CCC Valuescope and USAA Conspire to Fraud and RICO Violations?

September 26, 2022

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

My insurer USAA has failed in its duty to act in good faith towards me, its insured. By using CCC Valuescope (a company that I claim violates the US federal RICO Act), USAA intentionally provided me with a low and fraudulent valuation of my car in hopes of an improper and unfair settlement to achieve.

CCC Valuescope (formerly known as CCC Information Services Group Inc - CCCG) can under no circumstances be regarded as the fair market value of automobiles, since CCC Valuescope works exclusively for insurers and therefore has a commercial interest in providing valuations that are deliberately below the actual fair value Value is market value of what insured vehicles are really worth.

It is well known throughout the insurance industry that CCC derives its values ​​from what car dealers would sell a vehicle for at low wholesale prices, and not from the true "pre-accident retail value of a car of like type and quality" as mandated by FL insurance regulations. In addition, CCC Valuescope uses a mix of formerly leased, used and abused wrecked cars in compiling valuations to enable its insurance customers to pay out total losses with the lowest possible "values" to present to their policyholders.

Ironically, almost every vehicle in CCC Valuescope's assessment of my car report consisted of vehicles that had over 20 records indicating issues such as accidents and faulty cars. Among the reports, some cars had 28, 31 and 32 records.

Cutting costs and failing to provide "the utmost care" to policyholders can be historically documented against USAA, beginning with the class action lawsuit against USAA in Washington's King County (12. ) while at the same time hiding this practice from policyholders. Beyond auto insurance, the USAA filed countless complaints in 27 states across the country.

CCC Valuescope is not independent in their valuations as they are a contract killer for the insurance companies! When performing a VIN search on the vehicles in CCC report 39813905, many cars had 20+ records indicating numerous collisions, problems with the vehicle and multiple changes of ownership. By relying on CCC's intentionally low rating of my vehicle, USAA violates its fiduciary duty to act in good faith in handling my claim. CCC cannot make a fair and honest assessment of my claim because it is engaged by insurers with the primary purpose of minimizing the monies paid out by insurers to their trustees. By using the CCC Valuescope, USAA is clearly not exercising the “extreme due diligence” on my insured's behalf as requested by Baxter v. Royal Indemnity.

CCC itself admitted in its 3/16/2005 SEC filing that "the company sometimes pays a new customer the remaining obligation from its previous third-party contract as an incentive." Regarding regulation, CCC mentions in the same filing “however, in most states there is no formal approval process for products to assess total losses”. CCC itself admits in the same report that "individual state insurance departments have taken positions as to whether the use of CCC Valuescope assessments is consistent with state claims regulations."

"The Company is aware that since 2002 the California Department of Insurance has advised a number of the Company's clients (which management estimates accounted for approximately 14% of the total revenue generated in 2004 from the Company's CCC Valuescope assessment product and service), from which the Department believed that its use of the CCC Valuescope with respect to certain components of the product methodology did not comply with applicable California insurance regulations prior to October 4, 2004. The Company believes the product complies with applicable California regulations."

"On April 24, 2003, the California Department of Insurance officially passed new regulations requiring the company to change its method of calculating total loss ratings in California." There is therefore good reason to believe that CCC Valuescope's valuation methodology is horribly flawed and skewed in favor of insurance company customers.

CCC's annual report, filed February 13, 2004, documents the court cases and numerous class action lawsuits against CCC on pages 35, 42, 43 and 44 of the 53-page report.

On page 35, CCC Valuescope admits it has set aside an estimated $4.3 million for a possible settlement to "resolve potential claims arising from approximately 30% of CCC Valuescope's transaction volume."

By acknowledging that 30% of transaction volume becomes potential claims, CCC Valuescope is making it public that it anticipates a significant percentage of unfair and fraudulent valuation lawsuits. Such a high percentage of transaction volume alone attests to the CCC report's flawed methodology, ruthless dealings and total commitment to protecting the financial interests of the insurers it serves.

Ironically, four customers of CCC Valuescope's auto insurance company have asserted contractual and, in some cases, common law claims against CCC for litigation costs, attorneys' fees, settlement payments, and other costs they allegedly incurred in connection with litigation relating to their use of the flawed valuation product TOTAL LOSS by CCC.

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

CCC Settles Class Action Lawsuit Evaluating Totaled Vehicles (July 15, 2005)

Chicago-based software maker CCC Information Services Inc. announced that it and 15 of its customers have signed a settlement agreement with plaintiffs in various class action lawsuits pending in Madison County, Illinois. et al. relate to the valuation of vehicles that have been declared a total loss by insurers.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement require CCC to pay notification and administration fees and other costs associated with the Settlement. The Company estimates that these costs will be approximately $8 million and including the $1.8 million of available insurance proceeds, the Company is fully committed to these payments. Other settlement costs, including claims from group members, are paid by the insurance companies involved in the settlement.

On August 23, 2000, a putative statewide 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 00- 006308). Plaintiffs allege that USAA contracted with CCC to provide valuations of "total loss" vehicles and that CCC provided valuations that intentionally undercut the true market value of the insured vehicle.

Insurance companies "owe the insured a duty to act in good faith." Baxter v. Royal Indemnity Company, 285 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).

With the myriad and ongoing class action lawsuits filed against CCC Valuescope, there should now be no question that CCC Valuescope is not independent in its auto valuations and, along with many of the complicit insurance companies, is guilty of violating the US RICO Act and National Insurance Regulations like USAA who willingly and knowingly use their product with intent to deceive.

usaa car insurance
#CCC #Valuescope #USAA #Conspire #Fraud #RICO #Violations

Más contenido que te puedes gustar….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Go up