It's also allowed on 1st party claims under the terms of the contract.

Message Author
ampm-bookmark
delicious-small Add to delicious
yahoomyweb-small Add to YahooMyWeb
blinklist-small Add to BlinkList
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 2:04 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
...would have to pay the claim out of their own pocket, and see if they would (for example) think it is just fine and dandy to put a full set of (let's say) brand new tires on a vehicle that is driving around with all of 2/32nd's and the cords showing
EXACTLY!
tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 2:37 pm   Post subject: once again tag teamed by T and Lori  

Quote:
... insurance companies can't buy judges and juries




It could be surmized that one of the courntry's largest insurers benefited by putting millions in election donations behind a state supreme court judge election. That very same judge who would not recuse himself when it came time to decide in a 1.25 billion dollar judgment against that very insurer and his very vote overturned a previous decision. I guess you are right, you can't buy a judge in this counrty.





Quote:
. It's not controlled by the DOI. It's also allowed on 1st party claims under the terms of the contract.




Policy language does not have to be approved by the State regulators in

the Department of Insurance? Are you required to provide the information to the vehicle owner on how you arrived at the decision of how one tire with more tread on it increased the value of a vehicle?



That's right you guys are the ones that believe a collision repair increases the value of a vehicle but that same accident does not harm the vehicle owner when they try to trade that repaired vehicle. How can betterment exist and diminishment of value not? Get real!


_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 2:49 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
It could be surmized that one of the courntry's largest insurers benefited by putting millions in election donations behind a state supreme court judges election who would not recuse himself when it came time to decide in a 1.25 billion dollar judgment against that very insurer?
It's just as likely that it did not affect the decision. Decisions are made on the basis of law. But we also have something called an appeal.



Quote:
Policy language does not have to be approved by the State regulators in the Department of Insurance?
In most states, yes. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The DOI does not make the laws that govern whether or not betterment is legal. If it's legal, they can approve the wording of the policy (and could also approve it if it's legality has not been determined). But they don't have a say as to if betterment is legal or not.
tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 3:08 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
It's just as likely that it did not affect the decision. Decisions are made on the basis of law. But we also have something called an appeal.




I am not saying this judge was bought and paid for but the appearance certainly don't look good. This was already the final appeal at the state supreme court level. He was the new guy on the bench, everyone else voted the same way as before. His vote was the deciding factor in overturning the 1.25 billion dollar judgement in favor of the insurer that helped get him elected.



There are no appeals left.





You say betterment has been proven to be legal by case law. Well so has DV in third party cases so why are you contesting whether it is owed? The only reason that it is not paid in first party cases in most states because insurers lobbied to have it removed from first party contracts in all but three states. At least three states see the wisdom in the loss in value of property that is covered by a cash value policy.


_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 3:22 pm   Post subject:   

I don't know that I've ever said it's legally not owed to 3rd parties. What I _have_ said is that the reason why it exists is SOLEY because it's PERCEIVED to exist. That is, people _think_ that a vehicle should be depreciated in value because it's been repaired... not because it is inferior in any way. As such, why would an insurance company want to go along with this perception? It ONLY serves to drive up the cost of insurance. Very few people (probably around .000001% of claimants) benefit from DV. However, there are other people that make a good purse off of it. Perhaps we should not listen to these people who have something to gain from it. Smile

tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 3:28 pm   Post subject:   

InsuranceMaze
Community Consultant
Leave a quick message



Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 582


24.31 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 3:41 pm   Post subject: the consumer gains from it  

Quote:
Perhaps we should not listen to these people who have something to gain from it.




A wise person once stated do not take monetary advice from the very people that owe you money.



All one has to do to prove DV is to offer the vehicle for sell to the highest bidder. Agree to sell it and the negligent party would owe the difference between what it sold for and the fair market pre loss value.



This has been proven in court and is proven everyday when people trade those vehicles in with accident histories only to recieve less than what they should have. You would then say that it is their own fault for not being a good negotiator.



Missouri, like other states, claim you do not have to sell your car to realize the loss. Evidently one could arrive at a loss of value by determining the serverity of damage and how it routinely affects buyer's purchases of vehicles with accident histories. But Missouri insurers still tell people you must sell your car to prove your loss further driving the need for people to hire representation to seek their demand for the loss of value.



I have never seen a dealer give anyone a higher price for trade in because they have one shock newer than the other or a battery that was two years newer than the replaced battery and one tire that had 25 to 50 percent more tread on it.



Quote:
It ONLY serves to drive up the cost of insurance.




The mantra of cost control of the insurance industry is to drive fear into policy holders and claimant's minds that receiving benefits from a policy in which you gambled you would never need will drive up the cost of insurance and further reduce the annual billions in profits of insurers.


_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:20 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
A wise person once stated do not take monetary advice from the very people that owe you money.
Or from those who stand to profit from that vary advice? Seems like it's really the same thing.



It's really hard to address your posts as when your shown to be incorrect or way off base, you simple go off on another tangent. That has been true of every post in this thread.



Quote:
All one has to do to prove DV is to offer the vehicle for sell to the highest bidder. Agree to sell it and the negligent party would owe the difference between what it sold for and the fair market pre loss value.
That is really for a court to decide but I think it's not very likely. You'd have to show that the _repaired damage_ caused a reduction in the price... not that you simply were offered less.



Quote:
This has been proven in court and is proven everyday when people trade those vehicles in with accident histories only to receive less than what they should have. You would then say that it is their own fault for not being a good negotiator.
I'd say that is certainly a defense to the DV claim.



Quote:
All one has to do to prove DV is to offer the vehicle for sell to the highest bidder.
Quote:
Missouri, like other states, claim you do not have to sell your car to realize the loss.


Quote:
But Missouri insurers still tell people you must sell your car to prove your loss further driving the need for people to hire representation to seek their demand for the loss of value.


Bottom line, you are still obligated to prove your loss. How this is done is up to the person making the claim. An insurance company can certainly give their opinion as to how a person needs to prove their claim. I see nothing wrong with that. I can also see an insurance company wanting to discourage any attempt at a DV claim. Again, nothing wrong with that.



Quote:
I have never seen a dealer give anyone a higher price for trade in because they have one shock newer than the other or a battery that was two years newer than the replaced battery and one tire that had 25 to 50 percent more tread on it.
I'm really not sure how many times I can say this or that you will ever read/understand what I've clearly said in post after post.... betterment is not taken because the part increase the _value_ of the vehicle. Its taken _BECAUSE THE NEW PART IS BETTER (has a longer life, offers more use, etc) THEN THE OLD PART. It has NOTHING to do with the value of a vehicle!



Quote:
The mantra of cost control of the insurance industry is to drive fear into policy holders and claimant's minds that receiving benefits from a policy in which you gambled you would never need will drive up the cost of insurance and further reduce the annual billions in profits of insurers.
Again, your mixing 1st and 3rd party claims together here. Pick one and stick with it. I've mentioned it before and I'll say it again... DV is a PERCIEVED loss. This means it ONLY exists because people THINK it exists. In reality the repaired vehicle is just as good as an unrepaired vehicle. The result in DV only serves to increase the cost of insurance and line the pockets of those who further its cause (know anyone who fits this bill?).
tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:38 pm   Post subject:   

We will certainly have to agree to disagree.



I profit very little in comparison to time spent helping people recover their loss in value. Insurers do not pay for losses they do not owe so the checks that they continue to pay those losses for must just be in the perceived imagination of the people recieving them.



Even a judge comprehends the simplistic view that a value of a piece of property diminishes with damage it incurs. Your logic would suggest that if the Mona Lisa was vandalized and the insurer paid for an artist to touch up the painting that the value would remain the same because it serves to function as a work of art.



As far as betterment, I understand your attempt to defend it. It's still baloney. The concept that you are giving the vehicle owner something better than they had before is only percieved. How does a mismatched tire make them better, it actually has more potential to cause a steering management issue. And that's better?



I'll try to not run off on tangent for you, so you can better comprehend my points. Better yet, why respond at all. People are pretty sharp with some exceptions and they can choose to make decisions on their own regarding my comments without your condecention. It is after all a system of checks and balances.



_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:27 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
Even a judge comprehends the simplistic view that a value of a piece of property diminishes with damage it incurs. Your logic would suggest that if the Mona Lisa was vandalized and the insurer paid for an artist to touch up the painting that the value would remain the same because it serves to function as a work of art.
Here we go right back the the beginning.... I _NEVER_ said DV did not exist! Read that again.



So your saying that the value of a car and it's parts equates to the value of one of the most famous painting of Da Vinci (priceless)? Let me _try_ to bring you more in line with reality. Do I think most qualified repair professionals, such as yourself, can repair almost every vehicle so that it is either in the same condition or better then it was before being damaged? Yes... most certainly. Do I think restoring a priceless piece of art is the same thing? Ah, no. Not even close.
tcope
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

tcope
Forum Expert

Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 6175

Location: Salt Lake City, UT
375.37 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 9:27 pm   Post subject: Here we go again,  

I guess we'll have to use the kiss principle and keep is simple.



Folks, this is a prime example of why it is so difficult for you to deal with some insurance adjusters. They are pumped so full of years of indoctrination of how to keep you from your money and how they can best shepherd it for their companies, it makes them swell with authority, control, intimidation, and power while acting in condiscension and smarminess of attitude.



Warning going off on another tangent that really is related to the discussion but T will say is not



Forever in the language of a cash value policy or auto policy stated it was their duty to restore your vehicle using any means that were both reasonable and necessary. Of late they have been allowed to change the language that is more accomodating for them and places more power in their determination of what the loss is worth.



Your policy now allows them to be the repair expert and they can determine the value of your loss based on data that they have control over. They have changed reasonable and necessary to usual and customary. So if it is usual and customary that repair shops beholding to insurers do not perform certain procedures and give the insurers discounts, use junk parts, imitation parts, then your insurer is only obligated to pay for the same. If the quality of the work is substandard, usual and customary is all they owe you.



If I, as a repair expert of more than thirty years and in the business of collision repair as an owner for more than twenty five years, can't come to a concensus unless I agree to the logic or the negotiating tactics of the insurer, how can you as a policy holder ever hope to negotiate what you feel is rightly owed you without an advocate or legal representation when you and your insurer do not agree to the amount of loss.



We are asked to negotiate your settlements on your behalf (act as legal representation, the unauthorized practice of law) and you can see how they refuse to accept any logic or premise other than their own.



What T fails to comprehend that I am making a comparison to is really pretty simple. Property policies are cash value policies. Your property is insured for the value. Do I believe a DaVinci painting is comparable to the value of a collision repair? Not hardly. But the principles of determing the value of losses and what you are promised to be made whole are the very same principles T is unwilling to accept. So he attempts t discredit me much like they do when they would prefer you not use your shop but their preferred shop that is contractually beholding to them. Oh did I mention they give the insurer discounts? They can't afford to put original parts on your car but can ask the shop to give them a ten percent discount? Why isn't that discount yours?



Again he hawks the theory that a collision repairer can restore the entire value of a vehicle based on what he feels is fair, (bear in mind, he is the shepherd of his companies fortunes.) and that we as repairers have the capability to make your vehicle just as valuable and equal to the car as it was prior to the accident. Sometimes when repairs are minor and we are bolting on parts with no structural damage, there is less loss of value.



Here is a very simple (kiss) principle of collision repair. Place a pop can on the floor and place a brick or block on top of it. The structural side walls of the can will support the weight of that block. Now remove the block and step on the can just barely kinking the side wall. Pull the can back straight as best you can. Now place the block back onto the can and see if that can is just as strong as it was before it was compromised.



The analogy is that we are asked to make similar repairs, and we are required to be liable for those repairs that insurers make decisions on. I can no more guarantee that a frame rail or quarterpanel innerstructure on a car will perform the same way as the engineer intended for it to and not compromise the safety of the occupants. You tube is full of poor shop repairs that have been exposed to be of poor quality and most of them are preferred shops of insurers. In most cases either the shop or the insurer has to buy those cars back to save themselves from embarrasment and they wind up back on Sucker Sams pay as you go lot for another family's life to be jeopardized.



My entire point of all my posts are that people who are not experts, make decisions on how your vehicles are repaired. They intimidate shops into not charging prices based on market conditions, but on what they are willing to pay. As a result bean counters and non professionals are making decisions that affect your families safety and having no liability in the process.



I am not anti insurance, I am anti policy holders and claimants not being paid for pre loss conditiion and I am against non repair professionals making decisions that affect the safety and value of your vehicle and family. I am pro insurance paying what the contract promises with out all the new revisions designed to avoid doing so while placing consumers in peril.



_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 12:12 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
Perhaps we should not listen to these people who have something to gain from it.
THANK YOU THANK YOU TCOPE...and ONE of my points re: Mike's incessant claim that diminshed value exsists on nearly every repair, (or atleast the report is necessary I guess Rolling Eyes )
Quote:
All one has to do to prove DV is to offer the vehicle for sell to the highest bidder. Agree to sell it and the negligent party would owe the difference between what it sold for and the fair market pre loss value
OK, Mike, let's also have two identical vehicles next to each other, only one has bald tires..which one is worth more? hmmmmmmmmmm....so was the bald tire guy 'bettered' by putting new tires on his vehicle? hmmmmmmmmm? ''we'' call that betterment.....
Quote:
It's really hard to address your posts as when your shown to be incorrect or way off base, you simple go off on another tangent. That has been true of every post in this thread.
And Mike always seem to be able to bring diminished value into darn near every post....most of these should be moved to the adverting section....google the diminished value, then try and find one that Mike doesn't work for....... Rolling Eyes
Quote:
I profit very little in comparison to time spent helping people recover their loss in value.
LaughingVery HappySmileLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing and that's why you do it right? pa-leeeeeeeeeze........



Actually your posts, should say, WARNING, I'm plugging my side line job here!

Quote:
Oh did I mention they give the insurer discounts? They can't afford to put original parts on your car but can ask the shop to give them a ten percent discount? Why isn't that discount yours?
NO, Folks, Mike (from his own posts) isn't a DRP shop with any carrier, but knows everything there is to know about them... Rolling Eyes well he knows about everything there is to know about everything....anyway, ...the company I work for does not have ANY DISCOUNTS AT ALL with their DRP shops, but Mike, knows WAY more about that than I do.... Rolling EyesRolling EyesRolling Eyes
Quote:
Sometimes when repairs are minor and we are bolting on parts with no structural damage, there is less loss of value.

Meaning ALL vehicle repairs cause a loss of value....hmmmmm seems to me that collision repair facilitys who's owners do NOT do diminished value reports for a fee on the side NEVER say that! I have NEVER seen ad in the lobby of a repair facility that advertizes this 'service'. Except, well..... I tell you what, I wouldn't let a shop fix my car that openly says that they can't EVEN replace a bumper cover, or headlamp on your car without causing a loss of value to your vehicle!!!!!!! .....something to think about FOLKS...but then ...what do I know huh Mike.......


_________________

"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr.
Lori
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

Lori
Forum Expert

Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8080

Location: Missouri
287.93 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:04 pm   Post subject: All I hear from you is vitriolic harping  

I am simply an advocate for proper repairs. Your industry interference in the collision industry has contributed to lowering the quality of repairs in the last 20 years by trying to manipulate the repair process and paying for cheap parts and cheap repairs. Your company may be an exception. But this is the perception of consumers and independent shops and shops that suffer tortious interference from insurers who blatantly spew mistruths about the character of shop owners that refuse to bend over and kiss the kysters of insurance adjusters who are drunk with their perceived authority and power over my industry. Many of those shops that bought into the "lets work to gether promise" are now coming to realize that those relationships are oneside to the favor of only the insurance industry at the expense of consumers and collision shop owners.



I see way too many consumers posting about how upsetting their experiences are with many insurance company representatives on this forum. You all play nice until someone comes along to ursurp your authority or expose some of your industry's dark sides.



You put too much thought in your posts about what you interpret my posts to be. I have customers that profusely thank me for helping them with knowledge and education concerning their losses and for giving them guidence on how to be paid for all their losses to worry about your attempts to discredit my service to my customers. I'll lose no sleep concerning myself with what you or your tag team buddy T spew in attempts to discredit what is truth, I am sorry it bothers you guys to hear differently. Simply do not respond to my posts if you do not agree. It only appears that you guys are systmatically attacking someone who's only concern is that people get what they are promised and not what you feel they only deserve.



I would expect nothing less of you or T. You have been trying to discourage me from helping people with alternative points of view and attempting to draw me into confrontation that which show me in the light that you wish to paint me. Sorry you have failed.



Have a great holiday weekend. I'll be busy helping policy holders in southwest missouri and southeast kansas try to get paid for all their hail and storm damage where cat team adjusters come in and pay half what is owed. It almost appears that the method to underpay or pay for pdr repairs on two inch hail is intentional. I am sure the bean counters know that people cash those initial checks and do not repair their cars, not knowing that they have recieved indemnification for half of their losses. Insurers benefit in windfall profits when claimants are underpaid. Did I mention that the insurance industry profits have risen almost 5 billion annually even though record losses have been paid out after hurricanes, wildfires, and Tornadoes? One might have to think that some of those profits have to be derived from the claims practices of those companies that use the McKenzie method of putting on the boxing gloves when consumers attempt to recover their losses and insurers denying and delaying them.



Yes I believe that DV exists in most all repairs but diminishes with the age of the vehicle. I do not suggest people attempt to collect DV on older cars.

The only reason I even began exploring DV, I saw it as a way for consumers to be made whole. If an insurer is warned of an impending DV claim where the insurer is attempting to use substandard repairs and parts, it may improve the chances of a quality repair being made and less junk yard parts be employed. It is simply a tool at a third party's disposal to hold the insurer accountable and channeling liability back to a party that wants to dictate the lower quality of parts and going against manufacturer recommendations. DV has increased in recent years simply because insurers are making decisions that shouldn't be their choice to make instead of relying on repair experts. Working in a bodyshop and managing employees in the past does not make you a repair expert. Sounds like an opportunist that saw there was more to be made in the insurance industry than owning a bodyshop. If the shoe fits wear it! Insurers are attempting to make collision repair a assembly line remanufacturing process when the people that perform those repairs are in fact artisans and craftsmen who are underpaid for their skill levels. Their counterparts in the Mechanical industry make higher wages thus discouraging new young talent wanting to become collision specialists.



You really ought to check out those Youtube exposes made by television news reporters on how horrible some of todays collision repairs are, primarily because of insurers trying to be thrifty and cutting corners, imposing their ideas of quality on uneducated consumers and the DRP hackers that choose to make the insurer their customer rather than the vehicle owner.



_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2008 2:43 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
Your industry interference in the collision industry has contributed to lowering the quality of repairs in the last 20 years by trying to manipulate the repair process and paying for cheap parts and cheap repairs.
Actually ''my'' industry has been successful in aiding in the prosecution of foul shops that ripped people off, did horrible repairs, charged for things they didn't do, put on different parts than they were paid to do, not backing up their work product and the list goes on and on...even you would surely admit (as I freely do) that ''your'' industry has it's share of messes that needed/need cleaning up..

Quote:
You put too much thought in your posts about what you interpret my posts to be.
That's very possible...I assume that you are putting as much thought into what you are typing as I am.

Quote:
Your company may be an exception. But this is the perception of consumers and independent shops and shops that suffer tortious interference from insurers who blatantly spew mistruths about the character of shop owners that refuse to bend over and kiss the kysters of insurance adjusters who are drunk with their perceived authority and power over my industry
Maybe my company is an exception although I doubt it....see Mike this is the same issue I always have with you, your preception is typed as FACT without any FACT WHAT SO EVER to back it up....If you would say, ''I bet'' or "I think" rather than (in this instance) stating it as FACT that
Quote:
Oh did I mention they give the insurer discounts?
When that isn't true...you don't know this, but you state it as fact....RE:
Quote:
suffer tortious interference from insurers who blatantly spew mistruths about the character of shop owners
First of all if it is TRUELY tortious, then these folks ought to have a pretty full bank account and not need to work anymore...I 'personally' have never spewed any untruth about any shop owner...EVER.......I'll assume you are talking about steering....again if there is true tortious action, then shouldn't be any hill for a stepper like you Mike, that's what they built court houses for, and have nothing at all to do with me, you the OP or this thread..
Quote:
You all play nice until someone comes along to ursurp your authority or expose some of your industry's dark sides.
Don't know what authority you could possibly mean, unless you are talking about ACTUAL knowledge regarding the claims process...also don't know when we haven't ''played nice'' unless attacked....I freely admit there are problems in my industry, however haven't seen you admit the same, and just by checking any of the mulitude of website around yours the 'in-fighting' alone explains why your industry is in such a mess...and cannot come to any commonality...and who is policing your industry Mike? Atleast we have the DOI right? and a body of 'rules' that must be followed, don't recall seeing any 'unfair or fair repair practices'... Rolling Eyes
Quote:
I have customers that profusely thank me for helping them with knowledge and education concerning their losses and for giving them guidence on how to be paid for all their losses to worry about your attempts to discredit my service to my customers
Yeah, me too regarding shops that are trying to pull something over on an unsuspecting vehicle owner Rolling Eyes Just had one last week as a matter of fact...thing is if you were doing this out of the goodness of your heart I wouldn't have an issue with it, or if you were doing it and getting paid, and could atleast accept that there is just the 'chance' that every single vehicle didn't suffer dimished value different story, or if you didn't find a way to wrangle your side line gig (maybe it's full time now) into every post...then your credibility might improve...well along with quoteing facts that is...
Quote:
Simply do not respond to my posts if you do not agree.
And I wouldn't if (like you) I didn't give a crap about this site, but I do care alot about this site, and it's reputation for acruate information. I care that people are getting the information that they came for and not a twisted non-sensical, self promoting, profit seeking rambling, even telling them to google dim.value knowing full well guess who pops up! What do I make or market here Mike? Do I stand to gain one penny outside this site for ANYTHING I say? NO>>>>not a cent...can't say the same can ya!
Quote:
I see way too many consumers posting about how upsetting their experiences are with many insurance company representatives on this forum
Me too and what do we (adjusters) tell them? We given them every tool we have to combate it....don't see you posting on ANY threads where people want to know what to do about the crappy repairs to their cars...
Quote:
I would expect nothing less of you or T. You have been trying to discourage me from helping people with alternative points of view and attempting to draw me into confrontation that which show me in the light that you wish to paint me.
I'm sorry Mike, look all your posts over buddy, and see who has EVERY SINGLE TIME drawn first blood with slams and slanders....
Quote:
which show me in the light that you wish to paint me.
Nope Mike you successfully painted that picture all by yourself, and brillantly I might ad....
Quote:
Sorry you have failed.
NOT....you wouldn't believe the pm's I get about you!
Quote:
Working in a bodyshop and managing employees in the past does not make you a repair expert.
What does then MIke?
Quote:
Sounds like an opportunist that saw there was more to be made in the insurance industry than owning a bodyshop.
True, kind of, but how is it opportunistic? Actually the truth of the matter is it's easier! I've freely said that time and time again, I've got ONE set of rules to keep track of, not 25, I don't have to deal (as much) with parts people and their 'it'll be there tomorrow' bologna....the hours are WAY better....the benefits are better.....I could go on and on...it's just less hours, more pay, and just an easier job in many regards.....so what? Would you not make the same choice if it was better for your family? How can you find something wrong in that?
Quote:
If the shoe fits wear it!
So I'll wear that shoe for ya' Mike, less the opportunist...well maybe I was an opportunist, but don't see the harm...saw an opportunity, thought it was a better fit for my family and took it...ok I'll wear it...

Quote:
when the people that perform those repairs are in fact artisans and craftsmen
I totally agree with THIS statement and you can't say I've ever said different...If they are underpaid how is that MY fault? You all set the rates, your own competitors undercut you .... how is that 'my' industrys fault? What about all the sites that have poor techs making squat that complain about the fat owners, living life large, raking in all the profits and not passing on any of the gravy at all? What about that MIke? No benefits, no bonus programs, minimal pay. Parts discounts are getting better and better, (per the shops in my area) shops are making more and more on parts, due to the competitative nature of that portion of the business. High producing shops are making more and more on the bottom line, but still (per the techs I talk to) the owners see no need in passing these profits on. Instead they keep buying bigger homes, cars, boats, farms, race cars...even having the techs work on their 'toys' in the shops.....So Mike, that one is in your corner (tech pay)...not ours...
Quote:
Their counterparts in the Mechanical industry make higher wages thus discouraging new young talent wanting to become collision specialists
AGAIN this belongs squarely in YOUR backyard NOT mine...You think we don't handle any 'mechanical' claims Mike? Hey guy you refuse to be a DRP right? (or did anyone ask?)....So you don't have to pay the 'prevailing' rate, that ALL of your competitors are charging....whether they are DRP's or not....YOU GUYS SET THE RATES...INS. COMPANIES DO NOT! Call your 'buddies' in the business up....and tell them next time a survey comes along say it's 75.00 bucks an hour..oh wait that's price fixing....ok then tell them to tell the truth, what they charge an hour when a customer comes in...oh wait that's what they already do....geeeeeeeeeeze....LAST TIME YOU SET THE PRICE!
Quote:
You really ought to check out those Youtube exposes made by television news reporters on how horrible some of todays collision repairs are
I have, and have even been part of a 'sting' or two myself....(I'm an undercover girl for an ''authority'')
Quote:
primarily because of insurers trying to be thrifty and cutting corners, imposing their ideas of quality on uneducated consumers and the DRP hackers that choose to make the insurer their customer rather than the vehicle owner.
But (AGAIN) here's where you are wrong....the reason is that these are bad, unethical, slimballs that are ripping people off. Doing horrific 'repairs', lining their pockets with the repair money, not doing what they were paid to do, not either having the skill or where with all to complete the repair in the beginning, or in most cases simply not giving a crap, and slapping it together, and pocketing all the money, and unfortunately putting peoples lives in danger....and you know what Mike? In ever single incident that I have been part of the shop owner was the one calling all the shots...every single one.....and laughing all the way to the bank....so to say that a shop hacking a car is the responsiblity of the insurer is just nuts put the blame where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of the shop owner...after all he/she is responsible for the quality of work that comes out of the shop NOT the carrier right? Isn't that your point (well one of them)? I can tell you this, that when I was working in a shop (and yes we had several DRP's) there was not ONE car that was ever repaired substandard, nor did anyone request the same, all vehicle owners were informed EXACTLY how their vehicle was being repaired and with what...and yes, after I write a sheet I personally call every single owner, and tell them EXACTLY how I am repairing their car, and with what parts etc....Have there ever been some rework isssues come up? You bet there have been although few....Those are addressed and made right to the owners satisfaction.......at the carriers expense thru the lifetime warranty provided by the carrier...who warrants the repair shops work.....


_________________

"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr.
Lori
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

Lori
Forum Expert

Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8080

Location: Missouri
287.93 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:28 pm   Post subject: I would be surprised if you didnt get PM messages about me.  

I am sure most of them are from your insurance friends and some people that can't imagine that someone would challenge Lori's expertice.



I get messages as well that tell me everything from "your talking to a brick wall she is just brainwashed" to comments that think you could come to realize that insurance adjusters really arent the friends of independent thinking collision repair owners. Some collision repair owners actually are independent and run their own business not influenced by insurers. I know from experience adjusters hate having to deal with shop owners who know they aren't owned by the insurance industry and realize it is our name on the front of our business. We don't want partners that offer one sided agreements that can remove you from programs from refusing to do substandard work and clipping of vehicles.



A lot of those DRP shops are being thrown under the bus just because they do not fit into insurer plans and they are beginning to have second thoughts that they should never have trusted the motives of the insurance industry wanting to be business partners.



I get messages in real conversations daily like the one from my mail man yesterday.



He was broadsided by a redlight runner.



He claimed the at fault part insurer was rude from the get go and refused to deal with his claim. It was assigned to an adjuster who would be on vacation for two weeks. He was told to let his own insurer handle the claim if he had coverage and they would deal with his insurer later. (good example of a violation of the unfair claims practices act)



The claimant calls his insurance and they say, you really should let them handle it, it was their fault. (we are contractually obligated to help you but we really don't want to).



One call to the Department of Insurance to complain about both companies and he recieved a call from the at fault insurer the next day ready to handle his claim.



He is scolded by the appraiser because he went to his place of work and couldnt find his car. Claimant arranges to meet appraiser at his house to inspect damage and he is arrogant and upset because he was told their was only a dent in the door. The vehicle is an obvious total loss.



Claimant asks for a rental. Looks to me like it's driveable. Claimant say's he cannot safely steer it. Oh, that's only an alignment problem, you should have it aligned so you can drive it til it can be repaired or we decide to total. The frame was bent and the driver had to crawl across the console from passenger side to get behind the wheel.



It was determined to be a total loss two days later. Offer for total loss 2000 or more less than ACV. (never accept their first offer) Refused to pay for rental because insurer claims he could drive the car, after all he drove it home 3 blocks from the accident. Claimant claims he could not hold vehicle on the road because it took two hands on one side of the wheel to keep car from crawling into oncoming traffic. Still no rental car.



More calls to his own insurer to settle with them, they still refuse. More calls to the Dept of Insurance. His own insurer finally settles and ACV is now 2000 higher than offer from at fault insurer.



This seems to be the rule more than the exception.



_________________

If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 605

Location: in the missouri ozarks
193.97 Dollars($)

All times are GMT
 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ... 10, 11, 12  Next  
Page 3 of 12


Get free auto insurance quote
State Auto Insurance Laws in USA

USA Auto Insurance laws
Ask Community Experts

flash plugin

Quick Links

Must See

Community

Hot topics in forums

Latest in blogs

AmPmInsure on Facebook



Page loaded in 0.902 seconds.