Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: Opt for new auto parts while settling with your Ins. Co.
My cousin Bob and another guy went for a long drive last Saturday evening and got struck by a rash driver from a distance. The bully escaped narrowly but was trapped later in the morning .The repair works for Bob would be somewhat around $4000. Bob's insurer had agreed to support him with aftermarket body parts for his vehicle, to which Bob's reaction was simple and stern. He did not want his insurer to provide him with aftermarket parts. He maintained that it was his insurer's job to collect the new parts from the tormentor. He had a hard time convincing the insurance representative till he revealed his other identity as an attorney.
Of late his insurance company has offered him new market parts, and also expressed their willingness to resolve matters soon. Could we ever look forward to a hassle-free world ?
Regards,
Blackberry _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:01 am Post subject: The aftermath
These cases throw light upon the fact that only the fittest can survive in this competitive world. Both consumers and insurers have to fight with each other, in order to establish their ideas and rights. _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: tort laws
Aftermarket body parts are allowed by a majority of insurance policies, incase they are not barred by law. Henceforth, one should not look forward for an inclusion of the reduced market value in his claim. Claims are generally built under a tort law instead of any contract law, especially when the other party has a flaw. _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
despite common knowledge, insurance companies and adjustera aren't intimidated at all with attorneys; quite the opposite, I prefer working with them b/c they can be easier to deal with. Granted not always the case, but more times than not.
an attorney should know the priciples of indemnity are violated if you put new parts on an old car b/c it would be considered putting him in a better position. (unless the car is only 2-3yrs old)
Unless you have a car that is 2-3yrs old or newer, brand new parts are a must, other than than you should try to go with aftermarket or LKQ unless not available at which you have no choice but to go new. the best way to avoid aftermarket is to request LKQ aka recycled. they take an undamaged part from another car of same year, like mileage, etc and use instead. LKQ is OEM and the issues of not properly fitting or being a substandard part is nonexistant.
My insurance company (Nationwide) has a specific option that you have to purchase in order to get OEM parts in a repair. If you do not purchase that option, then they are under no obligation to provide OEM parts for the repair. I personally don't have a problem with aftermarket parts since, in my experience, they have been of equal or greater quality than the OEM parts. You have to realize that since automakers are producing thousands of vehicles, their parts are going to come from the lowest bidder. Just because the automaker uses a specific part does not necessarily mean that it is of the highest quality.
My insurance company (Nationwide) has a specific option that you have to purchase in order to get OEM parts in a repair. If you do not purchase that option, then they are under no obligation to provide OEM parts for the repair. I personally don't have a problem with aftermarket parts since, in my experience, they have been of equal or greater quality than the OEM parts. You have to realize that since automakers are producing thousands of vehicles, their parts are going to come from the lowest bidder. Just because the automaker uses a specific part does not necessarily mean that it is of the highest quality.
That is likely true to a point, but you left off an important point, which is, ...from the lowest bidder that can consistently meet or exceed their Quality Specification.
If the traditional group of suppliers providing After Market collision repair parts had been or would have been consistently meeting or exceeding OEM Quality Specification, does anyone really believe that Consumers and Repairers alike would be complaining about A/M parts?
Unless you have a car that is 2-3yrs old or newer, brand new parts are a must, other than than you should try to go with aftermarket or LKQ unless not available at which you have no choice but to go new. the best way to avoid aftermarket is to request LKQ aka recycled. they take an undamaged part from another car of same year, like mileage, etc and use instead. LKQ is OEM and the issues of not properly fitting or being a substandard part is nonexistant.
Back in the early to late Eighties that would have been accurate. But with the current Volume of A/M parts being pushed into the market by insurers on autos as new as one year old, the likelihood of an LKQ (insurer re-name for used Junk yard part) being a *Used After Market part is very likely.
My insurance company (Nationwide) has a specific option that you have to purchase in order to get OEM parts in a repair.
Man do I ever wish ALL companies offered that!!!!!!!!
Quote:
*Used After Market part is very likely.
huh? (to me) and on all my estimates a 'used' or 'recycled' part is a used oem part...a reman part is a remanufactored oem part...an a/m part is a part not manufactored by the orginal manufactor... _________________ Have you been helped by a poster? Do you want to show your appreciation? YOU CAN !! Just simply click on the donate button and send them some coin!
My point wasn't that OEM parts are crap, just that they aren't the end-all-be-all of quality. I had my car repaired with an aftermarket bumper cover and I couldn't tell any difference whatsoever between it and the OEM part.
On both of my claims (only had 2...ever), the adjustor went to great pains to explain the quality of aftermarket vs. OEM parts, and they were shocked when I said I didn't care. Apparently they get a LOT of argument from their insured when they mention aftermarket parts.
Of course they get a lot of complaints because insureds believe they should be able to get a new part even though their previous was 10 years old. They don't understand the like kind and quality. In my history of dealing with autos (had three that needed quite a bit of work) A/M parts are just as good if not better than OEM. But getting back to the original post...we will never live in a hassle-free the real question is...is the issue worth the hassle. In this case I believe that the insurer was offering what he usually does but "Bob" gave him a hard time because he wanted better than like kind and quality and the insurer gave in to make the insured happy.
In this case I believe that the insurer was offering what he usually does but "Bob" gave him a hard time because he wanted better than like kind and quality and the insurer gave in to make the insured happy.
Sounds to me like ''bob's'' claim was subrogated...
Quote:
The bully escaped narrowly but was trapped later in the morning .
The rep probably 'gave up' because it wasn't worth the hassle as the claimant carrier was going to just pay based on their payment. _________________ Have you been helped by a poster? Do you want to show your appreciation? YOU CAN !! Just simply click on the donate button and send them some coin!
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: Used parts are an option
The problem is that they are not always cost effective. If they are front end parts like a fender, hood, or bumper, they will most likely need rock chips sanded out, then be primed and blocked before they can be painted. If the car just needs a door shell, usually its cheaper to buy new, because the wrecking yard's price is based on the assembly. I feel that reconditiond parts are scary because we don't know how they were damaged. (If you saw the junk that these guys drag out of my scrap pile to fix, I think you would agree). I have had aftermarket parts with as low as 1% rejection rates brought in, and I almost always find at the least, a subtle difference. The latest round with some insurers is if the car is one day old it is supposed to get a/m if available. _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject: New parts do not increase the value of a car
Quote:
an attorney should know the priciples of indemnity are violated if you put new parts on an old car b/c it would be considered putting him in a better position. (unless the car is only 2-3yrs old)
Aside from the fact that any collision reduces the marketability and value of a vehicle, unless it can be proven that the replacement of new parts increases the overall value of the vehicle, new parts must be considered and betterment should not be charged.
Not to long ago, in Texas I believe, insurers were ordered to pay for violating this principle you speak of. They had to pay restitution to vehicle owners for taking bettement. There is a landmark court case that involves the replacement of an entire engine with less mileage on it. The insurer reduced the claim and charged betterment. It was found in favor of the vehicle owner when the insurer could not prove the overall value of the van did not increase with the lower mileage motor. _________________ If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
Man do I ever wish ALL companies offered that!!!!!!!!
My life is made much easier in that the carrier I work for does not use AM parts of any kind on any car (insured, claimant, age, etc). Also don't use LKQ for anything but wheels and bumpers (though I do tend to use them for additional parts if the vehicle is of an older model but even then only for minor/less important parts).
Aside from the fact that any collision reduces the marketability and value of a vehicle, unless it can be proven that the replacement of new parts increases the overall value of the vehicle, new parts must be considered and betterment should not be charged.
Not to long ago, in Texas I believe, insurers were ordered to pay for violating this principle you speak of. They had to pay restitution to vehicle owners for taking bettement.
If you had quoted it correctly, you would have been correct. However, you fail to mention that betterment was not allowed only because the contract between the carrier and the insured did not allow for it. Betterment is still a valid deduction as it can be show to place the party in a better position then they were before the accident (it does not need to be show to increase the _value_ of the vehicle... only that the deduction serves to place the party in the same position they were before the accident.
