Salvage titles exist because it is obviously profitable for someone to buy totaled cars and rebuild them. But this even existing would imply that in some cases, an insurance company paid out more than the actual cost to repair the vehicle, because otherwise it couldn’t possibly be profitable.
For example, let’s say a car has a value of $30k and gets totaled. The insurance pays the owner $30k and sells the wrecked car to a rebuilder for $1k, so they are out $29k. If the rebuilder then spends $15k repairing the car and sells it for $20k due to its reduced value, they will make a $4k profit.
Thus, why wouldn’t it be better for the insurance company to just spend the $15k themselves to repair the car, write the owner a check for $10k for diminished value, and pocket the $4k while also avoiding whatever overhead it takes to do the transaction to sell the wreck? In addition, one would imagine that insurance companies could achieve much better scale and/or vertical integration by moving this operation in-house vs. small rebuilders.
In: Economics
I’m an autobody technician by trade and the short answer is, it almost always doesn’t make financial sense to fix totalled out vehicles. Because of this, people who fix a lot of salvage vehicles are known to cut corners and do the absolute bare minimum to get the car back on the road.
That being said. There are actually circumstances where it can make sense for an individual to fix a totalled out vehicle in a manner they make some money while delivering a well repaired vehicle to a buyer. These circumstances however, are rare enough that you couldn’t make a full time living fixing totalled cars this way because the vast majority of totalled out cars just aren’t economically viable to fix in an honest manner.
Latest Answers