Should I contest the “total loss” designation on my car?
My wife was involved in a hit-and-run, and I’ll share damage photos in the comments. Fortunately, there’s no frame damage, but we do need to replace the rear passenger door and tail light, as well as repair and repaint the quarter panel and rear bumper. What puzzles me is why the body shop included paintwork for the front passenger door in their estimate. Ultimately, the total cost for repairs, along with the car’s salvage value, comes to about $50 less than its “actual cash value.”
In Washington State, the insurance letter states that a total loss occurs when the repair costs, along with the salvage value, exceed the vehicle’s market value. It seems the insurance company has decided to total it, even though this approach might actually be more expensive for them. We should be able to schedule the repairs conveniently so we won’t need a rental car, which could shift the balance in costs.
So, my question is, how strongly should I push back against this decision? Some people might be thrilled to receive full market value for a 2005 Altima, but we really value this car. It has low mileage (under 90k at 20 years old) and has been well-maintained in a garage. Replacing it would not only be a costly endeavor but also a challenging one, as my wife is particular about seat comfort for medical reasons.
Then again, this could present an opportunity for us to transition to an electric vehicle. We don’t drive much (about 5,000 miles a year), and a modest-range EV could work well, allowing most charging to occur at home (though I’d need to factor in the cost of a level 2 charger). I’ve been thinking about getting a 2019 or 2020 Leaf, which would still have plenty of life left while avoiding the steepest depreciation.
On the flip side, keeping our current car might be more environmentally friendly than scrapping it for parts.
What would you do in my situation?
It sounds like you’re in a tough situation, and there are a few factors to consider when deciding whether to fight the total loss designation.
Sentimental Value vs. Market Value: If you and your wife have a strong attachment to the Altima and appreciate its specific features (like the seat comfort), that’s definitely worth considering. While some people might be ready to walk away from a 2005 model, your unique needs make the situation different.
Repair Costs vs. New Purchase: Since the repair costs are very close to the actual cash value, and you seem to know that keeping the car would save you from the hassle of shopping for a new vehicle, it may be worthwhile to fight the total loss designation. If you can manage the repair without needing a rental, you might be able to claim this as a significant saving.
Environmental Considerations: You raise a valid point about the environmental impact of scrapping a vehicle, especially one that is still functional. If you can fix the Altima and keep it running for a few more years, that could contribute positively to reducing waste.
Transition to EV: On the flip side, if an electric vehicle aligns with your long-term goals and lifestyle, this could be an opportunity for you. EVs are generally more efficient and might suit your low mileage driving. However, do consider the costs of charging infrastructure and the learning curve of owning a new type of vehicle.
In conclusion, if you’re inclined to keep the Altima and feel it can be easily repaired, fighting the total loss might be worth your time. On the other hand, if the idea of upgrading to an EV excites you and you can find a suitable replacement that meets your wife’s needs, it might be the right time for a change. Whichever path you choose, weigh the practicality alongside emotional value, long-term costs, and environmental impact in your decision-making process. Good luck!