Yeah, the whole “diminished value” thing is one of those topics that seems straightforward until you actually try to get an answer in writing. Here’s what I’ve seen over the years:
- Most carriers in South Dakota don’t offer diminished value coverage unless you specifically ask, and even then, it’s usually a hard no unless you’re not at fault and the other party’s insurance is paying.
- The language in policies is intentionally vague. They’ll say something like “repairs restore to pre-loss condition,” but that doesn’t mean your car’s market value magically bounces back.
- I’ve watched people go in circles trying to get a payout for diminished value after a solid repair. The adjusters will sometimes acknowledge the concept but then point to policy wording or state law to shut it down.
- If you’re dealing with your own insurance (first-party claim), it’s almost always a dead end for diminished value. Third-party claims (when someone else hits you) can have more wiggle room, but it still depends on how persistent you are and the company involved.
Honestly, I wish there was more consistency. It feels like half of it depends on who picks up the phone that day... which is kind of ridiculous, but here we are.
Had a similar headache after my ‘72 Chevelle got rear-ended a few years back. Even with all the documentation and appraisals, the insurer just kept circling back to “restored to pre-loss condition.” It’s wild how much depends on who’s handling your claim that day. I swear, if you own anything collectible or rare, you’re basically on your own when it comes to diminished value.
Man, you nailed it—insurance for classic cars is its own special brand of headache. “Restored to pre-loss” sounds good until you realize it doesn’t mean “restored to what it was actually worth.” I’ve seen people with stacks of appraisals still get lowballed. Sometimes I think the claims folks just draw straws to see who gets to deal with us. Hang in there… it’s not just you.
Totally get where you're coming from. When my '89 911 got rear-ended last year, I thought the agreed value policy would have my back. Turns out, “agreed” means “argued about” when it comes time to pay out. I had all my receipts and photos lined up, but they still tried to pay me less than what a decent project car would cost. It’s wild how much you have to fight just to get close to fair. Guess it’s just part of the game with these older cars...
Turns out, “agreed” means “argued about” when it comes time to pay out.
That’s honestly the most accurate way to put it. I had a client with a ’72 Chevelle, and even with an agreed value policy, the insurer nitpicked every upgrade and part. The trick I've found is making sure the policy gets updated every year—photos, appraisals, even recent sales listings. It’s a hassle, but sometimes it’s the only thing that keeps them honest when it’s time for a claim. South Dakota’s rules don’t really force their hand, either... It’s more about how airtight your paperwork is.
