But I think people are saying any excess would ultimately not go to you as per how VCFS works, despite what the insurance person said likely in error.
1 Like
No offense to OP, but statistically speaking those who total a car once are probably more likely to total a car again vs someone who hasn’t ever totaled one. But if it was due to another drivers fault maybe not.
Point is though, you’ll feel REALLY dumb if you end up totaling a second car and taking another bath, haha.
Also how much is one actually saving in interest cost anyway by putting down a substantial down payment vs putting the same amount in a CD or HYSA?
2 Likes
Those are still subject to income tax.
I think it’s better to price the rent + tax on rolling in the upfronts to price transferring 100% of risk. I built a quick calculator based on rough numbers from OP (24/10k C40 Max MSD — $4500das vs $0): at my tax rate the spread is $241 and at 10.5% tax it’s $362. At that MF I’d probably pay acq/doc/plates upfront - on my most recent lease I rolled everything in because the spread was under $100
Your agent is correct. You are the policy holder and get the excess.
BTW, the owner of the car (The bank) is listed on the policy as well. Welcome to leasing
Not true with leasing.
It depends.
1 Like
Right.
What does the OP’s lease agreement say? Please post and, for that matter, the secondary question is what does the prospective new agreement say in this regard if you’re going to do this again.
Make sure this amount doesn’t include your MSDs.
New to leasing but was taught to avoid down payments because the money is lost once car totaled and account closed out.
Seems like that $5,500 is gone. I’m not sure I would sink any more money into trying to fight for more money for Volvo since they are the owner.
Lesson learned wouldn’t put $3,000 down on another lease if it were me.
Glad to hear it sounds like you weren’t injured. Volvo knows what they are doing with safety that’s for sure.
2 Likes
auction values and trade values have nothing to do with this. Insurance should be paying full replacement value plus tax. I don’t know what kind of cutrate insurance you have, but the proper valuation is to find those for sale on the open market that match yours. And they have to send you that report.
Problem is finding any. Was yours an Ultimate or Twin Ultimate? I didn’t find any used '23 Ultimate for sale anywhere in the country on cargurus nor cars.com. Plenty of Twin Ultimates, though.
That’s likely the issue here. Few comps and the OP having the top tier trim level.
Absolutely true with leasing. Many, many topics on this very forum going back years where people deal with this issue. Rarely a brand will try to hold the excess but you’ll often have no problem getting it back.
Lease contracts tend to be silent with regards to this issue.
Since the pandemic that is [Rarely a brand will give back the excess]
Volvo (The car in question) is the absolute Worst of the Leasing bunch (Dealers can’t buy the car) and while there isn’t a lot of data here regarding the brand and Total Loss, VFS is NOT noted for their generosity.
But it shouldn’t be a question of generosity…what does the contract say?
As I have a Volvo,
Two major things
They are the ‘loss payee’
They get paid, no mention that the Lessee gets the extra.
1 Like
37.a.(i) seems to be the clincher, assuming OP has the same contract.
It does bring up the question of if the other party is at fault in the accident and their insurance is paying.
There are ‘ways’ to get the extra, but OP’s post suggests Volvo already got a check, so this ‘extra amount’ might already be earmarked for them.
Now there is a slight chance OP can get it, but if Volvo finds out (through filings) they might demand it as well.
If Volvo is the only listed Total Loss, they get it all.
So my original post holds.
2 Likes
It’s not. It says “required under this lease.” In other words, just up to what is owed.
This language actually can easily be used to argue that the lease holder gets the excees in case Volvo triea to keep it. In California it would be very easy to sue Volvo in small claims and win, but California makes suing corporations in small claims very, very easy and cheap and consumer friendly.
I have no doubt brands are making this difficult right now because so many leased cars are worth more than the payout, but the excess goes to whoever pays the insurance policy, unless the lease contract has language otherwise but I’m not aware of any brand that does. Maybe some switched it up lately.
Just wondering - do they get more than the payoff balance? Generally if a leasing company receives more than a payoff balance, then they will refund the difference.