Ok guys. Here is the question of the year. I recently had a friend of mine roll a 2003 F250 2wd/auto 6.0 Powerstroke (with 229000 miles) that I had loaned him. I sent an email to the powers that be... and they said that if I was going to use it I had to put FMV on it. I'm buying it back for $350.00 from the insurance company. I don't know if I will use it, but there is a chance. What do the masses think the FMV is?
SaulGoode wrote: Ok guys. Here is the question of the year. I recently had a friend of mine roll a 2003 F250 2wd/auto 6.0 Powerstroke (with 229000 miles) that I had loaned him. I sent an email to the powers that be... and they said that if I was going to use it I had to put FMV on it. I'm buying it back for $350.00 from the insurance company. I don't know if I will use it, but there is a chance. What do the masses think the FMV is?
$350
^ Agree
I'm buying it back for $350.00 from the insurance company.
If the insurance company thought they could easily get more money from someone else, they would. The insurance company has accepted this figure to be good enough or "FAIR". They are not giving it to you, you're buying it.
There's a couple of threads with similar questions including one of mine. I agree with the $350 but some argued adding $150ish because that's what copart would charge for fees.
$350 will be your actual cash purchase price. Get a receipt and you're solid.
$350, this question has come up before, it has been previously agreed that this is acceptable?
JohnRW1621 wrote: I'm buying it back for $350.00 from the insurance company. If the insurance company thought they could easily get more money from someone else, they would. The insurance company has accepted this figure to be good enough or "FAIR". They are not giving it to you, you're buying it.
I disagree with you. Your logic is pretty sound but it doesn't pass the accepted conditions that strictly determine Fair Market Value. The sale terms are distressed; this situation is strictly between two parties with a preexisting relationship and not available to the general population. The above described scenario defines an inside deal; closer to a liquidation than an open market.
Stampie wrote: There's a couple of threads with similar questions including one of mine. I agree with the $350 but some argued adding $150ish because that's what copart would charge for fees.
I can see the logic supporting this fall close to the definition of Fair Market Value, but I also think this fails a strict test. Copart, I believe, is not an open market. I am pretty sure that there are membership requirements and fees in most cases beyond the associated cost of purchases. Those conditions make it a questionable basis to determine FMV as such limiting factors are precluded in defining a true open market.
Indy-Guy wrote: $350 will be your actual cash purchase price. Get a receipt and you're solid.
Perhaps the Powers That Be would accept this, I believe that they have in the past. However, I think that this statement confuses the issue in its false simplicity.
A receipt for a good deal in no way at all assures that said deal was in compliance with the definition of Fair Market Value. If the OP was told to use FMV then that is their ruling and any other value would be incorrect.
Actual purchase price does not always equal Fair Market Value.
tb wrote:Indy-Guy wrote: $350 will be your actual cash purchase price. Get a receipt and you're solid.Perhaps the Powers That Be would accept this, I believe that they have in the past. However, I think that this statement confuses the issue in its false simplicity. A receipt for a good deal in no way at all assures that said deal was in compliance with the definition of Fair Market Value. If the OP was told to use FMV then that is their ruling and any other value would be incorrect. Actual purchase price does not always equal Fair Market Value.
He isn't buying it from his dad for a "wink-wink" dollar. If the insurance company would sell it to someone else for that same money then where is the argument against it?
aussiesmg wrote: $350, this question has come up before, it has been previously agreed that this is acceptable?
I admit that I often pay no attention to budget discussions and am no expert in previous rulings, but I think that you are correct in that their has been little attention paid to Fair Market Value.
I have no idea if those in charge really care to stick to an actual accepted definition of the term or not anymore...
It does seem like established precedent is at odds with their instruction to use FMV in this case. Probably up to each individual to determine how they feel best to proceed (without further clarification) in good faith.
Huckleberry wrote: He isn't buying it from his dad for a "wink-wink" dollar. If the insurance company would sell it to someone else for that same money then where is the argument against it?
I understand and agree that it is not at all an unethical situation of back room shenanigans. The only argument against it is that the insurance company wouldn't necessarily sell it to anyone else at that money. If a deal is reached amicably between two parties but without availability to an open market it cannot be considered to represent Fair Market Value.
The "If" in your scenario really shows how that is a hypothetical question and not the actual situation.
To be clear, I have no idea what the FMV would be.
I also have no specific advise for the OP other than to clarify with Rick or Tom (or somebody) it they are using a strict definition of FMV these days.
Lastly, I don't check build sheets myself and really don't personally care what you declare in your budget.
I actually care about making my build legit. That is why I put it out to the forum for discussion. However, I do want to say. This deal could be available to anyone. All you have to do is have a vehicle totaled at no fault of your own and then buy it back from YOUR insurance. Sadly, it is something that probably all of us have been through at one point in our lives. We all pay for insurance, so an insurance buy back is something that could come up to any of us at any point.
In reply to SaulGoode:
I am sure that you care, it shows. A lot of this operates on the honor system and your actions have shown your respect for being legitimate.
I think your explanation is questionable in its logic but not totally beyond understanding. It could very well be any of us, but in actuality it isn't.
I think thev issue of FMV has been murky for a long time and I prefer clarity so that no one gets tripped up by technicalities or bad advice.
I seriously think you should follow up on your emails and ask the staff for a clearer ruling about your specific situation. I don't think true FMV has been a big issue in the past and they might be more interested in precedent and keeping entry barriers low.
I have been looking on Copart.com to see how much similar vehicles are going for. But I can only see the current bid, not the sold price. So, finding the FMV of the truck is proving difficult. The staff has said that if we have a FMV question to put it on the board. Personally, I don't think that anyone would build a twin turbo Porsche and then intentionally total it so that they could have the most berkelying awesome challenge car EVAR!!! It just doesn't make financial sense. This is an attempt to make lemonade out of the huge pile of lemons that I have been handed.
In reply to SaulGoode:
Yeah, it sounds like a real E36 M3 deal you got handed. I have been there before and I am still kinda pissed over my own crap sandwich I was fed..
I suck at buying and selling so I am not sure if I have any helpful advice there... hopefully some more experienced people can chime in and show up.
I think member pimpm3 shops Copart auctions, maybe a PM to him and he could check further? I'm not 100% on that but he is a nice guy and very willing to help others...
Sadly, I know more about economic theory than finding good car deals.
Also, I might try that totaling a twin turbo Porsche for parts idea if I ever decide I need a divorce, asap! 
pics? understanding how bad the body damage is will probably help.
$350 seems pretty reasonable if that's their offer. Anyone in the same situation would get that offer, they're not giving you that offer because you're Saul.
I'd be willing to pay $500 for it. Can you include shipping with it?
I saw the picture, I don't think it's worth $350, unless you get the fire dept to use the jaws of life to make the drivers position accessible and I see you drive it thru the drive-thru at Wendy's and order a frosty. Then, it's worth $350.
ok, here's another angle:
When was the last time your CAR INSURANCE COMPANY gave you a "wink wink nudge nudge good-buddy" discount?
Right, never. Why would they sell it to you for any less than they could easily sell it to a broker or dismantler? Maybe we can get one of our resident car insurance insiders to chime in, but I would be willing to bet the insurance company looks up the pre-arranged price they would get from their large, multinational, GMO, carnivorous, rBST-using, off-shore-job-sending scrap broker, rounds up to the nearest $50, and quotes that as the buyback price.
You are actually doing THEM a favor in buying it.
Agreed!!!!! # powersthatbe?
You'll need to log in to post.
