Unless the contract specifies DV circumstances and outcomes. Many of the sites I visited in my mini DDG dive suggested the lessee may be at risk for DV upon turn-in, but this may be a recent phenomenon. It may be in LH interest to do an article highlighting this and tracking lessors that have DV language in the contract.
In my dive, I came away with the idea that these FAQ’s, articles, and blog posts are truly sales leads, designed to educate the chum just enough to bite, get hooked and be reeled in. As such, many seemed to shun lessee DV claims as we have seen, and I would suggest this is because the firm prefers slam dunks with little actual work. That is why this particular article stood out: he presents the arguments for standing, monetary loss for lessee and sets up the conflict of lessee intent (purchase value versus turn-in), which is what I think makes it ‘complicated’. As Max suggests, getting an attorney involved (who really wants to advocate for you) is challenging, and quite expensive. Better contract language would help.
If they were totally stiffing me on diminished value, I would think about pursuing a claim for personal injury/lost wages. However, in the past, I had problems getting much payment when the rear end damages were minimal like the case here.
Have you tried requesting a quote from vroom and carvana on same day, with and without an accident?
You’ll likely have to punch in make and model instead of your VIN or plate number.
Part of the $10k difference may be accounting for the accident but it’s also possible the car is not selling for as much as Carvana thought it would one month ago.
Never heard of this and if it’s in practice would be significant since the bank would effectively be violating their own contracted terms of end of lease buyout.
The value for the car is already set at time of contract signing, whether there’s an accident or the market goes up and down is irrelevant. If the leasee holds to their side of the agreement then the bank is expected to as well. That’s how contracts work.
We are involving a THIRD party who, by fault, contributed to DV.
Per article: “The lessee is hurt by this diminished value because subsequent to the accident and repair they are still contractually obligated to pay the same monthly lease payment they originally agreed to even though the car is actually worth less.Furthermore, when the lessee returns a previously damaged vehicle at lease end, the lessor may hold them liable for the amount of the diminished value. Both of these scenarios demonstrate that the lessee may be adversely affected in an economic sense by the acts of the defendant and accordingly has a strong argument for standing.”
I think the contract should be clear on the topic of DV, so it is properly known which stakeholder bears the brunt of DV.
I understand the article says this, but I have not ever seen this to be the case, unless the vehicle is returned improperly repaired. I’d be curious to see them cite an example/evidence that this happens.
I agree, I too would want evidence where this has occurred. DV limits, (possibly dictates) your lease-end options, so I think contract language on DV should exist clearly defining what we already assume to be true. That would remove the question and need for evidence. I honestly don’t know how to resolve the ‘pay same payment for less valuable contracted vehicle’ can be handled, looks like a cam of worms, but perhaps a ‘market adjustment’ (DV) at lease end? Seems to me the third party should be responsible for making the OG two parties whole.
In my not-a-lawyer opinion, it would seem that the lessor would have standing to make a bonafide diminished value claim and that the lessor may be able to justify a separate legal action that wouldn’t really be a diminished value claim per say, but a much harder to prove/justify loss claim.
Sure, but are we talking “based on previous cases” hypothetical or “author talking out of their ass making stuff up as they go and presenting it as truth” hypothetical.
Thing is that it is purely hypothetical and I have yet to see empirical evidence for it.
It’s being communicated in a conversation is immutable fact without backing or evidence.
It doesn’t matter what a third party does to the car involved in a contract between the lessor and leasee. The leasee has requirements outlined in the contract they must abide by to include returning the car in a specific condition. That’s why you’re required to insure the vehicle to a certain amount because you have to protect the banks asset, not yours.
This isn’t really directed to you, I’m kind of done with this conversation because it just defies common logic at this point for the sake of internet attention.
