"Salvage Vehicle" Definition for the State of Arizona.

Toyotaman

New Member
8
This is a question about insurance law in the state of Arizona.

A.R.S. 28-2091(T)(4) defines a "Salvage Vehicle" as a vehicle that the owner or insurance company considers "uneconomical to repair." However, the statute does not define the terms "uneconomical to repair." Therefore, how is this determination of whether a vehicle is "uneconomical to repair" made? Is there a standard that is used to make this determination or is it an arbitrary determination?
 
Last edited:
Usually it's if the cost of the repairs exceeds about 75% off the cash value of the vehicle. I think in Arkansas it's around 65% and that's on the low end.

It looks like Arizona is actually a "TLF" state which appears to mean that it's more at the discretion of the claims handler.

When is A Vehicle Considered a Total Loss?
 
Usually it's if the cost of the repairs exceeds about 75% off the cash value of the vehicle. I think in Arkansas it's around 65% and that's on the low end.

It looks like Arizona is actually a "TLF" state which appears to mean that it's more at the discretion of the claims handler.


I've seen that article as well. The credibility of that article is in question because the article states that California is a TLF state also, when in fact California is not a TLF state.


California requires that the cost of repairs exceed the predamage value of the vehicle in order for a vehicle to be considered "uneconomical to repair." See Martinez v. Enterprise Rent A Car (2004) and Carson v. Mercury Insurance (2012). This means that California is not a TLF state. The California statute also uses the terms "uneconomical to repair" just like the Arizona statute.


Therefore, I don't trust that article when it says that Arizona is a TLF state, because that article also says that California is a TLF state which is wrong.
 
Last edited:
If you're citing case law you've certainly looked into this a good deal. Because insurance is regulated at the state level this obviously does very by state, but most states are going to have similar laws/concepts. The root issue in dealing with this is based around where do you draw the line between putting money into a vehicle to repair it just vs having the carrier buy the car at cash value.

If there is not set legal standard then carriers/adjusters will usually have their own policies vs it being "arbitrary".

I presume you're having a specific claim issue? What's the root question you're trying to answer/solve?
 
If you're citing case law you've certainly looked into this a good deal. Because insurance is regulated at the state level this obviously does very by state, but most states are going to have similar laws/concepts. The root issue in dealing with this is based around where do you draw the line between putting money into a vehicle to repair it just vs having the carrier buy the car at cash value.

If there is not set legal standard then carriers/adjusters will usually have their own policies vs it being "arbitrary".

I presume you're having a specific claim issue? What's the root question you're trying to answer/solve?

I am trying to determine whether or not the insurance company is violating Arizona law.


Both California and Arizona law use the terms "uneconomical to repair" in their statute. California has defined the terms "uneconomical to repair" in its statute as when cost of repairs exceed the predamage value of the vehicle. This was decided in Martinez v. Enterprise Rent A Car (2004) and Carson v. Mercury Insurance (2012). I have not been able to find any case law interpreting the Arizona statute. I am hoping that I can find an Arizona case law interpreting its statute the same way or similar to the California statute since both statutes use the terms "uneconomical to repair" and both statutes appear to be almost identical copies of each other. If there is such a case law interpreting the Arizona statute, my insurance company would be in violation of Arizona law. That is what I am trying to determine.
 
If you're citing case law you've certainly looked into this a good deal. Because insurance is regulated at the state level this obviously does very by state, but most states are going to have similar laws/concepts. The root issue in dealing with this is based around where do you draw the line between putting money into a vehicle to repair it just vs having the carrier buy the car at cash value.

If there is not set legal standard then carriers/adjusters will usually have their own policies vs it being "arbitrary".

I presume you're having a specific claim issue? What's the root question you're trying to answer/solve?

Apparently, I can't respond. I typed my response only to be told that it needs to be "approved" in order to be posted. What the hell?
 
Why would a state ever be allowed to regulate that. That should be the decision of who ever is paying for it.

If $100,000 car needs $75,000 to fix as new, the payer might want to be out that depending on the resale of the scrap.

If a $4,000 car needs $2,000 to put back right, they might want to just scrap and find another car.

A lot would depend on how hard it is to find another like vehicle, etc.

Politicians way over step their boundaries.
 
Why would a state ever be allowed to regulate that. That should be the decision of who ever is paying for it.

If $100,000 car needs $75,000 to fix as new, the payer might want to be out that depending on the resale of the scrap.

If a $4,000 car needs $2,000 to put back right, they might want to just scrap and find another car.

A lot would depend on how hard it is to find another like vehicle, etc.

Politicians way over step their boundaries.


I have posted 2 replies and both of them say that they have to be "approved" before they can be posted. What the hell?
 
I have posted 2 replies and both of them say that they have to be "approved" before they can be posted. What the hell?

wow, attitude coming out already, you show you are in cali, why are you concerned with AZ?
 
I've seen that article as well. The credibility of that article is in question because the article states that California is a TLF state also, when in fact California is not a TLF state.


California requires that the cost of repairs exceed the predamage value of the vehicle in order for a vehicle to be considered "uneconomical to repair." See Martinez v. Enterprise Rent A Car (2004) and Carson v. Mercury Insurance (2012). This means that California is not a TLF state. The California statute also uses the terms "uneconomical to repair" just like the Arizona statute.


Therefore, I don't trust that article when it says that Arizona is a TLF state, because that article also says that California is a TLF state which is wrong.

Heh. You have to carefully research before believing everything you read on the internet.

I always thought "uneconomical to repair" meant if the repairs exceeded the total cost of the car. Sort of like electronics: if your laptop hard drive breaks, paying $50 to $100 is probably worth the investment (especially if the everything else attached to the mobo is functional and laptop will provide good use for a couple more years). On the other hand, if the heat sync is misaligned and the heat fries your memory/cpu/wireless card/etc, trying to source all of the parts and a proper electronic repair shop just isn't worth it. Scrap it and invest another $300 on a new 'top. Anyways, that's how I always looked at it. I've certainly been wrong in the past.
 
Back
Top