Opt for new auto parts while settling with your Ins. Co.

by Guest » Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:21 am
Guest

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

Total Comments: 172

Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 04:19 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.

Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 05:04 pm Post Subject: New parts do not increase the value of a car

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.

Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 09:55 pm Post Subject:

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).

Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 10:05 pm Post Subject:

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.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/newsarchive/2001/20011018travelers.htm
"This reduced claims payment generally causes a policyholder to pay more out-of-pocked expense to cover part of the repair when the policy should cover it all, beyond the customer's deductible."

Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:06 am Post Subject: Is it batterment or betterment.

Is betterment taken in third party claims; Those claims in which the person has no contract with that insurer and should not be out of pocket any expenses that were not due to their own negligence. Do you believe that the overall value of a vehicle improves and the owner is in a better position where the vehicle owner got a new battery that had two years used in a four year life schedule after suffering 2000 dollars in a loss.

If you believe a 25.00 upgrade to a battery or a 50.00 upgrade to a new tire improves the value of the vehicle and makes it better after 2000 or 4000 in collision damages, I suppose you could deduct that amount from the inherent loss of value on third party claims. One can't exist without the other, can it?

In my opinion, bettement is wrong on first and third party claims. What if the claimant does not want a new battery or a new tire but one equal to what they lost. Why should they pay any more than their deductible because you had to make them better.

Why have they quit taking depreciation on paint when damaged by hail?
Why do manufacturers recommend putting matching shocks and tires on a vehicle front end but insurers will only pay for the damaged side. Who's liability is it, when a new tire or stiffer shock on one side causes a steering management issue with a vehicle?

What does the law say when a consumer does not ask to be made better but only to be placed in the preloss condition they held prior to the loss and they do not wish to pay any more than their deductible?

Did you find the van motor suit yet?

Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 01:46 am Post Subject:

Yes, betterment is taken out of 3rd party claims and it's 100% legal. Again, it's not the over-all value of the vehicle that needs to be considered, only that the only amount owed is to place the person back in the same position they were prior to the loss. Even you admit to that. It's also clear that putting parts with much less wear on a vehicle puts the person in a better position.

If you believe a 25.00 upgrade to a battery or a 50.00 upgrade to a new tire improves the value of the vehicle and makes it better after 2000 or 4000 in collision damages, I suppose you could deduct that amount from the inherent loss of value on third party claims. One can't exist without the other, can it?

I guess we need to start at the beginning in that there have nothing to do with each other. If I understand your statement your saying that... well, to be honest, I have next to no idea what you are saying in that statement.

In my opinion, betterment is wrong on first and third party claims.

I don't like it either. I can certainly understand someones point of view when they tell me that they would not have incurred the expense had the other person not caused the damage to their vehicle. They are 100% correct. But on the other hand its not wrong to apply depreciation.

Why do manufacturers recommend putting matching shocks and tires on a vehicle front end but insurers will only pay for the damaged side. Who's liability is it, when a new tire or stiffer shock on one side causes a steering management issue with a vehicle?

The easy answer is not the insurance companies responsibility. When the law changes, it will be. There is some inherent responsibility that we all face living in such close proximity to each other. Don't want that responsibility... move out to the wild country. we reap the benefits of living close to other people but don't accept the price we have to pay for it.

What does the law say when a consumer does not ask to be made better but only to be placed in the preloss condition they held prior to the loss and they do not wish to pay any more than their deductible?

The law says, read the contract... as you are speaking of a 1st party claim.

Did you find the van motor suit yet?

Yes, I mentioned it. It was a 1st party claim and the contract did not allow for betterment.

Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 03:42 am Post Subject: stuff

T, the company that you work for will matching tires, and shocks if asked. I have seen them do a number of things if the repairer provides documentation to support a nessesary repair procedure. They don't use a/m parts right now either. The question I have is, for how long. I think that we can all see where the publicly traded companies are taking the insurance industry. Some of the field appraisers for these companies are telling me just how bad it is. Its worse for the ones who came from the repair industry because they have a good understanding of what it will take to repair a vehicle, but they are no longer allowed to adress all of the procedures. Its hard for me to watch because I have seen it before. I believe some of them will be the next statistics.

Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 04:17 am Post Subject:

I'm not saying that it's not best to have matching tread depth. I'm saying it's simply not the responsiblity of the at-fault party to place the person in a better position then they were. I don't make the laws.

If an insurance company pays for a new tire and then depreciates it and the owner wants two matching tires, they can pay the extra amount for this. In return for paying that extra money they now have two tires that will last much longer the the ones that were on the vehicle. So one way of looking at it is that they have not lost anything out of pocket (they got something for that money).

T, the company that you work for will matching tires, and shocks if asked.

You might want to let them know this as it's news to them... and me.

Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:29 am Post Subject:

carrier I work for does not use AM parts of any kind on any car (insured, claimant, age, etc).

REAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLY? I didn't know there were any company that didn't use ANY?

Also don't use LKQ for anything but wheels and bumpers

I wonder what they think the difference is between a used bumper assy and wheel assy. as opposed to a fender/lamp/hood/door?

Betterment is still a valid deduction

Agreed, and I don't know any carriers that do not charge betterment on certain wearable parts...(ie tires/batteries/struts etc)....in my state anyway....doesnt matter whether I like it or not, it's legal, it's fair, Would our jobs be easier to not have to consider betterment? Bet your bootie....but still doesn't mean it's not the fair thing to do....How many times have I replaced a tire with 2/32nds of tread left on it, and all four are already mis-matched on the car? Many....where's the beef there?

Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 08:20 pm Post Subject: My bad

Sorry T, I thought you worked for State Farm.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.