u/DrRosemaryWhy

Okay, you can stop abusing me. I'll go ahead and ask the questions that y'all seem to want me to ask instead, because maybe I'll get something useful that way.

When calculating ACV on a totaled car in MA, if the insurer has been provided with the actual original P&S agreement for that car, showing the actual original MSRP, which reflects substantial factory-installed equipment that is not reflected in the VIN lookup (changing the original MSRP by several thousand dollars), how are they supposed to account for that?

When comparing to current price listings for used cars with the same nominal trim, again, how are they supposed to account for that difference?

When the locally-listed cars are a slightly lower trim (RWD instead of AWD), how can one account for that difference?

The car in question is an EV, and at present, there is an MA rebate for used EVs. However, that rebate is only available if one's income is below a certain level. Some dealers are listing cars with the rebate price already included, and then putting in small print "DISCLAIMER: Price includes MOR-EV rebate." Are they required to add the rebate back in because I won't necessarily qualify for the rebate?

When there has been a recent substantial and documented betterment, how are they supposed to calculate the value of that betterment and include it in the analysis?

When calculating the true cost of purchase of a replacement vehicle in MA, are they required to include all taxes and fees that are required as part of the purchase (sales tax, registration / title / plate transfer / inspection, dealer documentation)?

I need help! My car was rear-ended and totaled by a Progressive-insured RI driver. RI regulations are *very* clear about what I am owed. Progressive's valuation is *massively* out of compliance in *many* ways. I sent them a very clear letter showing very clearly what they need to change, citing RI laws and regulations explicitly. They just told me again "talk to the hand."

RI Division of Business Regulation agrees with me on all counts, and is telling me to file a complaint, but also admits that's going to take another month to maybe resolve and it's already been almost two months since the accident, and they're going to frankly also have to pay more in storage fees and for my rental car in the interim than the difference in what they owe me.

How can I get past the endless "I talked to my imaginary supervisor who is actually probably just the person sitting next to me" to someone who can actually get them to follow RI law?

Hi! So, yeah, my car got rear-ended on the MassPike so hard it sheared a bunch of bolts on the frame clean through, tore holes in the frame, etc. So yeah, it's totaled. Sigh. The guy who hit me is from Rhode Island, and his insurance (Progressive) admitted 100% fault.

They've been jerking me around a lot on the valuation, but it looks like RI regulations are actually really consumer-friendly and amazingly clearly worded and not amenable to the usual shenanigans. By the plain language of those regulations, it looks like the valuation document they sent is massively out of compliance, to the tune of over $5000 total.

* I sent them the original P&S from the car showing actual MSRP, but they did all the valuation based on a trim type over $2000 lower.

* RI regulations say that they aren't allowed to average ACV from multiple sources to lower the ACV below NADA/JDPower, but they did.

* NADA already accounts for mileage, but they deducted another $1k for mileage (double-dipping)

* As it happens, we had had new tires installed less than three weeks before the accident, we gave them the receipt, they gave $0 credit on the NADA number and $53 credit on the JDPower number for a $1004 betterment.

* they included MA sales tax in their offer but not the registration fees we'll also have to pay when we buy a replacement.

* RI regulations say they aren't allowed to use Mitchell at all, but they did (and of course it was much lower)

* RI regulations say they aren't allowed to use comps to go below NADA, but they did.

* and of course with the comps, they systematically downgraded the condition of my car (including making statements about how the drivetrain etc was working that they had no way to verify) and again based the analysis on the incorrect MSRP.

* and also of course with the comps, they didn't provide full listing information so there's no way to tell if those comps are actually comparable (also required by RI regulations).

* and also with the comps, they used "projected sold value" which is explicitly disallowed by RI regulations.

I've found several comps indicating that my analysis is more likely to be correct than theirs, and that my correction of the NADA/JDPower number (basically removing the double-dip on the mileage, using the same ratio between original MSRP and current value but fixing to reflect actual original MSRP, adding the tire betterment) is correct -- might still be slightly under market but I'm willing to take it, because I don't trust them to just find more ways to make things up about the comps I find.

They have also been flat-out lying to me about what they're required to cover regarding loss-of-use / rental car. RI regulations are very clear -- they're on the hook until 7 days after I receive payment, but they've been saying 3 days after they phoned me to tell me the car was totaled, then they backed off to 7 days until after they phoned me, etc..

And also they've been trying to get me to accidentally release the car for salvage and/or to tell me I have to pay for storage while they jerk me around.

In most domains in my life, the firmly worded "You're breaking the law here, here, and here. This is what you actually owe me. Cut it out." would tend to generate far *more* pushback.

But is this a domain where that would actually be the right thing?