17C Formula and Diminished Value Claims
Is the insurance company using the 17c formula to evaluate your diminished value claim? Fill out the form and request a free rebuttal letter.
17c Rebuttal Letter
"*" indicates required fields
Our Mission is to shed the light on 17c and its clones, explain and demonstrate why its inaccurate and erroneous.
State Farm vs Mabry
On November 28, 2001, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Mabry. (S01A0982).
This court ruling stated that physical damage resulting from a covered event can reduce the value of a vehicle, even if repairs return it to it’s pre-loss condition..
The Court determined that the insurance company involved in the case is obligated to assess diminution of value “…along with the elements of physical damage when a policyholder make a general claim of loss.”
The 17c Formula
The Mabry case was a class action lawsuit involving more than 25,000 insurance claims. In order to compensate claimants under this lawsuit, the court agreed to the temporary use of a generic formula. In paragraph 17 section “c” of its ruling, the court indicated this fact.
It is not hard to understand why a simple formula was used in this case. Obviously because of the large number of vehicles involved and the difficulty in having an actual appraiser assess the market value and the post-wreck amount in comparison to the pre-accident value.
The 17c Formula
Since 2001, State Farm and other insurance companies have been using the 17c formula and citing precedent.
Their logic is fundamentally flawed, unless you’re one of the 25,000 claimants, this ruling should NOT apply to you.
This information can be used as a reference when negotiating with the insurance company only when authorized by the author.
Appraisal Engine Solutions
Check out some of our wide range of vehicle value appraisal services offered.