Global Courant
I am filing a consumer complaint against CCC Valuescope (CCCG) and my insurer USAA for falsely claiming a fair “market value” of my car.
My insurer USAA has breached its duty to show me, its insured, the utmost fidelity. Using CCC Valuescope (a company I suspect is violating US federal RICO law) USAA intentionally gave me a low and fraudulent appraisal of my car in hopes of getting an unreasonable and unfair settlement.
CCC Valuescope (formerly known as CCC Information Services Group Inc – CCCG) cannot under any circumstances be considered a fair and market value of cars as CCC Valuescope works exclusively for insurers and therefore has an economic interest in providing valuations that are intentionally under the actual fair value. market value of what insured vehicles are actually worth.
It is a known fact throughout the insurance industry that CCC derives its values from what car dealers would sell a vehicle at basement wholesale prices, not the true “retail value of a car of the same make and quality prior to the accident” as mandated by FL insurance regulations. In addition, CCC Valuescope uses a mix of vehicles previously leased, used, and abused under wrecked vehicles when compiling appraisals to provide their insurance company’s clients who pay out total losses with the lowest possible “values” to present to their policyholders.
Ironically, almost every vehicle in CCC Valuescope’s review of my car report consisted of vehicles with more than 20 records indicative of problems such as accidents and broken down cars. Under the report, some cars had 28, 31 and 32 records.
Cutting costs and denying the insured “the utmost care” can be historically documented against USAA, beginning with the class action lawsuit against USAA in Washington’s King County (March 12, 1999) for forcing auto repair shops to “imitate parts in repairs, while at the same time hiding this practice from policyholders. In addition to auto insurance, USAA has filed numerous complaints in 27 states across the country.
CCC Valuescope is not independent in their valuations as they are a rental gun for the insurance companies! When conducting a VIN search on the vehicles in CCC report 39813905, many cars had more than 20 records indicative of numerous collisions, issues with the vehicle and various ownership changes. By relying on CCC’s intentionally low valuation of my vehicle, USAA violates its fiduciary duty to act in good faith in handling my claim. No fair and honest assessment of my claim can be made by CCC as it is contracted by insurers for the primary purpose of minimizing the amounts paid by insurers to its fiduciaries. By using CCC Valuescope, USAA is clearly not exercising the “due diligence” in my insured’s best interest as required by Baxter v. Royal Indemnity.
CCC itself admitted in its SEC filing on March 16, 2005 that “sometimes the company pays a new customer for the remaining commitment of its previous third-party contract as an incentive.” With regard to regulation, CCC states in the same filing “however, in most states there is no formal approval process for total loss rated products”. CCC itself confesses in the same report “individual state insurance departments have taken positions on whether the use of CCC Valuescope valuations complies with state claims handling regulations.”
“The Company is aware that since 2002, the California Department of Insurance has been advising some of the Company’s clients (management estimates this to be approximately 14% of total revenue earned in 2004 from the CCC Valuescope valuation product and the Company’s service) that the Department believed that their use of CCC Valuescope was inconsistent with California insurance regulations in effect prior to October 4, 2004, regarding certain parts of the product methodology. the product complied with applicable California regulations.”
“On April 24, 2003, the California Department of Insurance formally passed new regulations requiring the company to change its methodology for calculating total loss valuations in California.” So there is good reason to believe that CCC Valuescope’s valuation methodology is terribly flawed and skewed to favor the insurance company’s customers.
In CCC’s annual report, filed February 13, 2004, the legal proceedings and numerous lawsuits against CCC are documented on pages 35, 42, 43 and 44 of the 53-page report.
On page 35, CCC Valuescope admits to setting aside $4.3 million as an estimate for a potential settlement to “resolve potential claims arising from approximately 30% of CCC Valuescope’s transaction volume.”
By acknowledging that 30% of transaction volume becomes potential claims, CCC Valuescope is disclosing that it expects a significant percentage of lawsuits for unfair and fraudulent valuations. Such a high percentage of transaction volume alone attests to CCC’s report’s flawed methodology, its unscrupulous transactions and genuine commitment to protecting the financial interests of the insurers it serves.
Ironically, four customers of CCC Valuescope’s auto insurance company filed contractual and, in some cases, common law indemnification claims against CCC for costs, attorneys’ fees, settlement payments and other costs they allegedly incurred in connection with litigation related to their use of CCC’s flawed TOTAL LOSS valuation product.
To be sure, the numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United States against CCC Valuescape provide further evidence regarding the very low and inaccurate vehicle valuations they provide to the insurers they serve. Among the many are:
CCC settles class action lawsuit over valuation of total loss vehicles (July 15, 2005)
Chicago-based claims software maker CCC Information Services Inc. announced that the company and 15 of its clients have signed a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in several class action lawsuits pending in Madison County, Illinois. These consolidated lawsuits, Case Nos. 01 L 157, et al., relate to the valuation of vehicles declared a total loss by insurers.
The terms of the Settlement Agreement require CCC to pay cancellation and administration fees and other costs associated with the Settlement. The company estimates that these costs will total approximately $8 million, and including available insurance proceeds of $1.8 million, the company is fully earmarked for these payments. Other settlement costs, including claims by class members, will be paid by the insurance companies participating in the settlement.
On August 23, 2000, an alleged statewide class action was filed in the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, FL against CCC and USAA Casualty Insurance Company (Peter Sintes et al. v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company and CCC Information Services, Inc. , Case No. 00-006308). Plaintiffs allege that USAA contracted with CCC to provide valuations of total loss vehicles and that CCC provided valuations that were intentionally less than the insured vehicle’s actual fair market value.
Insurance companies “are obliged to the insured to exercise the utmost good faith.” Baxter v. Royal Indemnity Company, 285 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
Given the numerous and pending class action lawsuits against CCC Valuescope, there would now be no doubt that CCC Valuescope is not independent in its car valuations and is guilty of violating the US Federal RICO Act and National Insurance Regulations, along with many of the complicit insurance companies like USAA who knowingly use their product with the intent to deceive.
CCC Valuescope & USAA Fraud Conspiracy,
World News,Next Big Thing in Public Knowledg
#CCC #Valuescope #USAA #Fraud #Conspiracy
