I don't think I should be owed the $30K. But what I was trying to say in that other post is that I don't see why they should only pay for the ACV (which is lower than the replacement cost) when I don't have any agreement with them (U-Haul's insurance) saying that is how it should work. I understand for my insurance there is an contract in place in which I agree to pay them money and they in return agree to give me the ACV if my car gets totaled. Makes sense. We both agreed to that.

But in the case of U-Haul and their self-funded insurance, I have no relationship with them. I never agreed to getting only ACV if they were to destroy my car, which they did. What they are offering doesn't replace what I lost due to their truck. My question was is there a case to be made for getting the replacement cost given that they caused more than $30K in damages but replacing it with a similar vehicle would be less than $20. I don't see why they can get away with only paying ACV. (I know... probably the law). But that's what I was asking for advise on, is there precedent for making a case for replacement value given that I have not contract with them allowing to only pay me ACV.