Auto Insurance Claims: Total Loss ACV v RC, vandalism, receipts

Question
My sons truck was recently vandalized. The ins co has determined it is a total loss due to the entire truck needing to be sanded and painted (estimate rec'd for $3100). Unfortunately I have several questions regarding the route our claim has taken. Situation 1. In order to get it back up and running we received the go ahead to buy "like kind and quality" of tires since all 4 were slashed. We replaced them with the exact same tires ($1050). The ins co has since reported that the damaged tires had 90% tread life left on them. However, they have also determined that the difference between totaling the truck with or without the tires is only $48. In your opinion, how can this be? Why would they have given us the ok and specified "of like kind and quality" if they were not going to reimburse us for at least the 90% value for the tread left on the damaged tires? Situation 2. We submitted receipts for major repairs that we have done in the last 6 months ($2500 with the bulk being a new transmission)to help in the determination of the value. The ins co has stated that the work done is "work that one can expect to have done during the life of a vehicle" and therefore really doesn't make a difference in the valuation. Would you agree? Without these repairs the truck would not have been running and therefore makes a big difference, in our opinion, in the value. Situation 3. The ins co is basing the amount to be paid for the truck as actual cash value which I understand to mean what the truck is worth today (with the vandalism). Needless to say they have come back with a very low value ($2160). Isn't the purpose of carrying ins to protect yourself from financial loss at the time of a claim? Or to put you back where you were before the loss? At this rate we will be taking a loss because of this claim. Is it common that auto losses are paid based on acv? There is no way we could replace the truck with a similar truck based on their determined value. Thank you.

Answer
First of all. ACV (actual cash value) is determined by the cost to replace the vehicle with one of like kind and quality as of the date of loss. A transmission replacement is not something that would be considered a maintenance item and does add value to the vehicle. Obviously, you have a problem with what they consider the van to be worth before the loss. I would send the insurance company a letter and demand that they show you comparable vans on which they based the value of the one they insured. If they still come back with a low number, then you ought to enact the appraisal clause, in which both you and the insurance company hire independent appraisers to evaluate the van, and the two appraisers get together and appoint an umpire to make a binding decision. You pay the cost of the appraiser and half the umpire's fee.