Yeah, you’re spot on about the insurance companies not caring about the money you put into just keeping the car alive. I’ve been through this dance a couple times, and unless you’ve got something major—like a new engine or a full-on restoration—they don’t budge. Maintenance and even most upgrades are just “expected,” apparently. It’s honestly kind of ridiculous when you think about how much it costs to keep an older car running decent.
I do think it depends a bit on the adjuster, though. Some are by-the-book robots, others will at least listen if you’ve got receipts and can make your case. But even then, it’s usually pennies compared to what you actually spent. My buddy tried to argue for his rebuilt suspension after a wreck, had all the paperwork, and still got lowballed. Maybe there’s some luck involved, but mostly it feels like they’re just looking for reasons not to pay out more.
It’s frustrating because those “invisible” repairs are what keep the car from being junk in the first place... but try telling that to an insurance company. They just see blue book value and move on.
I’ve always wondered—if you’ve got a bunch of recent repairs or upgrades, like new brakes or a transmission, does that ever actually help your payout? Or is it just straight-up market value no matter what? It feels kinda unfair if all that work just gets ignored.
Honestly, this is one of those things that drives people nuts. In most cases, insurance will look at the “actual cash value” of your car right before the accident, not what you just poured into it. You could have dropped a grand on new brakes and a transmission last month, and it’s like… cool, but the payout’s still based on market value, not your receipts. Sometimes, if you’ve got documentation and you’re persistent, you might get a little bump, but it’s rare. I get why it feels unfair—fixing up an old ride should count for something, right? But yeah, the system’s kinda cold about it.
I get why it feels unfair—fixing up an old ride should count for something, right?
It’s wild how much the repairs you just did barely matter. The “actual cash value” thing is key, but the way they decide if it’s totaled is pretty formulaic. Basically, if the estimated repair cost plus salvage value is more than the car’s pre-accident value, it’s a total loss. Each state or insurer might use a different percentage, like 70% or 80%. It’s not about what you spent on it last month, which is frustrating. I wish there was more flexibility for recent repairs, but yeah… the system’s just numbers-driven.
It’s wild how much the repairs you just did barely matter. The “actual cash value” thing is key, but the way they decide if it’s totaled is pretty formulaic.
It really does sting when you’ve just put money into your car and then, like you said, “the repairs you just did barely matter.” I ran into this with my first car—put in a new radiator and brakes, then got rear-ended a month later. The insurance guy basically shrugged and said it’s all about the “actual cash value,” not what I’d just spent.
If you’re dealing with this, here’s what helped me: keep every receipt for repairs, even if it feels pointless. Sometimes, if you can show recent upgrades, the adjuster *might* factor it in when calculating value. Not always, but worth a shot. Also, look up your state’s threshold for totaling—it’s usually a percentage like 75%, but it varies.
It’s frustrating how numbers-driven the process is. I get why they do it that way, but it doesn’t feel fair when you’ve taken care of your ride. Hang in there—it’s a learning curve for sure.
