You replaces brakes, struts, and tires – all consumables, and adding nothing to the value of the car. Even replacing the engine won’t double the value of a car with 190,000 miles on it, though.
I would disagree, actually. You want to be paid (and should be paid) what it would cost you to replace the car with a near-identical one, not what you could have sold it for. Whether that’s the price as determined by the Craigslist postings, or the Edmunds retail dealer sales price, or whatever - they need to make you whole. It might be tough to find the same car privately, if you with dealers you’d have better choices.
Similarly for time off work. You should actually have better luck with that, than for distress. The other party’s driving cost you time off work, seeking medical care (well, checking to make sure you were OK), is costing you time in hunting for a new vehicle, etc.
When Typo Knig’s car was totalled (13 years ago now), we made a list of time lost from work and attached an hourly rate to each based on our salary. I lost several hours, as did he. We also had some personal property that was lost (the car was so crumpled that we couldn’t get some things out of the trunk). We put a price of something like 800 dollars on the time and the items. They said “How about 1200, and you go away now?” (this was separate from the value of the car). Basically, they gave us a bit more cash than we were asking for, in return for a promise not to sue.
Now, we were out cash (sort of) when all was said and done. The value they offered for the car was more than reasonable, but rather than purchasing an 8 year old Civic used, we used it (plus cash of our own) as a down payment for a new car. This was, however, our choice. We could have taken the payoff check and bought an essentially-identical used Civic from a dealer.
CAN a driver actually exclude that kind of liability from their policy? That would surprise me - if they could do that, then what’s the point of carrying a policy at all?