CCC Valuescope and USAA Conspiring to defraud, committing violations of the RICO Act?

I am filing a consumer complaint against CCC Valuescope (CCCG) and my insurer USAA for falsely claiming fair “market value” for my car.

My insurer USAA has breached its duty to exercise the utmost good faith towards me its policyholders. Using CCC Valuescope (a company that I claim violates the US federal RICO Act), USAA intentionally provided me with a fraudulent and low valuation of my car in the hope of obtaining an unreasonable and unfair settlement.

CCC Valuescope (formerly known as CCC Information Services Group Inc – CCCG) can in no way be considered fair and market value of cars, as CCC Valuescope works exclusively for insurers and therefore has a financial interest in providing valuations that are intentionally below actual fair value. market value of what the insured vehicles are really worth.

It is a known fact throughout the insurance industry that CCC compiles its values ​​from what car dealers would sell a vehicle for at basement wholesale prices, not the true “retail value of a car of similar type and quality before accident” as required. per FL insurance regulations. In addition, CCC Valuescope uses a mix of previously leased, used, and battered vehicles among wrecked cars when compiling valuations to allow its insurance company clients to pay total losses at the lowest possible “values” to present to their insurance companies. insured.

Ironically, almost all of the vehicles in CCC Valuescope’s evaluation of my car report consisted of vehicles that had more than 20 registrations indicating issues like accidents and defective cars. Among the report, some cars had 28, 31 and 32 registrations.

Cutting costs and denying their policyholders the “maximum due care” can historically be documented against USAA beginning with the class action lawsuit against USAA in King County Washington (March 12, 1999) for forcing repair shops of automobiles to use “imitation” parts in repairs. while hiding this practice from policyholders. Beyond auto insurance, USAA has countless complaints filed in 27 states across the country.

CCC Valuescope is not independent in its valuations as they are a hired gun by the insurance companies! When performing a VIN lookup on the vehicles within the CCC report 39813905, many cars had more than 20 records indicating numerous collisions, vehicle problems, and various changes of ownership. By relying on CCC’s intentionally low valuation of my vehicle, USAA is breaching its fiduciary duty to act in good faith in handling my claim. CCC is unable to provide a fair and honest review of my claim, as it is retained by insurers for the primary purpose of minimizing monies paid by insurers to their trustees. By using the CCC Valuescope, USAA is clearly not exercising “the greatest care” in the interests of me, its policyholders, as required by Baxter v. Royal Compensation.

CCC conceded in its SEC filing on 03-16-2005 that “the Company sometimes pays a new customer for the remaining commitment of its prior contract with third parties as an incentive.” Regarding regulation, CCC mentions in the same presentation that “in most states, however, there is no formal approval process for total loss valuation products.” The CCC itself confesses in the same report that “individual state insurance departments have taken positions on whether the use of CCC Valuescope ratings complies with states’ claims handling regulations.”

“The Company is aware that since 2002 the California Department of Insurance has reported some of the Company’s customers (which management estimates to represent approximately 14% of total revenue earned in 2004 from the CCC valuation product and service Valuescope) that the Department believed that its use of CCC Valuescope had failed to comply with California insurance regulations in effect prior to October 4, 2004, with respect to certain components of the product methodology.The Company believes that the product complied with applicable California regulations.

“On April 24, 2003, the California Department of Insurance formally adopted new rules that required the Company to change its methodology for calculating total loss assessments in California.” Therefore, there is good reason to believe that CCC Valuescope’s valuation methodology is grossly flawed and biased in favor of its insurance company clients.

In CCC’s annual report filed on February 13, 2004, the legal proceedings and numerous class action 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 possible settlement to “resolve potential claims arising from approximately 30% of CCC Valuescope’s transaction volume.”

Recognizing that 30% of transaction volume turns into potential claims, CCC Valuescope is disclosing that it anticipates a significant percentage of lawsuits for unfair and fraudulent valuations. Such a high percentage of transaction volume alone attests to CCC’s flawed reporting methodology, unscrupulous dealings, and uncompromising commitment to protecting the financial interests of the insurers it serves.

Ironically, four of CCC Valuescope’s auto insurance company clients have filed contractual and, in some cases, common law claims against CCC for court costs, attorneys’ fees, settlement payments, and other costs allegedly incurred. by them in connection with disputes relating to your use of CCC’s defective TOTAL LOSS titration product.

Indeed, the countless class action lawsuits filed in the United States against CCC Valuescape provide further evidence of the extremely low and inaccurate valuations of vehicles they give to the insurers they serve. Among the many are:

CCC Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Total Loss Vehicle Valuation (July 15, 2005)

Chicago-based claims software maker CCC Information Services Inc. announced that it and 15 of its clients have signed a settlement agreement with plaintiffs in several class action lawsuits pending in Madison County, Illinois. These consolidated lawsuits, Cases Nos. 01 L 157, et al., refer to the valuation of vehicles that have been declared total losses by insurers.

The terms of the settlement agreement will require CCC to pay notice and administration fees and other costs associated with the settlement. The company estimates these costs will total around $8 million and, including available insurance proceeds of $1.8 million, the company is fully booked 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 lawsuit was filed in Hillsborough County Circuit Court, 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). The plaintiffs allege that USAA contracted with CCC to provide valuations of “total loss” vehicles and that CCC provided valuations that were intentionally below the actual fair market value of the insured vehicle.

Insurance companies “have a duty to the insured to exercise the utmost good faith.” Baxterv. Royal Indemnity Company, 285 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).

Given the myriad class action lawsuits underway against CCC Valuescope, there should now be no question that CCC Valuescope is not independent in its auto valuations and is guilty of violating the US federal RICO Act and National Insurance Regulations, along with with many of the complicit insurance companies. such as USAA who willingly and knowingly use their product with the intent to deceive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *