m sorry.· Did you wish to offer the
16· document into evidence?
17· · · · · · (No audible response.)
18· · · · · · (Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 marked for identification.)
19· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Is there objections?
20· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· Your Honor, I — he hasn’t laid a
21· foundation.· I don’t recall Mr. Colletta identifying it.· So my
22· objection is that he just hasn’t laid the foundation
23· (indiscernible).
24· · · · · · THE COURT:· He did —
25· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I’m still here if you need me.
THE COURT:· I know you are.
·2· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.
·3· · · · · · THE COURT:· I — I believe that he testified that it’s
·4· a document sent a particular e-mail, and he told us the date of
·5· the document.· If you would like to take a look at the document
·6· and see if those are accurate.
·7· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· I can look at them.
·8· · · · · · THE COURT:· If you have a challenge to the foundation,
·9· then you must ask those questions.· Otherwise they’re waived.
10· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· Thank you.· No problem.· Other than the
11· objections I previously made, I have no other —
12· · · · · · THE COURT:· You need to remake them because we’ve had
13· plenty of testimony since then, and I don’t know if —
14· · · · · · (Simultaneous speaking.)
15· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· — as to the document being entered into
16· evidence.· As I stated, I — again, I don’t know what document
17· Mr. Colletta is looking at.· It may be the same, it may not be
18· the same.
19· · · · · · THE COURT:· Let me have the document.
20· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· I understand —
21· · · · · · THE COURT:· Counsel, did you make previous objections?
22· If you’re not restating them, I don’t know what they are.
23· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· Understood, Your Honor.
24· · · · · · THE COURT:· Well, no, because then they’re waived
25· because I’m not going to go back and try to figure out what you
might have said.· You have to tell me what your objections are.
·2· · · · · · Do you recognize this document, sir?
·3· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes, ma’am.
·4· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Can you tell me what it is?
·5· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes.· It is a cover letter which gives
·6· my client instructions on how to proceed with his claim.· And
·7· attached to that would be the actual appraisal —
·8· · · · · · THE COURT:· Do you —
·9· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· — and that’s the cover page.
10· · · · · · THE COURT:· Of what?
11· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Of my appraisal, of the diminished value
12· appraisal.
13· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· This is —
14· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That is page 1 of my
15· diminished value appraisal.
16· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· And how many pages is it, the
17· appraisal?
18· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I believe it’s five.
19· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.
20· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· And then the last page should be a copy
21· of my invoice.
22· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· We — I don’t see the invoice.· Oh,
23· yes, there it is.· That — that’s there.· Okay.
24· · · · · · So he has identified the document.· I — I cannot take
25· the entire document.· I can only take the appraisal.· So I need
you to remove the other pages and simply hand over the appraisal
·2· to Court.· The Court will accept it into evidence identified by
·3· both his testimony and by him looking at it on the Zoom.
·4· · · · · · (Received into evidence, Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1.)
·5· · · · · · THE COURT:· Is there any other objection?
·6· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· No, Your Honor.
·7· · · · · · THE COURT:· Any other objection to foundation?
·8· · · · · · MS. LALANNE:· No, Your Honor.
·9· · · · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Sir, I’m going to ask you not to
10· lick your fingers and hand that document to me because I don’t
11· want it.· Do you have a clean copy without your highlights?
12· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· I do, Your Honor.
13· · · · · · THE COURT:· Please.
14· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· Sorry about that.
15· · · · · · THE COURT:· That’s all right.· People do it
16· automatically, but this day and age —
17· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· Yeah.
18· · · · · · THE COURT:· — it’s never good to (indiscernible).
19· · · · · · Okay.· Mr. Colletta, we’re going ahead and taking it
20· into evidence.
21· · · · · · So we’ll call you if he wants you to testify on
22· rebuttal testimony.· If he wants to present any rebuttal
23· testimony, he’ll call you.· You would come in the same way that
24· you did before.· Okay.
25· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes, ma’am.
So, why does State Farm lose diminished value cases in court? Simply put, superior evidence was presented by the plaintiff. AUTODIMINISHEDVALUE.COM provided confirmation of diminished value that was constructed by doing real-world research. No formulas, algorithms, online ad comparisons or book value condition differences can furnish that.
If an insurance company leaves consumers with no alternatives besides litigation, make certain to offer comprehensive evidence that is not formulated by substandard methodologies. A thorough diminished value appraisal should confirm the appraiser’s own opinion by including the unbiased opinions of six sales managers at new car dealerships. Armed with this document; and assuming your case is being heard by a capable and perceptive judge, you should walk out of the courtroom satisfied that justice was done.
READ CUSTOMER REVIEWS OF THE ST. LUCIE APPRAISAL COMPANY
Then click on the payment button above to pay by Credit Card or Paypal. The fee for an Automobile Diminished Value Report is
$275.00. You may also make your Credit Card Payment by telephone, call 772-359-4300.
Tesla and other exotic car owners please call for rates.
Service throughout Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi , Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming
