kind of like these ’54 Chevy taillights, but more complicated and a lot more expensive
During the course of my 35+ years as a court-recognized expert in transportation matters, one of my more interesting cases involved a very rare 1950s British car with a custom bespoke Parisian body, one of only four manufactured with this type of body design. I’m not going to disclose the make, model and year of the car, because it might be possible to trace the car’s owner, and I promised him I would not include him in this story, for privacy reasons.
The owner kept the car in a garage along with several other vintage cars. One afternoon, after telling the next door neighbor’s teenage son to stay out of his garage again, he heard the sound of breaking glass coming from the garage. Each time the young man was found in the garage, the owner could smell “Pot” in the air. Seems this young man came back with a baseball bat, and in a fit of anger, used it to demolish the taillight assemblies on this rare car.
Yes, the police came and did what police do in these matters, and the car’s owner turned the matter over to his insurance company. Problem was, the correct taillights were not available, and the original ones were completely destroyed. The insurance company came up with similar taillight assemblies, but this car was far too valuable to use substitutions, and their use would devalue the car substantially.
The car owner’s attorney contacted me for help. In my opinion, the substitutions were not even close, and would require making body changes and a repaint of the areas. But I also knew the chances of finding another set of taillights was impossible, as only 8 taillights had been made for the 4 cars.
The car in question had a rather flamboyant body design, one that made people stop and stare at it. The taillights on this car made a real statement in keeping with the car’s overall styling. The two-part taillight bases were chrome plated cast bronze, with additional chrome plated ribs of bronze across the glass lenses. The 2 base parts when assembled, held the glass inserts & ribs in place. This meant there were a total of 5 metal pieces, plus 2 identical glass lenses per taillight, the lenses placed side to side to create a single taillight.
After hours of research, I explained to the attorney & the owner, I could arrange to borrow a single taillight from one of the other 3 cars [in England], take it apart and have it copied. This entailed creating actual blueprints with specifications for all the cast metal parts and the taillight glass. We could then arrange for a foundry to cast the pieces, but there was a catch; The foundry insisted in casting a minimum of 5 sets, explaining that the cost of 2 sets would be the same as for 5 sets.
I knew this was common, and besides, the person allowing us to borrow his taillight was asking for a pair of newly created taillights as his “reward” for risking his irreplaceable taillight. I suggested they create 6 sets, as the cost was not much more than making 5 sets, due to multiple set-up fees. This would give the owner of the car a set he needed, a set for the “donor” car’s owner, and an extra set as a “Murphy’s law” set. [Murphy’s law says you won’t need the extra set as long as you have them, but if you don’t have that extra set, in the near future you will need them.]
The drawings would be done in the USA, the foundry work would be done in England, the glass lenses made in France. The cork gaskets for mounting the lenses, and the rubber gaskets for mounting taillight assemblies to body, would all be made by a gasket maker in the USA.
The estimated costs in US Dollars, to make the 6 taillight sets was as follows:
Engineering drawings for bronze parts: 850.00
Engineering drawings for taillight glass inserts: 280.00
Foundry casting base part A [6 pieces]: 2,400.00
Foundry casting base part B [6 pieces]: 1,800.00
Foundry casting ribs [18 pieces]: 3,150.00
Machining surfaces, drill & tap 84 holes: 1,680.00
Labor to mirror-polish all castings for plating: 3,800.00
Electro-plating 30 pieces [nickel to copper to chrome]: 3,500.00
Assorted mounting studs & machine screws, in stainless steel: 225.00
Tooling & hot casting 12 red glass lens assemblies, polished: 1,950.00
Assembling 6 complete taillight sets, inspection and testing: 750.00
Multiple insured shipping costs, importation taxes to USA: 500.00
Estimated grand total, ready for installation to automobile: $20,885.00
Wouldn’t you know it – the insurance company hit the roof! “20 Grand for taillights! Are you nuts? We’ll pay for the value to install the lights we found, nothing more.”
So the owner’s attorney filed suit in court. Meanwhile during the wait for the case to come up and be scheduled, the owner didn’t have the use of his car, as it had no taillights. I was retained as an expert witness in the case, and deposed by the insurance company’s law firm handling the case.
As I was answering the questions put forth to me, I, ahem, sort of let it slip, that if the car repair used the taillights the insurance company was advising, or ANY taillight that was NOT the original type, doing so would cause a diminution of value in excess of $50,000 for the car’s current retail value.
That caused the lead attorney to change his focus to how I could make that claim. He brought out a very well-known brand of automotive value guides, the one with the orange covers. He asked me to show him in the guide where the car’s value was shown, and I replied that it was so rare that it was impossible to publish an accurate value for a specific car when there had not been a comparable car sold in 30 years.
He speculated that I was simply guessing, and asked me how I could possibly know what the value guide publishers used as their decision making process in selecting cars to list. I asked the attorney to open the value guide to the front area, and locate page B-16. I asked him what it said at the top of page B-16, and he replied “Advisory board members”. I asked him to scroll down to the next to last name on the right side of the page, and read the name aloud. And of course he said my name, and the name of my restoration shop.
I simply stated that I’m one of the people who make the decisions as to what is listed, along with the values, in the largest antique & classic vehicle value guide in the country. At that point they chose to stop the deposition!
A few weeks later the car owner’s attorney sent me a letter, with a nice check to cover my expenses, and explained that the insurance company had settled the case for $25,000. He also asked me how much money we would need to begin the engineering drawings for the taillights. It took another 2 years, but the new taillights looked wonderful!
Insurance companies, despite how friendly they seem in their pervasive and invasive advertising, are interested in only one thing: their bottom line. Cash the premium checks, and low-ball the payouts when they come.
Corporation: a place where those who count the money are more esteemed than those who make the money.
Yes – everything is covered when you buy a policy but nothing is covered when you make a claim. 🙂 The actuality is somewhere in between on both occasions.
Some 15 years ago one of my vehicles was totaled by a no license/no insurance driver who ran a red. 9,000 miles, and when I find out they were going to pay me a pittance compared to the actual value, I tell the agent “no way, I’ll keep the car“ or something to that effect out of frustration. The agents face turns flush and tells me they already collected the car. Stunned since I hadn’t even retrieved my belongings yet, I pull my title out of the envelope I was holding, show it to the agent and ask “without the title? So I have to report it stolen?” She immediately said give me a moment and rushed out of the office. 15 minutes later she walks in with a check FAR larger than the cost when I bought the car. “Here’s the title, ma’am”, with a smile. Thank you, whoever royally screwed that up!
So using the insurance company’s logic, if the damaged item had been an antique Tiffany lamp worth $25,000, then it would be acceptable to offer a lookalike copy that was recently made in China and sells new for $100 as a settlement.Those guys have bigger balls than King Kong.
“…a very rare 1950s British car with a custom bespoke Parisian body, one of only four manufactured with this type of body design.”
Very surprising that the original builders didn’t use;
A) off-the-shelf Lucas beehive lights supplied by the chassis manufacturer
B) Individually styled but mass-produced Lucas light units per the chassis’ standard coachwork, supplied by the chassis manufacturer.
C) Mass-produced units sourced by the coachbuilder from a mass-market French or British car.
nipnt,
In probably 95% of hand built European, and especially British luxury, bespoke cars, a standard taillight unit would have been fitted. When I was first contacted by the owner, I asked if it was a Lucas lamp assembly, but nooooo . . . Not even Nubar Gulbenkian’s cars had custom lamp assemblies! This is one of the reasons I chose to highlight these lenses, as they were so unique. And it also spoke about how much some people were willing to spend on their new cars back then.
I spent months trying to identify the maker of the lamp assemblies without finding anything. I ended up, quite by chance, talking to someone who worked at the coachbuilder back in the day, who quickly described the lamps to me, as they are truly unique. That’s when I realized this would be a long process if done correctly. I should have known from the start, that because the castings and lenses had no markings on them, these were not production pieces.
Around the same time I was hunting for taillights needed by a well-known restoration shop in Virginia, they were needed for a Mercedes-Benz 540K roadster. I was joking with the shop’s owner as to which lamp assembly I would find first, the one he needed, or the one I described in this story. I found one of the 2 series 540K lamps first!
Interesting story. I’m not sure when this happened (I’m guessing early in your 35+ year career, as the engineering costs all seem very low to me).
If this were to happen today, the reference parts would be 3D scanned, and the replacement parts created either on a CNC or a 3D metal printer.
3D printing was exactly the first thing I thought of. I’ve read that, due to his vast collection of autos, Jay Leno has a 3D printer for recreating parts made of unobtanium and one of the specific items that was mentioned was none other than taillight lenses.
I was thinking the same thing until it turned out the lenses were made out of glass, not plastic. Will 3D printers do glass?
Well given that one of the big news stories today is about the world’s first 3D-printed ribeye steak, i’m inclined to believe 3D-printed glass is possible…
Tom Halter,
Yes, you are correct, this happened starting in 1988. Pre Internet.
Bill
Great story. I hope the insurance company recovered some or all of the cost from the teenager who originally smashed the tail lights or his parents. Ultimately they werent the ones at fault here
Depending on the law of the state where this occurred, the parents could be liable for the criminal acts of the kid. The kid would certainly be responsible. And intentional conduct is usually not dischargeable in bankruptcy, so as long as the kid eventually straightened up and got a job he should eventually be good for it. But I also have drawers of files where trying to get $20k out of someone is as likely as getting gold out of my hot water faucet.
Wouldn’t vandalism that destroys something that costs $25,000 be a felony?
I’m old school.
First, I would use the bat.
Second, I would sue the kid (or parents if the kid not of age) to pay for the increase in future premiums and an installed security system for the garage. Plus pain and suffering if the lawyer were good enough.
Sounds like your client insured his car through Progressive or State Farm and not Hagerty or some high end carrier tailored to cars of this level. Sucks for him.
Also, owns several vintage cars and squabbles over $20K?
Also, has a known issue with someone trespassing and leaves the garage open?
I wondered about that open garage door situation, too, and might be one of the reasons it would have been difficult to recover the replacement cost.
It was high enough that it seems it would have went to court, and although it’s trespassing, leaving a garage door open would seem to make it harder for the plaintiff to prevail.
OTOH, given the value of the vehicle, I can only surmise that this all took place in a very well-to-do neighborhood with residents of significant means.
I hope the kid went to prison for a sentence consistent with the willful destruction of $25,000 worth of property.
Wishful thinking. In reality, the parents of the kid probably worked something out behind the scenes.
There have been many lawyers paid a lot of money over the years to wrangle over the appropriate measure of damages in cases like this which involve unusual or rare items.
The only other argument the insurance company might have made is that they were entitled to a reduction in the amount based on the value of the 4 extra pieces. The actual settlement assumed that they had no value, but I suspect the owner would have been reluctant to part with them – meaning that they have some value after all. But in a $25k case there is not a lot of room in the budget for additional argument. And the value of the other sets is actually zero if the car is so rare and all examples are so pampered that no extras will ever be sold.
An interesting story – thanks for sharing it.
Ditto Sam. Insurers rationally expect owners to take appropriate precautions, and won’t pay if it’s clear that you weren’t watching or maintaining as needed. With an irreplaceable and extremely valuable item, the security requirements would also be extreme. I’m surprised the case even got to the point of quibbling about the replacement itself.
I think the commenters who question the insurance company’s failure to balk at the perceived lack of security my be assuming that the insurer in question is the owner’s company. It was a little unclear to me whether the insurer who ultimately wrote the check was the car owner’s insurer or the personal liability insurer of the kid’s family.
Yes, Hagerty and the others have provisions in their polices requiring vehicles to be stored in locked garages when unattended or not in use, but the other family’s liability insurer would have no leg to stand on questioning how the car owner stored his vehicle. Their insured is clearly liable regardless.
Were the left and right taillights identical, or mirror image?
Sam,
The open garage door situation was not being considered in any paperwork I saw, but it could have been part of the complaint. If it was, I was not aware of it.
Staxman,
complete taillight assemblies were identical, left or right.
MTN,
My memory on who the actual insurers were is not 100% clear, However I do know a couple of them were involved, the primary insurer suing 1 or 2 more to “share” the costs, or to let the courts determine who was liable for payment. Since it never went that far, we’ll never know! I only dealt with the primary insurer.
J P Cavanaugh,
I had forgotten about the insurance company trying to suggest they would only pay for the cost of 2 sets, but when I had mentioned the cost for 2 sets was about the same as all of them, that suggestion was quietly dropped.
This reminds me of when I was a very young lad and curious whether the taillights on my dad’s ‘48 DeSoto were made of plastic or glass. Unfortunately, the scientific method I chose involved the use of a hammer. Long story short, it was the only whipping from my dad that I remember. I think most of the hurt came from knowing I was in the wrong and deserved it.
Oh, and by the way, ‘48 DeSoto taillights are made of glass. 😉
I think the bathtub Packards were the last American cars to have glass taillights.
My father accidentally (not with a baseball bat) broke a taillight on the family’s ’49 Frazer and was surprised to find that it was plastic.
Staxman,
Packards used glass taillights in the 200 & 250 series cars in ’51 and ’52, and the same lens in the ’53 Clipper cars.
As far as I know, the largest glass taillight lens in a US car, was the 22nd series Packards, the large oval units in the chrome pods. The reason the industry went to plastic was the problem of uneven cooling in larger glass lenses.
As a Packard parts specialist, I know from experience that there is almost always a faint mold line in those glass units, and I’ve found more than a few of those lenses, still in the original Packard box, and the lens is cracked in half along that line. This was due to the glass cooling too quickly as it was injected at high pressure into the mold, creating a weak spot. The bigger the lens, the harder it was to control the cooling.
No snark from me about the auto-insurance business today–but I appreciate the well-told insider’s view on all this, and appreciate being able to listen.
Lenses from glass? I hadn’t even thought about the possibility, and so learned a little extra here. Thanks a bunch, Bill McCoskey!
Nicely done Bill! I wish we could see the car, but your reasoning is understandable. I read only today in the news about how an insurance company followed and took video of a claimant who could not work due to a head injury sustained in the workplace. They tried to take her to court for false claim because the Private Investigator (!) caught her going to the grocery store, and caught her talking to her pet inside her apartment. Fortunately the judge threw out the case, but it took two years of legal wrangling.
Did they expect her to stay home 24/7 for the rest of her life?
Just because you have an injury that prevents you from doing the work you used to do does not mean you can’t perform the activities of daily living which requires a different skillset and abilities. You’re not under pressure to finish your grocery tasks in 30 minutes or not talk to your pet. Since they seemed fixated on her speaking, was her speech the same as before? Brain injuries can cause slurring or word substitution not to mention being easily confused. Mom had a TIA at 55, after therapy she would say things like ‘how many leaves in that book?’ when she meant ‘pages’. Short term memory is often affected, she may not remember which item she went to that aisle for without referring to her grocery list over and over.
We like to drive cars, how would you feel about not knowing the way back home?
I hope she got back pay for that two years and all her legal costs plus a punitive award for the insurance company being a dick.
Ha! I reread the story, the insurance agency was actually a provincial authority (WSIB) in Ontario. The felt she was taking too long to get back to work so got after her. The agency is employer funded.
In the trial where she was charged with false claims, the judge merely acquitted her, there were no assessments against the WSIB. The agency was criticized for their conduct and for imposing surveillance. No damages against them were mentioned, nor does it say if her benefits were reinstated. Two years out of her life.
It seems that video surveillance is used sometimes to intimidate the beneficiaries, and to get them to drop their claims.
Abhorrent.
I’ve heard TIA’s are very scary. I hope your Mom is getting better.
Thank you, she’s doing okay. I was visiting and when she started acting strangely, I insisted on taking her to the hospital even tho she said not to worry. Something told me this was serious and to get her to be seen.
At first glance the idea of tail lamps being that expensive, seems absurd. After reading the article though, it seems more reasonable. We have seen common cars valued at a million dollars, some Chrysler hemi powered muscle cars. I was at a Petersen Museum display of Bugattis The value of the assembled cars had to be well into the hundreds of millions. If one of these cars was damaged, I could see that reconstruction of the components parts would be eye watering!
The tort doctrine of attractive nuisance comes to mind – the rotten kid could do nothing but be enticed by the open garage door exposing the beautiful and rare car. But that doctrine applies to injury to the kid (i.e. – drowned in a swimming pool with no fence) but not to property damage caused by the kid. So probably not a defense at all; the kid should not have been there.
The issue of loss of use was briefly touched upon. The owner lost the use of his car during the down period. What are the economic damages suffered? If the car was a very special show car used for a frivolous hobby then probably zero. If the damaged car was one used to produce income for the owner, then damages could have been substantial.
Did you know if the swimming pool had a fence around it the fence itself is an attractive nuisance?
At least, that is what a law professor told my class a few decades ago.
“The owner kept the car in a garage along with several other vintage cars. One afternoon, after telling the next door neighbor’s teenage son to stay out of his garage again, he heard the sound of breaking glass coming from the garage. Each time the young man was found in the garage, the owner could smell “Pot” in the air. Seems this young man came back with a baseball bat, and in a fit of anger, used it to demolish the taillight assemblies on this rare car.”
I don’t see anything saying open garage door enticing the teen. For all we know he opened the door. Either way we will not know until the author spells it out which he didn’t in the above quote.
tbm3fan,
I was not part of the criminal aspect of the situation, and unless I am specifically asked for my input [and therefore I’m compensated for said input] I stay out of that part. I actually never even knew the name of the kid, nor his punishment [if anything]. I only knew the basics so I could understand what happened to the taillights & car.
I’ve used Condon Skelly for my collector cars for many years, had a couple of odd claims (cat knocked a bowl on the hood of the MK III, engine fire). and they always came through, no questions, I selected the repair facility, they paid the bill. Excellent service and reasonable prices. A good firm.
Insurance companies = gangsters. You are 20% responsible because you were there BS. Always righting the estimate way low hoping you take the check and cash it. Trying to payless because of depreciation. Like a bad neighbor, always there. The good hands people, picking your pocket with a smile. The non-profit health insurance too.
xr7 – I call out what you wrote as complete, uninformed nonsense.
Insurance companies are not gangsters. Insurance companies are businesses that make profit by investing accrued premiums collected, paying out legitimate claims and distributing profits to shareholders as dividends. Sort of like most other corporations from whom you purchase goods or services. Insurance carriers are not crooks; they provide a service for which consumers are willing to pay.
Your paragraph illustrates a lack of understanding of law, business and economics.
Agreed. It’s not appropriate here. And uncalled for.
A great tale, and a rather sloppy attorney: surely your qualifications/credentials would have been previously shown to the cross-examiner? Would have been fun to watch his face as he read the page B-16 that he should have read well beforehand.
The story helps to give a small insight into the great wonder – for the great unwashed like me – of how restorations on posh machines can cost those bank-popping amounts.
Justy-Baum,
Most attorneys do not want to disclose everything to the opposition, especially for expert witnesses.
I had another automotive case involving the value of a rare car, and when the plaintiff’s attorney, during the trial, was asked to read the same section of the same value guide, on seeing me listed there, and the judge accepting me as an expert, the attorney aggressively threw the value guide back onto the plaintiff’s table, where it slid across the table and hit someone sitting in the first row. The judge was pissed, and held the attorney on several charges! [I don’t remember what they were.]
Thinking about that just now, maybe I can write that one up someday.
Great story of a legal wrangling, thank you!
As always, there would be some risk in how this negotiation was conducted, or the pieces invoiced, in case things got more combative.
Let’s say the total approximate $21,000 production cost was agreed to and locked in. Then… it wouldn’t take much argument to possibly convince a judge or jury that:
$21,000 (aprox total production cost for 6 assemblies) ÷ 6 = $3500 each assembly.
$3500 x 2pc = $7000 to replace damaged lamps
.
Then it may become necessary to argue that $7000.00 for the “rental” of a lamp to use as a pattern was reasonable. Oops if Defendant findsprints or a more reasonably priced rental.
I can hear that smooth Southern orator:
“Do you know that the total production costs for the tail lamps of my Chevette that I drove to the courthouse today was over 6 million dollars? Do you know how much I can buy a replacement for…?”
LoL
No doubt those potential concerns were probably handled with care.
We never did hear what the final actual cost was, but that’s okay.
JimDandy,
I must admit this is the first time I heard of an attorney with a Chevette!
As for the final costs not being listed, that’s because there was a built-in profit margin for my shop and myself, and that’s not open for discussion!
Very interesting story. But who kept the molds? The molds for casting the metal and glass will still exist, after the work is done, complete and usable to make more. It would be a shame to leave them with the foundry to be lost or destroyed. The market for these lights is exceedingly limited, but it may be reasonable for the owner who commissioned the work to keep the molds, just in case.
Eighteen Chariots,
The car owner did pay a little bit more for the rights and ownership of all the molds, and it actually cost more in shipping them to the USA, than to purchase!
I had actually advised him to get them if possible. I used to have places in southeast Asia reproduce antique car parts for me, and I quickly discovered that even though I had paid for molds and dies, inevitably when I wanted more made, there was something wrong with the originals, or they couldn’t be found, or even destroyed in a fire! So once I figured out the scam, I usually insisted they send the molds/dies with the order.
Imagine what GM might pay in costs to create engineering drawings and tooling for a new Cadillac taillight design. Amortized over tens of thousands of units, not much per car, but I guarantee you more than $25,000.
Best thing I’ve read all day. Going to bed with a smile on my face. G’night!
Custom auto parts are crazy. 15 years ago some one I worked for had a Paige car, not sure the year. But a couple cast parts that needed replacing were custom pieces with the Paige logo. He owned an engineering company so drawing up the parts and sourcing wasn’t that hard but I recall it being mighty pricey.
Great input! I enjoyed reading the legal wrangling that went on. Love the deposition! I read a lot of medical insurance cases with issues relating to who is right and who is wrong and is the plaintiff entitled to anything and, if so, why.
It is important to recognize that an insurer is merely a financial backstop against possible perils of the world. If car owner makes a claim against their insurance, the insurer may haggle the value of the claim, deny the claim, or pay the claim.
Once they pay the claim, they (like casinos) hate to lose, and will then SUBROGATE, which is to pursue a party at fault. This could be the manufacturer of an appliance that caused a fire or manufacturer of a faulty tire that caused an accident.
In this case, they could subrogate against the parents of the minor. Most homeowners policies have a liability clause, which usually applies to events that happen on a homeowner’s property – kid left the property, so likely denied, which would mean that if car insurer could not subrogate against the HO policy of the parents, that they could either take the parents to court or drop it.
Most insurers will not subrogate against individuals. Doing so would cause individual financial ruin in society, which is not the look that the insurance industry wants for itself, so subrogation normally points at companies (who themselves are insured for liability).
Ultimately, car owner could personally sue the parents in superior court, bypassing the insurance industry, in which case parents could try to invoke their Homeowner Policy or, if they have money and good insurance, their Umbrella Policy.
I just wonder if the teenager recovered from his stupidity and is now a Captain of Industry, or if he’s running a bulldozer on the South Side or if he’s in jail… Somebody somewhere has a $25,000 tail light stain on their conscience.
————
Writing as someone who deals with the insurance industry regarding reconstruction of people’s burned houses – insurers consider any amount of money that they are able to avoid paying out and which is below policy limits as “profit”, so their supreme nearly universal motivation is to pay as little as insurance-ly possible.
ALWAYS question their first offer and be prepared to do homework to demonstrate and prove that you are owed more. If you can establish reasonable justification of your claimed dollar value, it gives the adjuster cover to approve your claim as their bean-counting superiors look on.
AND: Shop your car insurance annually!! There is a reason they don’t write what you paid last time on your renewal bill – renewal is almost always an increase over the old bill, they bill annually or bi-annually -just enough time for people to forget the precise amount that they paid last time!
That’s why the lizard can tell you on tv that they can save you 15% – they just know that most people are getting boosted and all you gotta do is shop to keep things honest.
My Dad had a ’59 Beetle in the mid 60’s, and started getting the import version of the JC Whitney catalog. Whether he actually ordered anything from them (I have) I don’t know, but I would quickly appropriate them. The Beetle parts were predominate, but they also had other import parts, and I recall tail lights being pretty common….of course this was before the 5MPH bumpers, so it wasn’t unusual to have a collision that could bend sheet metal, bumpers, and lights. The nice thing about sealed beam headlights was they came in more or less standard sizes and could be replaced pretty inexpensively (which of course you also had to do if their filaments burned out)…but tail lights were mostly unique to a given model car. I guess accidents were common enough that some manufacturer could sell enough to justify making them (doubt these were OEM)..even then, they were more expensive than headlights due to the variation.
Makes me wonder, other than style, why there never seemed to be standard tail lights (though of course they had to conform to standard at time car was made)..seems like easily damaged parts would be better made in standard form factors similar to sealed beam headlights.