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

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

CCC Valuescope (formerly known as CCC Information Services Group Inc – CCCG) can in no way be considered a fair and market value of automobiles, 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 the accident” as required. per FL insurance regulations. In addition, CCC Valuescope uses a mix of formerly leased, used, and abused vehicles among wrecked cars when compiling valuations to allow their insurance companies’ clients to pay for total losses with the lowest possible “values” to present. to their policyholders.

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

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

CCC Valuescope is not independent in their valuations as they are a hired gun for insurance companies! When performing a VIN search on the vehicles within the CCC 39813905 report, many cars had over 20 records indicating numerous collisions, vehicle problems, and multiple 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 conduct a fair and honest assessment of my claim as it is contracted by insurers with the primary goal of minimizing the money insurers pay their trustees. By using the CCC Valuescope, USAA is clearly not exercising “utmost due care” in the interest of me, its policyholders, as required by Baxter v. Royal Compensation.

CCC admitted in its 03-16-2005 SEC filing that “the Company sometimes pays a new customer for the remaining commitment of its prior third-party contract 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 state claims handling regulations.”

“The Company is aware that since 2002 the California Department of Insurance has reported certain of the Company’s customers (estimated by management to represent approximately 14% of the total revenue earned in 2004 from the CCC appraisal product and service Company’s Valuescope) that the Department believed that its use of the CCC Valuescope had not complied with California insurance regulations in effect prior to October 4, 2004, with respect to certain components of the product methodology. product complied with applicable California regulations.

“On April 24, 2003, the California Department of Insurance formally adopted new regulations requiring the Company to change its methodology for calculating total loss valuations in California.” Therefore, there is good reason to believe that CCC Valuescope’s valuation methodology is terribly 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 potential settlement to “settle potential claims arising from approximately 30% of CCC Valuescope’s trading volume.”

Recognizing that 30% of transaction volume converts to potential claims, CCC Valuescope announces that it anticipates a significant percentage of lawsuits for unfair and fraudulent valuations. Such a high percentage of transaction volume alone testifies to CCC’s flawed reporting methodology, its unscrupulous dealings, and its unconditional commitment to protecting the financial interests of the insurers it serves.

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

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

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

Chicago-based claims software maker CCC Information Services Inc. announced that it and 15 of its clients have entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs in several class action lawsuits pending in Madison County, Illinois. These consolidated lawsuits, Case 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 the notice and administration fees and other costs associated with the settlement. The company estimates that these costs will total about $8 million and, including available insurance proceeds of $1.8 million, the company is fully set aside for these payments. Other settlement costs, including class member claims, will be paid by the insurance companies participating in the settlement.

On August 23, 2000, an alleged state class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, 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 “total loss” vehicle appraisals and that CCC provided appraisals 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 ongoing class action lawsuits 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 willfully and knowingly use their product with the intent to deceive.