2024 Porsche 718 Cayman

This is the second job on this site the estimator priced before the carrier had written anything final, and the only one carrying three separate numbers for the same damage. The photographs were taken on the day of loss. The carrier’s first estimate of record came before teardown. Its supplement came seventeen days later, and that supplement is where 92.9 percent of the money on the claim appeared.

The first write is the part worth sitting with. At $429.04 against a $500 deductible, the carrier’s own assessment of this car came out below the deductible, which means it would have paid the shop nothing and the customer would have carried the entire repair. The estimator, with no teardown and nobody standing next to the vehicle, priced the same damage at $2,147.04 on the carrier’s own rates.

It read the damage correctly. Glass gone rather than cracked, debris driven through the cabin and down into the door cavity, contaminated run channels that would score new glass if reused, scuffing and adhesive residue on the aluminium door shell, and a window safety system needing recalibration after reassembly. Every one of those appears in the supplement. None of them appear in the first estimate of record.

Against the settled figure the estimator is 64 percent under, and that shortfall is not spread across the job. It is one line. The carrier replaced a right-side door trim panel at $4,142.16, noting that its edge had been shaved off; the estimator called the same panel remove-and-reinstall and added refinish hours to it. That single line is larger than the entire $3,856.60 gap. Take it out and the parts are 11 percent under, $940.00 against $1,059.17.

It is not a pricing error, which is the useful part. It is a repair-or-replace judgment on a part that happens to cost four thousand dollars, and nothing in the comparison corpus grounds that call. The panel decisions indexed on this site cover exterior panels; none of them cover interior trim. This car is the first document that says which index is missing.

The hours run the same direction as the Kia: 15.5 against the carrier’s 7.7, roughly double, where the Kia was half again over. Two cars, two carriers, two entirely different kinds of loss, and hours are wrong both times. Parts have a corpus behind them and hours have nothing, and both cases say so in the same voice. The estimator also scoped 5.5 hours of refinish on a job the carrier paid no paint labor on at all.

The Kia case reports parts 2.7 percent under and this one reports them 82 percent under, which looks like a contradiction and is not. That car was a front-end collision on a volume sedan, the work the corpus is built from. This is a comprehensive glass and interior claim on a low-volume sports car, and the money sat in a category the index barely reaches. A corpus tells you where it is thin by failing there.

One detail that has nothing to do with the estimate and is worth recording anyway. This is the first carrier document in the corpus whose tax basis crosses Florida’s $5,000 surtax cap, so State Farm printed the tax in two tiers and totalled it at $363.41. The tiered calculation this site uses, run against the carrier’s own basis, returns $363.41.

The comparison is not like-for-like and is not offered as one. The estimator saw ten photographs on day one; the adjuster who wrote the supplement had the car on a lift seventeen days later. That is the gap a supplement exists to close, and closing it is the carrier’s advantage, not a flaw in the document. It is published here as one job, not as an accuracy rate. There is no accuracy percentage on this site.