URGENT! CarProof Analysis Please. $25,000 Damage Claim??

[drk_fly]

Hey guys, was looking at picking up a used car, so I ran a CarProof.

Here's the results.

http://reports.carproof.com/main?id=0jsLEti0m%2fBU%2bB%2b8k5NGGQ%3d%3d

Summary: There's a Damage Claim for approximately $25,000 worth of Damage to Vehicle.

How does this make sense? When I checked the car out, it was extremely clean, all the pinch welds were straight and mint condition, and chassis was straight, all of the body panels were straight with consistent gaps between them. The doors closed nicely with no abnormalities.

The Original owner was very meticulous about the car and had it oil sprayed every year and stored in the winter. No rust on it at all.

It seems odd that there is a claim for pretty much the purchase amount of the car. Could it be there was a claim for another car on previous owner's policy (though this CarProof is for the VIN of car I'm looking at)?

I am pretty confused. And CarProof support isn't open until Monday. Can anyone shed some light?

THANK YOU!

[poedua]

Hey guys, was looking at picking up a used car, so I ran a CarProof.

kms ?...PRICE ?


Here's the results.

http://reports.carproof.com/main?id=wk2G4zQIsT8D%2fZdK24%2b3ew%3d%3d#CARegistr ationRecords

Summary: There's a Damage Claim for approximately $25,000 worth of Damage to Vehicle.

How does this make sense? When I checked the car out, it was extremely clean, all the pinch welds were straight and mint condition, and chassis was straight, all of the body panels were straight with consistent gaps between them. The doors closed nicely with no abnormalities.

The Original owner was very meticulous about the car and had it oil sprayed every year and stored in the winter. No rust on it at all.

It seems odd that there is a claim for pretty much the purchase amount of the car. Could it be there was a claim for another car on previous owner's policy (though this CarProof is for the VIN of car I'm looking at)?

I am pretty confused. And CarProof support isn't open until Monday. Can anyone shed some light?

THANK YOU!

On face value......walk.

Let's see....

$25,000 worth of Damage to Vehicle ( claim for pretty much the purchase amount of the car )

vs.

- extremely clean
- owner was very meticulous about the car
- had it oil sprayed every year
- stored in the winter.

.......conclusion ?

" Run, Forrest. Run ! ";).....:lol::lol:

[anhtuan]

Think about it to yourself, how much work do you think is $25,000? What car is this?


Hey guys, was looking at picking up a used car, so I ran a CarProof.


Here's the results.

http://reports.carproof.com/main?id=wk2G4zQIsT8D%2fZdK24%2b3ew%3d%3d#CARegistr ationRecords

Summary: There's a Damage Claim for approximately $25,000 worth of Damage to Vehicle.

How does this make sense? When I checked the car out, it was extremely clean, all the pinch welds were straight and mint condition, and chassis was straight, all of the body panels were straight with consistent gaps between them. The doors closed nicely with no abnormalities.

The Original owner was very meticulous about the car and had it oil sprayed every year and stored in the winter. No rust on it at all.

It seems odd that there is a claim for pretty much the purchase amount of the car. Could it be there was a claim for another car on previous owner's policy (though this CarProof is for the VIN of car I'm looking at)?

I am pretty confused. And CarProof support isn't open until Monday. Can anyone shed some light?

THANK YOU!

[poedua]

Think about it to yourself, how much work do you think is $25,000?

What car is this?

1999 Mazda MX-5 MIATA

[drk_fly]

Car is normal market value for a 1999 Mazda Miata.

If I am reading the report correctly, it is not a salvage title or anything of that matter. Clean title.

What confuses me is that $25,000 is more than the car value. Pretty much purchase price for the car at the time. Additionally, you can't have $25,000 worth in damage, and then repair it and put it back on the road, it would have been a write off and totalled. I am thinking someone might have entered $25,000 as a damage claim in the process of selling a car or something of that matter. Anyways, it doesn't add up to me.

[drk_fly]

I should have checked the VIN on all locations of the car to see if they matched up. Hrmm...

[poedua]

Car is normal market value for a 1999 Mazda Miata.

And what is that ?

How much is the owner asking for this 1999 Mazda MX-5 MIATA ?

[drk_fly]

^ between $5000 - $12000

[poedua]

^ between $5000 - $12000

O.K.

How many kms are on this 1999 Mazda MX-5 MIATA ?

And, how much is the owner asking for this car that had $25,000 in damage ?

What's the asking price ?

[RCGA]

^ between $5000 - $12000

It's worth maybe $5000, and that's if it hadn't been written off before.

[poedua]

It's worth maybe $5000, and that's if it hadn't been written off before.

Which is why the ' asking price ' for this Miata is relevant.

And so, since it has LIKELY been written off before ...perhaps it's worth $500 - $1,000...tops ?

[drk_fly]

I am not asking if the car is a good deal with $25,000 in damage.

I am asking why might the car have had a claim with no description (CarProof does have a section where it identifies where the damage was along with other information of the accident) for an amount of $25,000 (purchase price of car) yet the car is still running and appears to be mint condition. For $25,000 the car should have been totalled. This is what I am asking for insight on.

[Jeff-TheBiz]

I have to think it is an error...

a hit of $25,000 on a 1999 Miata from an accident that happened in January of 1998???

[poedua]

I am not asking if the car is a good deal with $25,000 in damage.

True...but you are thinking of possibly buying a car that had $25,000 in damage......so I'd think how much the owner is asking for this car is a relevant consideration.....as much a relevant consideration than asking how relevant a $25,000 damage claim is in making your purchase decision.

[spf1971]

I have to think it is an error...

a hit of $25,000 on a 1999 Miata from an accident that happened in January of 1998???

Plus it was supposedly registered in July 1997.

[drk_fly]

Thank you for pointing that out Jeff-TheBiz and spf1971!

I called the current owner 10 minutes ago, and we came to the same conclusion. A little history on the miata; I know the Miata was supposed to be sold for 1998, but its release was pushed back until later, and was renamed 1999.

Now I just have to find the date where Mazda began selling the 1999 Miata... Today is Saturday, so unfortunately I can't get my hands on the UVIP (Not purchased by current owner yet).

TY!

[booblehead]

I don't understand why spend so much time & effort in pursuing the car with such questionable issues. For most, one looks at the report and say "I don' think so" and move on.

Is this a collectible car that may worth $50K in 20 years time ?

[poedua]

I don't understand why spend so much time & effort in pursuing the car with such questionable issues. For most, one looks at the report and say "I don' think so" and move on.

Is this a collectible car that may worth $50K in 20 years time ?

Depends on the asking price IMO.

Given it's already had $25,000 worth of damage, if the asking price is $1,000, then that's one thing ( it may warrant some " time & effort in pursuing " ) ....but, if the asking price is $12,000...then that's quite another matter.;)

[sachin1]

There are some incidents that I have seen where claims are incorrect on Carproof. The best thing to do is send it off to them for investigations, but this can take 3-4 weeks at times.

I have seen it where someone has 2 vehicles on an insurance policy and the insurance company had put the claim on the wrong vehicle.

[starboy869]

Maybe someone entered a extra zero?

A $2500 claim is pretty much a front fender, or rear bumper cover, etc

Heck it could've been keyed and a door/fender repaint at a legit shop is $2500 in itself.

[niroopg]

Doesn't matter. Never buy a car without a clean title - mistake or not. Resale value is essentially zero in this case.

[Kenneth]

Could be a stolen vehicle that was recovered. A cheque was issued to the original owner for the full value then the vehicle was recovered and sold at auction. The records don't indicate as such though.

[JAGpilot]

Doesn't matter. Never buy a car without a clean title - mistake or not. Resale value is essentially zero in this case.

Who cares about resale value on a 1999. Chances are OP will buy it and he'll be the last owner before it goes to scrap or is totalled. Check the VINs on other parts of the car. There's a possibility a part from the wrecked car was installed on this one.

[Rehan]

Now I just have to find the date where Mazda began selling the 1999 Miata... http://www.mazda.com/investors/library/annual/1998/review/america.htm
"the new MX-5 Miata introduced in March 1998"

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/03/business/media-business-advertising-mazda-s-campaign-aims-clarify-its-image-reverse.html
"bringing out a skein of new vehicles starting on March 12 with the 1999 Miata roadster"

[spyder83]

Plus it was supposedly registered in July 1997.

x2..not sure how that makes sense? July 97 is a really early sale for a 99....

Also What insurance company would approve a $25k claim when the MSRP was $20k?