CCC Valuescope (CCCG), my insurer USAA, and I have filed a consumer complaint. They falsely claimed that my vehicle had a fair “market” value.
USAA, my insurer, has failed to uphold its duty of good faith to me as its insured. USAA intentionally gave me a false and low valuation of my vehicle by using CCC Valuescope, a company that I claim violates the U.S. federal RICO Act. This was in an attempt to obtain an unfair and unreasonable settlement.
CCC Valuescope, formerly CCC Information Services Group Inc – CCCG), cannot be considered a fair and fair market value for automobiles. CCC Valuescope is an exclusive service provider to insurers. Therefore, CCC Valuescope has an economic interest in providing valuations that are deliberately lower than the fair market value of insured vehicles.
CCC values are derived from the prices that car dealers would sell a vehicle at wholesale prices. This is in contrast to the “retail value” of an automobile of the same kind and quality before the accident, as required by FL insurance regulations. CCC Valuescope also uses a mixture of cars formerly leased, used and abused, among wrecked vehicles, when compiling values to allow their customers to pay out the lowest possible “values”.
Ironically, almost every vehicle in CCC Valuescope’s appraisal of my car report contained vehicles with more than 20 records that indicated issues like accidents or faulty cars. Some cars had 28 records, 31 and 32 records.
USAA’s history of cutting costs and denigrating its insured “the highest due care” can be seen starting with the March 12th 1999 class action lawsuit against USAA in Washington King County. This was for forcing auto repair shops in Washington to use “imitation parts” in repairs while concealing this practice from policyholders. USAA has faced numerous complaints from customers in 27 states.
CCC Valuescope does not do their own valuations, as they are hired by the insurance companies. A VIN search of the vehicles in the CCC report 39813905 revealed that many vehicles had more than 20 records. This was indicative of multiple collisions, issues with their vehicle and several ownership changes. USAA violated its fiduciary obligation to act in good faith by relying upon CCC’s intentionally low valuation for my vehicle. CCC cannot perform a fair and honest assessment of my claim because it is contracted to insure the fiduciaries. USAA’s use of CCC Valuescope clearly shows that it isn’t exercising the “utmost diligence” required by Baxter, Royal Indemnity.
CCC acknowledged in its SEC Filing of 3-16-2005 that it sometimes pays customers for the commitments made under its prior contracts with third parties. CCC also mentions that “in most states there is not a formal approval process for total-loss valuation products”. CCC acknowledges in the same filing that “individual state department of insurance have taken positions regarding whether the use CCC Valuescope valuations are in compliance with a state’s claim handling regulations.”
“The Company knows that from 2002, the California Department of Insurance notified some of its customers (which management estimates at approximately 14% of the Company’s total revenue in 2004 from CCC Valuescope) that they believed their use of CCC Valuescope was not compliant with California insurance regulations. This included certain components of the product methodology. According to the Company, the product conformed with applicable California regulations.
“The California Department of Insurance adopted new regulations on April 24, 2003 that required the Company’s total loss calculations in California to be modified. CCC Valuescope has good reasons to believe that its valuation methodology is severely flawed and biased in favor of its customers.
CCC’s annual Report filed February 13, 2004, documents the legal proceedings as well as numerous class action lawsuits against CCC. It is available on pages 35, 42 and 43 of the 53-page report.
CCC Valuescope, on page 35, admits that it has set aside $4.3million as an estimate for potential settlements in order to resolve potential claims arising from approximately 30% of CCC Valuescope’s transaction volume.
CCC Valuescope has made it public by acknowledging that 30% of transaction volume can be claimed. It also makes it public record it expects a substantial number of lawsuits against it for unfair and fraudulent valuations. This high transaction volume alone demonstrates the flaws in CCC’s methodology, its untrustworthy dealings and its total commitment to protecting the financial interests of the insurance companies it serves.
Ironically, CCC Valuescope’s auto insurance customers made common and contractual claims against CCC for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, settlement payments, and other costs they allegedly incurred in litigation relating CCC’s flawed TOTAL LOSS valuation product.
The countless lawsuits against CCC Valuescape in the United States provide further evidence of the inaccurate and low-valued vehicles they gave to the insurers they served. There are many:
CCC settles Class Action Suit for Valuation of Total Loss Automobiles (July 15,2005)
Chicago-based CCC Information Services Inc. announced today that it and fifteen of its customers have signed a settlement agreement to the plaintiffs in class action suits in Madison County, Ill. These consolidated suits (Case Nos. 01 L157, et. al. concern the valuation vehicles that have been declared total loss by insurers.
CCC will have to pay administration fees and notice fees as part of the settlement agreement. These costs will amount to approximately $8 million. With $1.8 million of available insurance proceeds, CCC has no reserve for these payments. The insurance companies participating in the settlement will pay any other settlement costs, such as claims from class members.
August 23, 2000: A putative statewide action was filed in Circuit Court for Hillsborough County (FL) against CCC, USAA Casualty Insurance Company. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, CCC Information Services, Inc., case no. 00-006308). Plaintiffs claim that USAA contracted CCC to value “total loss” vehicles. CCC provided valuations that were deliberately lower than the fair market value of the insured vehicle.
“Iinsurance companies owe an obligation to the insured to act in good faith.” Baxter, Royal Indemnity Company 285 So.2d 652 FL 1st DCA 1973
CCC Valuescope has been the subject of a number of ongoing class actions. It should be obvious that CCC Valuescope is not an independent auto valuation company and is guilty of violating U.S. federal RICO Act, National Insurance Regulations and many other complicit insurance companies like USAA. They knowingly and willingly use their product to deceive.