[Zandar]

Yeah, that's really shady. I don't know what the DOI (Department of Insurance) rules are in CT, but I know that what they're doing is illegal in CA. There are guidelines for what a company will pay for a total loss, and NADA values aren't it.

Take this next part with a grain of salt, as it is how insurance law works in CA- your mileage may vary.

If you dispute the value of a TL (total loss) settlement, the issuing company must provide proof that their settlement is valid in the form of recent sales of similar or better condition autos of the same make and model as yours and the same year or better. Further, they must provide a seller who has a vehicle of like or better quality of your same make and model, equal or better year, who is selling the vehicle or who was selling it at the time of your settlement within the settlement amount.

Also, it is illegal for a company to turn away a 3rd party claimant when damages and liability are reasonably certain (basically, they can't send you back to your insurance just because they don't feel like dealing with you). That being said, they are not on your side and you might be better off going with your carrier and letting them subrogate against the other guys, if you have valid collision coverage. The downside there is that you would most likely incur your deductible until your insurance collects, unless you have AAA or USAA.

In any case, check your state DOI law and maybe consult an insurance law attorney, if you can get one to look it over for free (I would personally recommend against actual representation as they can only get the actual value of the vehicle in most property damage cases, and then you're out lawyer fees with no extra money to show for it).

It really sounds like these guys are giving you the shaft, unless they do things totally different in CT. This kind of crap would get someone fired in my office.

EDIT:
I was re-reading your post; the key here is what CT considers a "comparable auto." In CA, it's defined by DOI as a vehicle of same make and model, same year or newer, in same or better condition (mileage, amenities, overall condition, etc.). I would imagine that CT has the same DOI language (but, admittedly, I don't know), and it seems they are definitely not using comparable autos for their valuation.