Do CCC Valuescope and USAA conspire to defraud, commit violations of the RICO Act?

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

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

CCC Valuescope (formerly known as CCC Information Services Group Inc – CCCG) cannot in any way be considered a fair and market value of automobiles, as CCC Valuescope works exclusively for insurers and therefore has an economic interest in providing valuations that are intentionally below the actual fair. market value of what the insured vehicles are actually worth.

It is a known fact throughout the insurance industry that the CCC derives its values ​​from what car dealers would sell a vehicle at basement wholesale prices, not from the true “retail value of a type and quality car similar before the accident “as required. per Florida insurance regulations. In addition, CCC Valuescope uses a combination of previously leased, used and abused vehicles among wrecked cars when compiling valuations to allow clients of its insurance companies to pay total losses for the lowest possible “values” to present to your policyholders.

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

Historically, the reduction of costs and the denial of “the best care” to its policyholders can be documented against USAA from the class action lawsuit against USAA in King County in Washington (March 12, 1999) for forcing the workshops of auto repair to use “knockoff” parts in repairs. at the same time that it hides this practice from the insured. Beyond auto insurance, USAA has filed countless complaints against you in 27 states across the country.

CCC Valuescope is not independent in its valuations as it is a contracted weapon for insurance companies! When conducting a VIN search on the vehicles within the CCC 39813905 report, many cars had more than 20 records indicative of numerous collisions, vehicle problems, and various owner changes. 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. The CCC cannot make a fair and honest evaluation of my claim, as insurers hire it for the primary purpose of minimizing the money paid by insurers to their fiduciaries. By using CCC Valuescope, USAA is clearly not exercising the “utmost due care” in my interest, your insured, as required by Baxter v. Actual compensation.

The CCC admitted in its SEC filing on 3/16/2005 that “the Company sometimes pays a new customer for the remaining commitment from their previous third party contract as an incentive.” Regarding regulation, the CCC mentions in the same filing “in most states, however, there is no formal approval process for total loss valuation products.” CCC itself confesses in the same report that “individual state insurance departments have taken positions on whether the use of CCC Valuescope assessments complies with state claims handling regulations.”

“The Company is aware that since 2002 the California Department of Insurance has advised some of the Company’s clients (whose management estimates is approximately 14% of the total revenues obtained in 2004 from the CCC Valuescope valuation product and service Company) that the Department believed that your use of 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.

“On April 24, 2003, the California Department of Insurance formally adopted new regulations that required the Company to change its methodology for calculating total loss valuations in California.” Therefore, there are good reasons to believe that CCC Valuescope’s valuation methodology is terribly flawed and skewed 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 possible settlement to “resolve potential claims arising out of approximately 30% of CCC Valuescope’s transaction volume.”

Recognizing that 30% of the volume of transactions turns into potential claims, CCC Valuescope makes public that it anticipates a considerable percentage of lawsuits for unfair and fraudulent valuations. Such a high percentage of transaction volume alone attests to the 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 Valuescope’s auto insurance company clients have allegedly filed contractual and in some cases common law compensation claims against CCC for litigation costs, attorney’s fees, settlement payments, and other costs allegedly. incurred by them in connection with litigation related to their use of the defective CCC TOTAL LOSS valuation product.

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

CCC Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Total Loss Vehicle Valuation (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 pending class action lawsuits in Madison County, Illinois. These consolidated lawsuits, Cases Nos. 01 L 157, et al., They refer to the valuation of vehicles that have been declared total claims by insurers.

The terms of the settlement agreement will require CCC to pay the notification and administration fees and other costs associated with the settlement. The company estimates that these costs will total about $ 8 million, and including disposable insurance income of $ 1.8 million, the company is fully reserved for these payments. The remaining costs of the settlement, including claims by class members, will be paid by the insurance companies participating in the settlement.

On August 23, 2000, a putative statewide class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of 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). Plaintiffs allege that USAA contracted with CCC to provide “total loss” vehicle valuations and that CCC provided valuations 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.” Baxter v. Royal Indemnity Company, 285 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).

Given the countless and continuing class action lawsuits against CCC Valuescope, there should now be no doubt that CCC Valuescope is not independent in its auto valuations and is guilty of violating US Federal RICO Law and National Insurance Regulations, along with many of the complicit insurance companies. such as USAA who, voluntarily and knowingly, uses their product with the intention of deceiving.