by Guest » Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:21 am
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
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
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 03:45 pm Post Subject:
Dave,
Just getting ready to head out...actually I took some additional time off and have had a mini vacation... :wink:
Yesterday a vender told me that a franchise shop in my area is apparently being investigated by the SIU department of their largest drp.
Aren't parts delivery guys a wealth of information and gossip? Cracks me up...want to know something about another shop ask the parts delivery guy! :lol: :lol: Not sure what the SIU dept of the largest drp, do you mean the SIU dept of an insurance company is investgating one of their largest DRP shop?What he said was that they are talking to some ex-employees.
WOW! Sounds like somebody is in a heap of trouble!!!! Do you know what the accusation is against the shop?I think this is great news
I agree, if they are doing something wrong/fruadulent or unethical, hang em high!but I wonder if I am making more out of it than I should.
I don't think you're making more out of it, than you should...if an insurance carrier has their SIU dept investigating a shop, I'd say that's a reallllllllllly big deal....Does this sort of thing happen all of the time?
All I can speak to is my area and the company I work for..and without knowing the nature of the investigation, I don't know, all I do know is that I've not ever heard of our SIU dept investgating any shops in my area....but I do know of some bad bad repairs/then investgations that have resulted in prosecutions once in awhile, generally though the 'bad' shop will (when caught) immediately cough up the money to fix whatever the problem is....as far as actual DRP shops I only know of two instances in the past oh five years or so that had issues like I mentioned and they were AFTER the shops had already been removed for some reason....Let us know what you find out re: the actual issue...you mentioned "franchise"...wouldn't be a ''star'' in the industry would it? If so is it 'corporate' shop or still an indenpendent owner? (just curiousity there on my part)..Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 04:42 pm Post Subject:
Quote:
if those shop owners would grow a set
see....told you every shop that has a working relationship with a carrier is a scum bucket to mike
See there you go again, paraphrasing with the intent to discredit. I never said they were what you called them, I just wish they had the testicular fortitude to stand up to insurers and reclaim their business.
It is not my industry that claims it needs to be downsized, it's your industry that manipulates repair agreements to the detriment of shop onwers. We liken it to being on drugs, Insurers promise to be great partners and send work to preferred shops. All you have to do is work for the pusher, I mean insurer, a little cheaper, faster, use as many taiwan parts as you can. They become dependent on the insurer drug of promise to the point they forget that the vehicle owner is the customer and that the contract of repair between the shop and vehicle owner is primary. Once they become dependent, they do not know how to remove themselves from these one sided programs. The insurer turns off the tap to these dependent shops that can no longer buy the drug for the price the pusher wants for his product. Another one bites the dust and another one is waiting in line and pleading to be on the drug or sows teat.
It's all been documented in all the trade magazines of our industry and discussed ad nauseum but Lori doesn't believe this problem exists. Trade industry analysts admit because of higher deductibles and policy holders reluctance to file claims for fear of being canceled many people simply are paying out of pocket or not fixing their damages. Hence less work for too many existing shops, so the natural attrition begins. What's sad is the fact that longtime appraisers and adjusters have been losing their jobs at an even higher rate. It's been decided that they are no longer needed. Those people bring many stories of behind the scenes antics of the industry. Once large and powerful magnates of insurance commerce are losing money because of not living up to the promises they lay claim to. Help from other shop owners exposing poor repairs and post repair inspectors in the DV field are also exposing the underpaid repairs by insurers and their partners. You see folks when you twist the arm of shop owners to work cheaper and demand ever deepening discounts, it opens up a pandora's box of very bad repairs performed by shops trying to cut corners and defrauding the consumer and their partner. Some after being exposed for their fraudulent repairs are allowed to remain on the morphine drip of insurance work.
Of course, Lori will say I am lying or telling bald faced lies again or simply saying Mikeisms. But the fact or truth exists if you know where to find it. Just look at how once staunch sound insurers stocks are plummeting. Many people simply refuse to continue to buy their coverages from companies like this and word gets around about the poor claims practices to the point that they are bought up and absorbed in mergers and then some once fair companies become infected with the claims practices of those that are failing to meet peoples expectations and promises; so the cycle begins again.
Lets hear some more Lorisms on Mikeisms. If you can't discredit someone simply call them a liar or call their commentary outlandish. When proof is given, it is denied it is proof or from sources they do not respect or recognize. If you can't silence the truth or accept a different perspective, stalk them and harass them hoping they will leave. Lori you and T only inspire me to share more facts and truths regarding practices. I am glad I came back to visit, seems a lot of people are upset about how their claims are handled and the disrepectful treatment they receive from some in your industry.
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 06:57 pm Post Subject: Now who is playing with semantics.
Mike said
In Missouri like many states, The unfair claims practices generally say that if the insurer prepares and estimate themselves it must be for an amount that the vehicle owner can restore to preloss condition. The insurer seldom can do this by their own admission. So if the vehicle owner refused to take their vehicle to one of those shops of yours, the claims act also says that the insurer must guarantee the repairs. We generally find insurers really do not guarantee repairs, they may guarantee their shop can perform those repairs. Still holding the insurer liable.
T said
I'll save you some time... scroll down to page 4, section D
I'll even quote that part:
"(D) Estimates.
1. If an insurer prepares an estimate of
the cost of automobile repairs, the estimate
shall be in an amount for which it may be reasonably
expected the damages can be satisfactorily
repaired. The insurer shall give a
copy of the estimate to the claimant and may
furnish to the claimant the names of one (1)
or more conveniently located repair shops."
What you state above is not even mentioned in the act! Your some how twisting partial information around to get your statement. As shown above, it simply states, "the estimate shall be in an amount for which it may be reasonably expected the damages can be satisfactorily repaired". Hmmmm, that is not even close to what you stated! Let's just be clear on this.... your not even CLOSE with your statement.
the cost of automobile repairs, the estimate
shall be in an amount for which it may be reasonably
expected the damages can be satisfactorily
repaired.
I believe thats exactly what I said. Since a vehicle owner is owed preloss condition or to be made whole and placed in a position they held prior to the loss I would think that the above statment to be the same statement only paraphrased, I believe the implication is exactly what I stated, If you choose to prepare an estimate if has to be an reasonable amount for which the damages can be satisfactorily repaired.
The only thing that I stated that is not included in that statement but apparently implied by the code or act is that you must guarantee the work.
That is found on the state website under frequently asked questions.
The following is the states own paraphrased version of that statement in the unfair claims practices act.
I submitted two estimates, and the insurance company revised the estimate and paid me based on the revised estimate. Can they do this?
Yes, as long as the revised estimate properly repairs your vehicle. You need to have your body shop review the revised estimate. If they feel they cannot properly repair your vehicle based on the revised estimate, the repair facility should contact your adjuster.
Can the insurance company tell me where to have the repair work done under either homeowners or auto?
Yes, if the insurance company is willing to guarantee the work. You always have the option to go to the repair shop of your choice, but you will be responsible for the additional costs. Your insurance company may only be obligated to pay for the lowest estimate.
T keeps saying you the vehicle owner will have to pay any difference between my estimate and theirs. The word may implies that if the shops charges are found to be reasonable and necessary then the insurer would have to pay them.
Sounds like an attempt to again discredit me with having given false information when it was spot on and to say I lie using only partial information. :roll:
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 07:29 pm Post Subject: I hate repeating gossip
So you better be sure and listen close the first time. LOL. I will let you know if I hear anymore. It was a paint rep. who told me about it. Yes there is a "star", not corporate. I thought they must be in deep trouble too. In my opinion there are a least a dozen big shops in the area that are regularly doing the things that I believe these guys are, and if this happens the way I think it will, I hope there is a domino effect. I have been asked before how an adjuster can sit and look through a window out into a shop, and see work that is billed not being performed and I thought they must be in on the scam, but maybe I was wrong. Maybe they have been just quietly keeping track of it. Lets hope that is the case.
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 07:32 pm Post Subject:
I believe thats exactly what I said.
No, it's not even close. I'll quote what you said if you like, [/quote]In Missouri like many states, The unfair claims practices generally say that if the insurer prepares and estimate themselves it must be for an amount that the vehicle owner can restore to preloss condition. The insurer seldom can do this by their own admission. So if the vehicle owner refused to take their vehicle to one of those shops of yours, the claims act also says that the insurer must guarantee the repairs.[/quote]See, you CLEARLY state if the insurer prepares the estimate and the vehicle owner takes it to another shop, the insurer must guarantee the repairs. Here... I'll break it down even more,So if the vehicle owner refused to take their vehicle to one of those shops of yours, the claims act also says that the insurer must guarantee the repairs.
You are _100% INCORRECT_ in your statement. Again, you're NOT EVEN CLOSE! Your simply making things up as you tend to do.What your quoted states that the insurer must guarantee the repairs _IF_ the person _CHOOSES_ to use a DRP.
Sounds like an attempt to again discredit me with having given false information when it was spot on and to say I lie using only partial information.
Huh, you take what they stated and somehow think it means exactly the opposite. It's EXTREEMLY clear. Tell you what, I'll quote what _you_ posted again,You always have the option to go to the repair shop of your choice, but you will be responsible for the additional costs. Your insurance company may only be obligated to pay for the lowest estimate.
So here we have the state of MO telling it's people if the insurance prepares an estimate that is deemed to be reasonable or they pay the lower of two estimates and the person chooses to take it to a shop that charges more, well I'll use their words..."...but you will be responsible for the additional costs".Here is an example (in case that was somehow confusing): Average SM rate is $50/hour. I pay this amount. The person takes their car to a place that charges $55/hour. The vehicle owner is then responsible for the difference. That is, if the shop and the insurance company don't communicate. Result... vehicle owner gets the shaft.
Let's just face it Mike, your upset that insurance companies are pulling business away from you. It's all too clear. I can understand this. But then you come here and act like your just looking out for the little guy when actually you're simply trying to promote your DV business. The thing I have little respect for is that you are just not truthful about it and that you try to promote your business by telling people half truths and just make things up. When someone comes along and shows this to be true, you continue to deny it and attempt to pull another con job.
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 09:01 pm Post Subject:
There you go changing the words that are written in the quote. It does not say you WILL have to pay the difference. It states that you MAY have to pay the difference. All you have to do is show that the insurer estimate is deficient as usual. The word may is used specifically just like it says on insurance disclaimers for that very reason.
Let's just face it Mike, your upset that insurance companies are pulling business away from you. It's all too clear. I can understand this. But then you come here and act like your just looking out for the little guy when actually you're simply trying to promote your DV business. The thing I have little respect for is that you are just not truthful about it and that you try to promote your business by telling people half truths and just make things up. When someone comes along and shows this to be true, you continue to deny it and attempt to pull another con job.
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 09:40 pm Post Subject:
This is almost comical... I did not change _any_ words... I copy and pasted what you quoted. Go back and look at what I put in quotes and you will see that it's EXACTLY as it is in your message. I can't help it if it shows that you were completely wrong and can't admit to it. No... showing that an appraisal written by an insurance company is lower then a shops is _not_ all you have to do. You have to show that the appraisal written by the insurance company can't be honored by several shops in the area. But I don't except you to confirm the truth.
Nobody has deep enough pockets to out litigate insurers. That Illinois supreme court decison proved that, so why would I wish to fight a fight that I can not win. I have learned to accept insurance abuse over the years that I can not control.
That's funny coming from someone who claims that they are an expert witness on insurance litigation. It's also a little funny because it could not be further from the truth! Insurance companies GET SUED ALL THE TIME! Any reasonable person would agree with that. Just another 1/2 truth from you.Sounds like you are a brown noser hoping to climb ever higher in the corporate chain to me T
If you care to comprehend my posts you'd see that I'm not spouting insurance company truths... I'm simply pointing out all the errors in your posts.I tell no lies, you and I simply disagree on matters of the truth.
I think it's pretty clear that this is _not_ the case. Most of the statements you make are either 1/2 truths, unsubstantiated or completely incorrect. Anyone simply needs to read this thread to know that.You can't even admit when I have proven you wrong, you just keep hollering liar liar hoping some of your slung crap sticks.
Perhaps we are not reading the same thread... I don't see one post where you show me I'm incorrect. However, I do see many posts where I've proven you to be completely wrong. I've provided links and text to confirm this.I will definately be concentrating on that Diminished value stuff if insurers continue their practices.
Perhaps because you make good money at it? Rhetorical, since I think we've finally got you to be clear on this.Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 09:48 pm Post Subject:
You know I was in the process of editing some of that and I did delete but you caught some of it. I was beginning to lower my self to your gutter level of namecalling and I retracted it.
Thanks for being concerned about my business T. I guess if you keep calling a guy liar often enough, some might believe you at least your peers. Mine know me as truthful. I will be closing my business in a few years just so you know. Thirty some years of witnessing a lot of insurance abuse, sarcasm, disrepect, disengenuousness at the expense of honest shop owners, is enough. Seeing the demise of my industry reaching a point to where they grovel at the feet of adjusters and some even resorting to paying adjusters for work, i have seen about enough.
I'll be doing customer pay work where they do not mind paying 50 to 75 per hour for quality restoration work. That is the reason I got into collision repair originally for the joy of it..Insurers have certainly dampened the appeal of collision work.
You know even though you have no respect for me, I do have some for you and Lori even though you think I don't. I even posted something I had to delete because I was beginning to lower myself to yours and Lori's level of mudslinging.
Oh yeah, I'll definately being doing a lot more post repair inspections helping customers get what they are owed along with their losses of value.
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 10:08 pm Post Subject:
Thanks for being concerned about my business T. I guess if you keep calling a guy liar often enough, some might believe you at least your peers. Mine know me as truthful. I will be closing my business in a few years just so you know. Thirty some years of witnessing a lot of insurance abuse, sarcasm, disrepect, disengenuousness at the expense of honest shop owners, is enough. Seeing the demise of my industry reaching a point to where they grovel at the feet of adjusters and some even resorting to paying adjusters for work, i have seen about enough.
I think a little more of the truth eeks out... it seems you have been affected by the way insurance companies and body shops interact and it _does_ seem you have an ax to grind.I'll be doing customer pay work where they do not mind paying 50 to 75 per hour for quality restoration work. That is the reason I got into collision repair originally for the joy of it
I'm betting that good be a good niche market.You know even though you have no respect for me, I do have some for you and Lori even though you think I don't.
Respect has nothing to do with it. You run a DV business and tried to deny that (or in the very least made attempts to hide it). You also told people that they should not take advise from those who have something to gain by it. All the while that fit you to the T. IMHO you also stated many things that were incorrect and _only_ served to benefit your business (both of them). I don't want to represent myself as 'ruler of the board', that is not my intention... but I have to call them like I see them.Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 11:35 pm Post Subject:
You run a DV business and tried to deny that (or in the very least made attempts to hide it).
You are so full of it your eyes must be brown. I run a collision business and I help people with DV when I can. The truth is that you think of the insurers money as your own and you are the guardian of it. I never tried to hide the fact that I assist people with loss of value. People aren't stupid, they know they are owed this loss, no spinning by you is going to convince them otherwise.
The truth is you are arrogant and it shows. Thats why people need help dealing with adjusters like you.
You're a case alright. Look at the Big brains on T.
I apologize to anyone else having to read this diatribe today, this is a typical insurance adjuster, the same kind you all have to deal with and come here to complain about.
Add your comment