I received a report today from CCC that showed staff appraisers totaling cars at 3X the rate of repairers (18.8% vs 6.2%). And that doesn't count something called an "obvious total loss." What's that about? Do they look at different cars or do they look at similar cars differently (that's my guess).

Someone brighter than I summed it up for me - "If all other factors, such as severity, etc., are the same, then it would appear that staff appraisers are operating in the manner of a small claims judge. Going for the simplest solution that will not result in further debate or negotiations and fixed dollar amount determined early on. Simple drive-by shooting. I agree, in many cases if the shop knows where the tipping point is and wants the job, they should be able to finesse the estimate whereas the staff appraiser is less likely to have any vested interest in saving vs. totaling. Plus I would imagine the staff appraiser's work is less likely to be accepted by all other parties (vehicle owner/insured/claimant, repair shop, etc) without multiple attempts at modification at any point in the process, with or without warning."

This is US data and perhaps a US perspective. Does anyone know if Canadian data is similar? Can we draw the conclusion that if we had repairers flagging vehicles for total losses that we would have fewer totals, and therefore more work in the industry?

Ontario regulation 376/02 made under Highway Traffic Act reads:

"total loss" means, with respect to a vehicle, a vehicle that has been damaged by collision, impact, fire or flood, or has been stolen and dismantled, such that the estimated costs of repairing it exceeds the difference between the fair market value of the vehicle immediatley before it was damaged or stolen and its salvage value.


The mandate is for the appraiser to use retail prices in a retail marketplace in repairing the vehicle for estimating purposes using manufacturer's repair recommendations.

Simply put, the regualtion identifies if the vehicle is total loss and removes both the insurance appraiser or shop estimator feelings or values. This does not prevent an insurer from classifying a vehicle as total loss when it is not, but a total loss would normally need a "brand identifier" which now can not be legally applied. Hence the new owner of the vehicle-the insurer- is guilty of an offense under branding legislation and the vehicle brand is then appealable and the vehicle can be repaired. This is often where we see insurers lose a lot of money and face potential charges, court action and fines that could have been avoided if they had not total lossed the vehicle improperly.

That's the legal answer for Ontario, and addresses the VIN branding requirements once a vehicle is totaled, but it doesn't address the base question of why insurers and repairers total vehicles at different rates.

If the regulation removes any objectivity then why the different rates. Perhaps it is in the motivation, repair vs replace, timing constraints, etc, etc.

We all keep seeing easily repaired vehicles towed away to a salvage auction - and it is helpful to occasionally ask "Why?"