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: Fri May 23, 2008 07:56 pm Post Subject:
Slappy if I understood your post correctly, I've always agreed (if I did not understand it, then I'm way off). I think Mike also has problems with things like insurance companies paying a slightly lower labor rate. In my area, the average charge is $42/hour for SM. Some shops charge $40/hour and I if I re-wrote their estimate I should lower my rate to theirs but I usually leave it as it is. Some shops want $44. I usually leave mine at $42 and I've never had anyone complain yet. Some shops think if they put the word "Specialty" in their name that they deserve $50/hour. I leave my rate at $42. Now, if a shop ever called me wanting more, I'd have a discussion with them to see why they thought they should get paid more then many other people. But this is not the point I'm trying to make. Mike says that this is the insurance company dictating the price the shop charges and it should not be the insurance companies business. I see his point but it does not hold much weight. The insurance company is paying the bill _for_ the customer. So the insurance company certainly should have a say. Mike does not like this as he'd rather charge whatever he wants and thinks the insurance company should just pay it. Of course the customer does not mind... as they are not paying the bill. Also, Mike will write up a nice DV report for them on the side and become their best friend. What Mike does not mention is that the insurance company is trying to keep labor rates and labor times more reasonable. Are some of these amounts too low? Probably. But shops can always refuse to work for those prices and will soon realize that they will need to be paid. But this is the process of commerce and capitalism. There are two major forces that drive prices... the person providing the goods or service and the consumer. Both will usually differ when it comes to what should be charged.
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 08:22 pm Post Subject: There in lies the problem.
I see his point but it does not hold much weight. The insurance company is paying the bill _for_ the customer. So the insurance company certainly should have a say.
I am billing my vehicle owner who is my customer. If every shop chose to ignore the intimidation of price constraints and effectively decided they deserved a higher return on their investment and the new prevailing rate became 75.00, you would still say it is not deserved. We're back to who lets you decide what another entire industry is deserving of in a return on their investment.
You, the insurer are not my customer, you are not paying the bill, you are indemnifying the vehicle owner for their losses or paying a settlement based upon the negligence of your insured for which you are legally liable after proof of loss. You may mail the check to me, hand it to me, but the matter of fact is that you are paying for a loss to the consumer not my bill. I have no contract with any insurer, I receive payment from vehicle owners with my name on a check presented by an insurer but that is only to satisfy the uniform commercial code, not any negtotiated agreement for which I am not licensed to perform.
You still think because you pay a shop a check on behalf of consumers that you are paying us and implying we are subcontractors of yours when we are not unless a shop as signed an agreement to do so.
By the way, the final invoice of repairs I audited from a St louis body shop dealer was 56.00 per hour. If those mechanical repairs were performed by the same dealership service department rather than collision department, the insurer would have paid over 100.00 per hour.
I can post my rate at what ever labor rate I choose, I can even charge in dollars rather than hours in my state. Your policies state that you will pay the prevailing rate based on a labor rate survey conducted by you, but those surveys are proprietary information when requested. Some insurers are so defiant in conducting accurate labor rates studies that in all likely hood, independent auditors will be assigned to conduct those studies after a few legislative changes in some states.
DRP shops who have agreed to work cheaper and faster for those referrals should not have their lower rates calculated in to those studies either. Those are coerced lowered carrots dangled in front of hungary desperate shops.
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 08:35 pm Post Subject:
We're back to who lets you decide what another entire industry is deserving of in a return on their investment.
It's really quite simple... I'm the one paying the bill. If you want to look at it one sided, this is fine. I said it before and I'll say it again... the insurance company pays $50/hour. You charge $60. I tell my insured that I can find 10, 20, 30 shops that will charge $50. Now you have to explain to your customer why you charge more then the prevailing rate and so much more then most other shops. I've explained myself... now it's your turn. Have fun trying to keep that customer. You may do great work... but it's going to cost them money out of their own pocket.You, the insurer are not my customer, you are not paying the bill, you are indemnifying the vehicle owner for their losses or paying a settlement based upon the negligence of your insured for which you are legally liable after proof of loss.
You can work semantics all day long. We all know full well that the insurance is paying the bill (most adjusters will at least initially make payment to the person who suffered the loss).You still think because you pay a shop a check on behalf of consumers that you are paying us and implying we are subcontractors of yours when we are not unless a shop as signed an agreement to do so.
I've been around awhile and I see most every check being paid to the person suffering the loss, not direct to the shop (unless it's a 1st party loss with a lien, then it has both parties names on it). Supplements are usually paid to the shop but I confirm this is okay with the shop 1st.So no, I don't contend that I'm paying the shop because I issue the check them. I contend I pay the shop as I pay for the repair cost to the person who suffered the loss and then they pay the shop. It's not hard to figure out that my check is really going to the shop.
Like it or not, this is how every aspect of insurance works. Health insurance also pays "reasonable and customary" rates. Workers Compensation... same thing. The laws provides for it.
I've also said this many times before.. your welcome to charge whatever you want. No insurance company is making you do anything. Just don't count on a lot of return insurance customers when they have to pay the difference between what most people in your area charge and what you charge.
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 09:24 pm Post Subject:
I
can find 10, 20, 30 shops that will charge $50. Now you have to explain to your customer why you charge more then the prevailing rate and so much more then most other shops
I think independent shops refer to these shops as shops that prostitute themselves to insurers and perform repairs based on insurer estimates rather than creating a repair plan for the vehicle owner.
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.
I recommend the vehicle owner notify the insurer preferred shop that they must perform the repairs for the amount of the insurer estimate and that their work will be subject to a third party inspection. Suddenly many of those shops can not perform the repairs based on the insurer estimate.
Lets leave health insurance completely out of this as those policies are totally different than cash value policies.
You can work semantics all day long. We all know full well that the insurance is paying the bill (most adjusters will at least initially make payment to the person who suffered the loss).
It's not semantics it contract law and indemnification. You are paying for losses, you are not paying the bill. The final invoice is the bill owed by the vehicle owner who only can authorize a repair with the shop and contract with them. If you were paying the bill that would make you my customer or part of the contracted party. Even your guestimates say the vehicle owner must authorize the repair. All that other threating and intimidating paragraphs that require a shop to agree to the scope of the estimate of the insurer would last ten minutes in court since we do not have a contract with each other.
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 09:46 pm Post Subject:
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.
Please let me know where it states this. Here is a link to the Act:http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/20csr/20c100-1.pdf
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.
It's not semantics it contract law and indemnification. You are paying for losses, you are not paying the bill. The final invoice is the bill owed by the vehicle owner who only can authorize a repair with the shop and contract with them.
Trust me... I understand indemnification and contracts. Your simply ignoring what I've stated... IF you want to go that route, YOU can explain to your customers why your charging more then many other shops in your area. After all, it's easy enough for the vehicle owner to find 10, 20 or 30 shops that WILL repair the vehicle for the lower amount. The party that gets screwed if you do it as you state is the vehicle owner (the insurance company will pay the "reasonable" cost of repairs, you will charge more and your customer will be required to pay out of pocket. Next time the vehicle owner will be going to a shop who will communicate with the insurance company so they don't have to pay out of pocket. I have no issue with that whatsoever.What I'm saying is obvious to everyone who understands English... insurance companies and repair vendors need to work together to determine repair costs. If they don't, the person who suffered the loss _will_ be left holding the bag.
But really the bottom line is as I've stated before... if you as the body shop and the insurance company have no obligation to each other... why are you complaining about the rates that pay? This makes no sense. Just charge what you want and don't worry about what the insurance company is paying. Hey, problem solved. Move on. Nuff said.
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 04:09 am Post Subject:
What I'm saying is obvious to everyone who understands English... insurance companies and repair vendors need to work together to determine repair costs. If they don't, the person who suffered the loss _will_ be left holding the bag.
The vendors and the insurers have been working together, thats the problem. who is looking out for the consumer other than shops not beholding to insurers that only are interested in filling their coffers.
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 01:10 pm Post Subject:
What you state above is not even mentioned in the act!
TYPCIAL......Your some how twisting partial information around to get your statement
AGAIN TYPCIALHmmmm, that is not even close to what you stated!
OF COURSE...your not even CLOSE with your statement.
I think I'm going to start referring to all of these as 'mikeisms'....because they are in nearly every post he makes, is constantly and consistantly proved to spout half truths, based on well zero other than his opinion. Then when proved totally untrue, well he doesn't mention THAT part again...Just a couple of points then I'm going to try and leave this mess of a thread...
First, Mike I don't see how you get ANY work done AT ALL, just from the sites I KNOW you are posting on, (and I'm sure there are many many more than I've found) seems to me that is taking up a minimum of six to eight hours of your day...so I really question that back log of business and just how busy you really are, unless of course you are one of those shop owners that set in your office and play on the computer all day while your worker bees slave away for less than they should be paid (per you that is)...if so good for you....but the numbers just don't jib.....
Again, I'll say I haven't seen any cases you've filed and collected or won on all of these tortious, criminal things being done to you by the big bad insurers...just can't imagine you leaving something like that alone Mike....I'll stay glued to case net watching and waiting...
The only time I ever called you a liar, and what I ACTUALLY said was what you said was a bald faced lie...was when you said, that all adjusters got bonus's for underpaying claims....so yes, I still stand by that, and say anyone that says that is a bald faced liar....period...I haven't (although it's tempting) to come right out and say the same about ALL the other half truths, and twisting you attempt to do...(there's what about three in this thread alone?) Those statements some how fly on these other ''body shop'' boards that consider you some kind of odd guru...oh wait I do know how they fly they WANT to believe you are shooting them the straight dope..and don't even bother to check the ''information'' you state.
From reading a few of your endless threads on another site Mike, sounds to me like you have a deep seated need for attention, and admiration....sad really...If you would put half the engery into fixing the problems that exist in your industry and mine, just imagine what you could accomplish....you NEVER have an equitiable plan to help the situation, instead just spew hate, and do all you can to foster bad feelings and relationships.
What I'm saying is obvious to everyone who understands English... insurance companies and repair vendors need to work together to determine repair costs
tcope is right, and we in the industry (both) know that this IS the case more than 90% of the time...Like it or not there are tons of shops that work well with insurance carriers, they aren't getting hurt, in fact they are very successful, and do look at it as a partnership to get the 'mutual' customers vehicle repaired to pre loss condition....(just so you readers know mike refers to any shop that gets along with a carrier or is a DRP on the other sites as whores, and worse and promptly attacks).....and these shops I'd say on the surface are a lot more successful than yours.....so somethings not stirring the kool-aid Mike....could it be that maybe just maybe you've burned so many bridges in your life that you have now completely missed the boat, and are a terribly bitter man?
Again if you're not part the solution you ARE part of the problem....think about it really, put your ill feelings for me aside, and think about using your 'powers' for good for a change.
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 02:34 pm Post Subject: Typical Lori as well
Again, I'll say I haven't seen any cases you've filed and collected or won on all of these tortious, criminal things being done to you by the big bad insurers...just can't imagine you leaving something like that alone Mike....I'll stay glued to case net watching and waiting...
Already checked into it. You have to show pattern and practice. Adjusters are very good at making these statements before I ever see a lot of customers and they are discouraged, wind up at the preferred shop they were steered to, bad repair with cheap parts. End of the story.
I am sorry you are spending so much time trying to track me down on other forums, probably taking precious time away from your other activities. I am worried about this Cagney and Lacey thing you have going on sleuthing on my trail. Fact is, it is a known fact that insurers monitor our board and have been known to kick shops off of programs if they wind up discussing things they don't like. They have even pulled up posts attempting to discredit the poster in court. YOU aren't going to be stalking me are you? It wouldn't be like that Progressive insurance case where they infiltrated a guys church to get dirt on him and they were exposed.
From reading a few of your endless threads on another site Mike, sounds to me like you have a deep seated need for attention, and admiration....sad really
I certainly will not find it if I was looking for it from anyone here. I get all the pats on the back my ego needs or requires simply by helping my customers obtain what is owed to them by helping them to understand why their insurer is so mean to them and not the friendly person they see on the commercials. I know you guys are overworked, because you're all over at job vent complaining about the long hours and work overload taking time away from your families. It has occured to me that you may be the one spending too much time in this board. You could add up all my post on all boards and they wouldnt add up to the time you pontificate in here with your Lorisms as well. If they were looking for a poster child to improve the image of adjusters and how they treat someone that challenges or ursurps their perceived authority, they wouldn't find them in here.
My wife has been preoccupied with finishing her masters degree leaving me a lot of time to check out some of the BS I find in forums. But Lori, I worry about you. Really, get out once in a while get a real life, interact with real people. I don't need your attention, simply quit preoccupying yourself with attempting to discredit me and calling me a liar. I am afraid I am ruining your image by bringing a side out of you that people need not see. They will be disheartened to realize you don't release fairy dust when you pass wind. It's obvious to others that you are trying to engage me into becoming as vicious and sarcastic as yourself and I will lose my temper and say something out of line so I can be banned from offering the repair industry perspective. I am about done here anyway. I can't post anything anymore without you or T harassing me when I am not even responding initially to your post but to others.
I make no apologies for being as passionate about your industry's interference in my industry's business and helping my customers just as you are about yours. How about your people don't tell my people how to properly repair cars and we will stay out of the business of having to help people settle their losses.
Again if you're not part the solution you ARE part of the problem....think about it really, put your ill feelings for me aside, and think about using your 'powers' for good for a change.
You had to have read that quote over on Pro Discussions, it's the very same thing we tell shop owners that believe insurers are their friends and that if those shop owners would grow a set and take back control of their business and industry, insurers would stay in the business of insurance and not telling my industry how to repair cars and what they are owed for doing so.
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 02:49 pm Post Subject: Update
Hi Lori, in a way I hope you are out enjoying the 3 day weekend instead of reading this. Remember a while ago when I was telling you what I thought about deceptive people in my industry, and how if they would cheat a car owner, they would cheat an insurance partner? Yesterday a vender told me that a franchise shop in my area is apparently being investigated by the SIU department of their largest drp. What he said was that they are talking to some ex-employees. I think this is great news, but I wonder if I am making more out of it than I should. Does this sort of thing happen all of the time?
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 03:27 pm Post Subject:
Fact is, it is a known fact that insurers monitor our board and have been known to kick shops off of programs if they wind up discussing things they don't like
Here we go again with another 'mikeism' prove it...if it's a known fact that shouldn't be too difficult...geeze........if insurer's had this this type of power! WOW! it's just absurd Mike, that now insurers (according to you) have taken all rights from individuals, now they can't even talk on a forum without retrobution! :roll:YOU aren't going to be stalking me are you?
Not a chance don't flatter yourself...actually I began checking because I thought it very odd that nearly every thread you got yourself involved in ''some how'' came around to the owners NEEDING to hire a ''professional'' to get a DV report...then your name just kept popping up everywhere....I am about done here anyway
We've heard that before about three times now...Mike I welcome your comments and statements when they are true..unfortunately most of the time they are not and have been PROVEN to be untrue and half truths at best time and time again, then you just well 'forget' that part...I'm not concerned with my 'image' being tainted or changed thru my interaction with you...all anyone need do is read about any thread that you're not in...to find my purpose, and motivation for being here. "I" gain nothing. "YOU" however cannot say the same.I can't post anything anymore without you or T harassing me when I am not even responding initially to your post but to others.
If you want to call pointing out your half truths, and yes, out and out lies as harassing, then ok....personally think you should check the definition, but if YOU prefer to call it harassing, that will add to your perceived arsenal of the 'big bad meany ins. companys'...I don't like to speak for tcope, but in this case I'm sure I'm on target when I say, all we are doing is attempting to protect any poster or reader from false, or misleading information. PERIOD...we will stay out of the business of having to help people settle their losses
Yeah, for an additional fee, don't forget that part Mike....You had to have read that quote over on Pro Discussions,
No Mike, I didn't I have heard that most of my adult life and quote it alot in many situations, even reminding myself of it at times...pro discussions is not the be all and end all of the web...incidently why don't they clean up the porno trash on that site? I'm serious, do you or the other members check that out? It's freakin' discussing, including links to kiddy porn...I'm being serious here...I know when we are 'regulars' at a site, we don't look at it from a newbys perspective...but someone should check that out and ban that 'if' you want that site to be considered a decent site.I wouldn't allow a kid or grandkid under 20yrs of age on that site for fear that they might 'explore' and find all of these links.
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....Add your comment