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: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:31 am Post Subject:
See Mike you proved T's point
against my pleadings and warnings because he feared he would not get paid for his damage and did not file with his own company with whom he was contracted.
You gave this older gentlemen all the information he needed, and he still chose to hear what he wanted (or didn't want) to hear.Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 01:46 pm Post Subject:
Was his point that insurers intentionally or not intentionally miscommunicate and take advantage of the elderly? That was the point I made, I am glad you thought T made that point as well. Insurers often only give you partial information to steer you in the direction they desire.
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 03:03 pm Post Subject:
That was the point I made, I am glad you thought T made that point as well. Insurers often only give you partial information to steer you in the direction they desire.
I guess your last few posts show how one person's statement can be ignored and the opposite told to someone else (which shows that hearing only one side of the story is no way to make an informed judgement).As I have already said... I fail to see why an adjuster would not simply have a vehicle towed into a DRP if needed. It gets the vehicle into the DRP instead of another shop and trust me... no adjuster is going to try to save money on a $35 tow. So it appears that your above few posts were one sided, ignored what was _actually_ said, and does not seem to contain all the information we need to know what really happened.
I guess this kind of confusion can happen to anyone :). People hear, they just don't listen.
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 04:11 pm Post Subject:
Maybe there will be a detemination in a couple of weeks as to who one should listen to.
http://sceneexchange.typepad.com/scene_it_all/2008/07/its-on---david.html
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 04:42 pm Post Subject:
Can an insurance company know when a shop is trying to inflate a bill in order to make more money? Can an appraiser who inspects thousands of vehicles know what type of repairs are needed? Here is the kicker... can an insurance company have one opinion as to what is owed by law as opposed to what repairs the owner or shop wants made?
North State Custom filed a _counter_ claim to Progressives suit. It's really unrelated to Progressive's main complaint (Progressive states that the shop over-charged for repairs and NSC's counter is that Progressive use of DRP is illegal in NY). These types of counter claims are made only to use a "strong arm" tactic on the initial suit. Basically a legal "threat". They almost always hold no weight.
I searched on the issue and found it a little odd that _no where_ did anyone comment on Progressive's case against NSC. Oh... I know why... because all the hub bubb about the case is from sites that support independent body shops (most dealerships are DRPs). Heck... read the sites that wrote about this article and most don't even mention Progressive's initial suit against NSC... only NSC's counter claim. Talk about good reporting!
So, what is the deal with Progressive's claim at NSC over charged the vehicle owner at least $10,000? Not very nice of that body shop to over-charge Mr. Vehicle Owner by $10,000, huh. :cry: You won't find the body shop inductry commenting on this point! Also, how many insurance industry sites do you find Progressive's point of view on?
I have a friend that works in a body shop (I bet he has at least 20 years experience). He tells me that the shop owner constantly adds items into repair bills for things that were not done. My friend goes back and corrects the bill as he does not want to be held liable for the fraud and he does not think this does the shop any good in the long run. Anyone who thinks this is an isolated occurrence has their head in the sand! It's one of the _main_ reason's why DRP's exist! Yet some body shop owners seem to overlook this fact. They want to point out that their customer is the vehicle owner, it does not matter who's paying the bill but then they also want to call foul when the insurance companies use DRPs. How one sided is that! :roll:
BTW - Keep in mind that the insured (owner of the vehicle) is not directly involved in the suit.
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 05:29 pm Post Subject:
You make a lot of assumptions. You are assuming the shop owner is padding the estimate, interesting. The vehicle owner did not sue because the repair bill was paid by the insurer. Ms Eversmen is one of the co counsel representing Mr. Coccaro. The case should have a lot to say about who's contract is primary and shed light on some tortious interference issues.
Mr. Coccaro had some things to say about DRP.s as he has some experience having been on many of the programs before he had an ephifany. Some, believing the insurers make good partners, will go to the auction asking insurance partners, why did thou forsakest me?
http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/Article/3128/enough_is_enough.aspx
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 05:40 pm Post Subject:
You make a lot of assumptions.
I did not mention the case.Certainly if anyone believes Coccaro is correct, you should believe Progressive is correct in that he commited fraud as the same facts are available in both cases.
I'll make a prediction though... one of two things will happen:
1) Both parties settle prior to verdicts (most likely), or;
2) Neither party wins their case.
Both outcomes would leave everything right back where we started... nothing changed.
But in any case, this has little to nothing to do with this thread nor the use of DRP's. Lets be clear... the insurance industries use of DRP's is _100% legal_. Period. We (you) are just turning this thread from the use of non-OEM parts over to complaints against DRP's. Honestly, we all know that is nothing new. You can pick out web posts, articles, etc all day long from people who are against non-OEM parts and DRP's.... it won't change any of the facts.
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 06:11 pm Post Subject:
Stay tuned on that DRP issue.
The car was preserved, I believe, to prove the shop owner's position that all repairs were both reasonable and necessary, and since the contract of repair was between the vehicle owner and the shop and the shop had no contract or agreement to repair based on the insurer estimate, what right do they have to even alledge fraud. If all repairs were necessary, and all invoiced parts were installed as per the shop's estimate, it is more likely that the insurer could be the guilty party for failing to pay a reasonable amount to restore to preloss condition since they paid for the repairs in money and did not take control of the repair. (avery vs st. farm). I believe FK posted the insurer options based on that court case presented in an article by Attorney Patrick McGuire.
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 06:26 pm Post Subject:
The car was preserved, I believe, to prove the shop owner's position that all repairs were both reasonable and necessary, and since the contract of repair was between the vehicle owner and the shop and the shop had no contract or agreement to repair based on the insurer estimate, what right do they have to even alleged fraud.
The vehicle was preserved so that BOTH sides could have the opportunity to prove their case. You claim adjusters are narrow viewed, sheezz.The insurance company is subrogated to their insured's right of recovery. If the shop over billed (commited fraud) their customer (Progressive's insured) would have a right to sue for fraud. Progressive picks up that right once that pay for the repairs on behalf of their insured.
If all repairs were necessary, and all invoiced parts were installed as per the shop's estimate, it is more likely that the insurer could be the guilty party for failing to pay a reasonable amount to restore to preloss condition since they paid for the repairs in money and did not take control of the repair
First, what part about Progressive paying the bill were you confused about? Second, Mike... you are looking at this situation with such a narrow mind (solely to further your view about DRPs) that your really missing/ignoring how this who situation works.Right now I have about 10 claims which are in suit (I'm working on a new one as I write this).... so I deal with these situations all day and every day. There are larger, more complex issues involved then to just say it's only about the use of DRPs.
As far as the Progressive suit is concerned, it's about _one_ shop over-charging for repairs. Connaco can make all the claims and assumptions he wants (he's just trying to get his moneys worth) but I fail to see how Progressive is using this suit to "send a message" to other shops. Progressive's message is DON'T OVER BILL OUR INSURED's. If you want to look at it a different way, Progressive is protecting all their insured's be sending this type of message! Isn't that what you think they should do... protect their insured's? Oh, but when it comes at the cost of body shops loosing money, your against it (you've said yourself, as long as YOUR making money, it does not matter that insured's rates are increased).
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 06:56 pm Post Subject:
It's not everyday that someone has the huevos grandes to man up against a big bully. I somehow doubt this one will be settled prior to trial. We'll see in a few weeks.
Add your comment