CCC Valuescope & USAA Conspiring to Defraud, Committing RICO Act Violations?
I am filing a consumer complaint against CCC Valuescope (CCCG) and my insurer USAA for falsely alleging a fair “market value” of my automobile.
My insurer USAA has breached its duty to exercise the utmost good faith to me its insured. By using CCC Valuescope (a company I allege violates the U.S. federal RICO Act) USAA has deliberately provided me a low and fraudulent valuation of my automobile in hopes of obtaining an unreasonable and unfair settlement.
CCC Valuescope (formerly known as CCC Information sets Group Inc – CCCG) can by no method be deemed a fair and market value of automobiles as CCC Valuescope works exclusively for insurers and consequently has an economic interest to supply valuations that are deliberately below the actual fair market value of what insured vehicles are truly worth.
It is known fact throughout the insurance industry that CCC gathers its values from what car dealers would sell a means for at basement wholesale prices, not the true “retail value of an auto of like kind and quality prior to the accident” as mandated by FL insurance regulations. additionally CCC Valuescope uses a mix of vehicles formerly leased, used, and abused among wrecked cars when compiling valuations to provide their insurance company customers paying out total losses the lowest possible “values” to present their insured.
Ironically, nearly every means in CCC Valuescope’s appraisal of my car report consisted of vehicles that had over 20 records indicative of issues such as accidents and faulty cars. Among the report, some cars had 28, 31, and 32 records.
Cutting costs and denying its insured “the utmost due care” historically can be proven against USAA beginning with the class action lawsuit against USAA in Washington’s King County (March 12, 1999) for powerful auto repair shops to use “imitation” parts in repairs, while simultaneously hiding this practice from policyholders. Beyond auto insurance, USAA has countless complaints filed against it in 27 states across the country.
CCC Valuescope is not independent in their valuations since they are a hired gun for the insurance companies! Upon conducting a VIN search on the vehicles within the CCC report 39813905, many cars had over 20 records indicative of numerous collisions, issues with the means, and several changes of ownership. By relying upon CCC’s deliberately low valuation of my means, USAA is breaching its fiduciary duty to act in good faith in handling my claim. No fair and honest evaluation of my claim can be performed by CCC as it is contracted by insurers for the dominant purpose of minimizing monies paid out by insurers to its fiduciaries. By using CCC Valuescope, USAA is clearly not exercising the “utmost due care” in the interest of me its insured as required by Baxter v. Royal Indemnity.
CCC admitted itself in its SEC Filing on 3-16-2005 that “the Company sometimes pays a new customer for the remaining commitment of its past contract with third parties as an motive”. In regard to regulation, CCC mentions in the same filing “in most states, however, there is no formal approval course of action for total loss valuation products”. CCC itself confesses in the same report “individual state departments of insurance have taken locaiongs as to whether the use of CCC Valuescope valuations is in compliance with a states claim handling regulations”.
“The Company is aware that since 2002 the California Department of Insurance has advised some of the Company’s customers (which management estimates to be approximately 14% of the total revenue earned in 2004 from the Company’s CCC Valuescope valuation product and service) that the Department believed that their use of CCC Valuescope had not been in compliance with the California insurance regulations in effect prior to October 4, 2004, with respect to certain elements of the products methodology. The Company believes the product was in compliance with the applicable California regulations.”
“On April 24, 2003, the California Department of Insurance formally adopted new regulations that required the Company to change its methodology for computing total loss valuations in California.” There is good reason consequently to believe CCC Valuescope’s valuation methodology is terribly flawed and skewed to favor its insurance company customers.
In CCC’s annual report filed February 13, 2004 the legal proceedings and numerous class action lawsuits against CCC are proven in 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 calculate towards possible settlement to “resolve possible claims arising out of approximately 30% of the transaction quantity of CCC Valuescope”.
By acknowledging 30% of transaction quantity becoming possible claims, CCC Valuescope thereby makes it public record that it anticipates a large percentage of lawsuits for unfair and fraudulent valuations. Such a high percentage of transaction quantity alone attests to the flawed methodology of CCC’s report, its unscrupulous dealings, and wholehearted commitment to protect the financial interests of the insurers it serves.
Ironically, four of CCC Valuescope’s automobile insurance company customers have made contractual and, in some situations, also shared law indemnification claims against CCC for litigation costs, attorneys’ fees, settlement payments and other costs allegedly incurred by them in connection with litigation relating to their use of CCC’s flawed TOTAL LOSS valuation product.
Certainly the countless class action lawsuits filed across the United States against CCC Valuescape provides further evidence concerning the grossly low and inaccurate valuations of vehicles they give the insurers they serve. Among the many are:
CCC Settles Class Action Suit on Valuation of Total Loss Vehicles (July 15, 2005)
Chicago-based claims software-maker CCC Information sets Inc. announced that it and 15 of its customers signed a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in various class action suits pending in Madison County, Ill. These consolidated suits, Case Nos. 01 L 157, et al., relate to the valuation of vehicles that have been declared total losses by insurers.
Terms of the settlement agreement will require CCC to pay notice and administration fees and other costs associated with the settlement. The company estimates that these costs will total about $8 million, and including obtainable insurance proceeds of $1.8 million, the company is fully reserved for these payments. Other settlement costs, including claims by class members, will be paid by the insurance companies that are participating in the settlement.
August 23, 2000, a putative statewide class action 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 sets, Inc., Case No. 00-006308). Plaintiffs allege that USAA contracted with CCC to provide valuations of “total loss” vehicles and that CCC supplied valuations that were deliberately below the actual fair market value of the insured means.
Iinsurance companies “owe a duty to the insured to exercise the utmost good faith.” Baxter v. Royal Indemnity Company, 285 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
Given the countless and current 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 U.S. federal RICO Act and National Insurance Regulations, along with many of the complicit insurance companies such as USAA who willingly and knowingly use their product with the intent to deceive.