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?"

Taken from an I-car Platinum certified, Interprovincialy licesened auto body repair technician and an insurance appraisers and a consumers point of view.

The decision to repair or write off a damaged vehicle has nothing to do with supplying work to repair shops or supplying recyclers with rebuilders and parts cars. It comes down to doing what's best for the client. Many times a vehicle owner doesn't want their vehicle repaired. If the insurer can get the money needed from a salvage buyer to do constructive total loss they will do that for the client. There are factors other then the actual damage to the vehicle that come into the decision. Such as: the rental expense, the possiblity of hidden damage and the clients interest.
To repair a vehicle which is close to a total loss and then have a problem or supplement after the repair, does not do anyone any good. Especially the client who will be inconvenienced the most. As I mentioned, the decision is client based. Older vehicles with cosmetic damage are not always written off. Cash settlements can be done and owner retained salvage settlements can also be done.
To see a potential job towed off to a salvage yard is frustating for a shop I've been there. New car dealer body shops loss many repairs due to the sales staff chasing the client to sell them a new car and that statrts the ball rolling and the insurance appraiser will try to accomadate the client by trying to sell the salvage to satisfy the client. If the salvage cannot be sold the vehicle will be repaired.
Dollars and cents need to be used to determine repair vs write off but!
The issue of BRANDING I believe should have no monetary consideration at all. It should be stricktly based on the safety aspect. A partially or fully submerged vehicle should be branded parts only, fire total losses whether totally burned or not should also be parts only. Vehicles with engine, suspension, driveline, major structural or passenger restaint system damages should be branded salvage. whether it is a staightforward total loss or a constructive total.
We are all providing a service to the vehicle owner. Being all consumed with making a buck we forget the safety of the public and the vehicles being driven on our roadways. I've seen vehicles rebuilt that never had a brand and should never have been allowed back on the road even after the repairs were done. There are to many unqualified shops and the general public buying damaged vehicles. Repairing them as cheaply as the can, giving no consideration to what will happen to that car if it is involved in another collision. We all need to do what's right for the general public. And what's good for our business whether it's the Collision Repair facility the Recycler or the Insurance Co.

That's my personal take on repair vs write off , comimg from someone who has been involved in both the repair and insurance industries for the past 25 years.

An excellent post, Wayne. Everyone should read this.