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: Tue May 20, 2008 02:37 pm Post Subject: once again tag teamed by T and Lori

... 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.


. 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!

Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 02:49 pm Post Subject:

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.

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.

Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 03:08 pm Post Subject:

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.

Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 03:22 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. :)

Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 03:41 pm Post Subject: the consumer gains from it

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.

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.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 04:20 pm Post Subject:

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.

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.

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.

All one has to do to prove DV is to offer the vehicle for sell to the highest bidder.

Missouri, like other states, claim you do not have to sell your car to realize the loss.


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.

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!

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?).

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 06:38 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.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 08:27 pm Post Subject:

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.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 09:27 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.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.