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 Jul 12, 2008 03:10 pm Post Subject:
Right on cue and predictable responses from industry people that believe anyone outside the insurance industry must be regulated and controlled to keep insurance company policies affordable.
Huh... who ever mentioned anything about regulations or being regulated?Capitalism and market driven factors can not effect the collision industry and manufacturing, they must be regulated because insurers have to maintain their costs at other's expenses.
I'd ask where this is coming from as no one every mentioned anything even remotely related to regulation but then I know where it's coming from... your trying to change the topic to something other then what is being discussed to try to prove your point. Been there, bought the shirt.Again (and I thought it was clear)... insurance companies don't make aftermarket parts and aftermarket parts are 100% legal in the US. An insurance does not and cannot force anyone to use aftermarket parts. Body shops don't like aftermarket parts as they make less "pure' profit off of them.
Mike, here is the bottom line to your arguments... insurance companies cannot dictate what repairs are made and what parts are used. That is between the owner of the vehicle and the body shop. But given this fact, it's odd that there is any problem with insurance companies only paying for certain repairs. Perhaps this should not be any of _your_ business. fair enough? It's between the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company paying the loss. Fair enough? Problem solved.
But it's not that easy is it. Insurance companies should not and _can't_ tell you how to run your business but you are entitled to tell insurance companies how to run theirs. Odd how that double standard works.
Truth is, you think the line of dictation should only work in your favor.
As mentioned above, you are 100% free to only use OEM parts on a customers car. Problem solved, right? I won't tell you what parts you have to put on a car (per your own admission, I can't) and you don't tell me what parts I have to pay for. Deal?
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 04:37 pm Post Subject:
No change of topic here at all.
I think that sums it all up. As long as the shop is making tons of money, everyone else be damned. THAT is where this article is coming from.
I believe it was the insurance industry that continues to show billions in profits. Most shops trying to dance to the tune of your insurer are in financial upheaval as evidenced by the forums and trade magazine articles that you fail and refuse to acknowledge. Those shops, that have not learned that the insurance industry is not a part of the collision industry and have not figured out how to work for consumers instead of going along to get along with insurer partners, will not survive according to trade analysts.
Can we say Fox Collision, M1, and other conglomerates that thought they could work faster and in volume by cutting quality to the consumer by working for their insurance partner.
If you think insurers do not control the collision industry profits, you are delusional. Insurance steering, refusing to pay for necessary procedures, dictating price controls by repeating the mantra we don't pay for that, directing work to shops that will work for the insurer dictated price reflected by innacurate labor rate surveys that are influenced by the power of insurers to remove shops from those programs all are symtematic of insurer influence in an industry that they pull the strings.
Aftermarket, generic, knock-off parts all reduce the value of a vehicle when the obligation of insurance is to return to pre loss condition those vehicles they insure. If you are looking for the cheapest, devaluing, repair, and possibly the least safe because of cost cutting corners by shops trying to stay in business complying with insurance partners, then by all means visit and use your insurer preferred shop.
Or you could do like I and others do, just market and contract yourself to the vehicle owner. A final invoice always shows proof of loss while the insurer guestimate does not. If the insurer is paying under the option to pay for repairs and they refuse to reimburse the consumer for monies they spent above their deductible to pay for reasonable repairs, the insurer may very well be in breach of contract with the policy holder.
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 04:48 pm Post Subject:
Mike, I'm just curious, do you have the same tired arguments, when you go to pick up your prescription? Do you opt for the generic ones that cost, anywhere from 50-90% less than the 'OEM"? Or if your health insurer says, we'll pay 100% of the generic prescription or only 1/2 of the OEM which do you get?
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 05:01 pm Post Subject:
I believe it was the insurance industry that continues to show billions in profits.
... and how much do they loose in a catastrophic loss. How much does a body shop loose. Apples to oranges. But yes, many insurance companies make a lot of money... just as banks or body shops do. Also, it's not like it's one person who gets this money. When you need to have millions in reserves and investments it takes thousands of people to back the company. Lastly, look at statistics... many insurance companies operate close to a 100% combined loss ratio. This means they spend most of all the money taken in just to operate. Most of the money an insurance company makes is from investments. Have you seen how these investments are doing lately? Some insurance companies are taking _HUGE_ hits.Most shops trying to dance to the tune of your insurer are in financial upheaval as evidenced by the forums and trade magazine articles that you fail and refuse to acknowledge.
So... you have stated time and time again that insurance companies are not the body shops customer. So I fail to see why this "dance" takes place. Your arguing in circles. I'm bottom lined it many times... you just change the subject.If you think insurers do not control the collision industry profits, you are delusional. Insurance steering, refusing to pay for necessary procedures, dictating price controls by repeating the mantra we don't pay for that, directing work to shops that will work for the insurer dictated price reflected by innacurate labor rate surveys that are influenced by the power of insurers to remove shops from those programs all are symtematic of insurer influence in an industry that they pull the strings.
Actually, I've said that insurance money keeps body shops in business on MANY occasions. It's YOU who have stated time and time again that the insurance company is not the customer and there is no relationship between the two. So which is it? Make up your mind. I'm not sure how clear I can make this... if you need to make a repair... MAKE IT! Per your own admission, you then simply bill your customer. Problem solved! Done deal. This is EXACTLY what YOU have been saying all along. Heck, even the Progressive DRP contract YOU quote states that Progressive REQUIRES the shop to make all repairs correctly. As far as directing people toward shops... IT's 100% LEGAL! Heck, if someone walks into your shop and wants you to perform work you don't do, have you ever recommended someone who can?Aftermarket, generic, knock-off parts all reduce the value of a vehicle when the obligation of insurance is to return to pre loss condition those vehicles they insure.
That is what some people tell me.Or you could do like I and others do, just market and contract yourself to the vehicle owner. A final invoice always shows proof of loss while the insurer guestimate does not. If the insurer is paying under the option to pay for repairs and they refuse to reimburse the consumer for monies they spent above their deductible to pay for reasonable repairs, the insurer may very well be in breach of contract with the policy holder.
Hey, we agree on something! Problem solved! I've said it countless times before... simply bill the customer whatever you want to charge. You have every right to do this... and since it appears that it solved all your issues, I encourage you to do exactly that! That is 100% fair... I'll pay what I pay and you charge what you charge.Now, don't tell me that insurance companies control repair centers as you've clearly just pointed out that we don't. Don't tell me we have no right to pay for aftermarket parts or make shops use them. Pretty much take all your prior posts in this thread and throw them all out the window because you've just solved every one's problems.
Fair enough?
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 05:01 pm Post Subject:
Lori, those generics are not available until the original pharmaceutical manufacturer has had many years to recapture the investment, trials, costs, liability, and risks associated with bringing a new medication on line.
You would think the original parts auto manufacturer would at least be able to recapture some of the investment by engineering, crash testing, research and developement. But nah, you feel they ought to send taiwan the blue prints to their sheetmetal and other parts and let them start spitting out imitation junk so it can be installed as soon as the first one crashes driving off the lot, the day of purchase.
I bet you would be more than a little miffed discovering that the designer purse or shoes you purchased that you selected because of the designer name and quality was discovered to be a mere imitation knockoff. If you actually owned a designer anything and it was stolen, you would find it totally acceptible to be indemnified by receiving a generic replacement for the loss? Right! :roll:
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 05:04 pm Post Subject:
Do you opt for the generic ones that cost, anywhere from 50-90% less than the 'OEM"? Or if your health insurer says, we'll pay 100% of the generic prescription or only 1/2 of the OEM which do you get?
Mike has stated that he has no problem putting AM parts on vehicles... if this is what the owner wants. It appears that his only problem is that the insurance companies _only_ pay for aftermarket parts... when it's 100% legal/allowed by law. So if the customer is buying the RX, they buy generic. If someone else is paying the bill, they buy "OEM".Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 05:15 pm Post Subject:
I would like to see other people rewarded for the efforts and I post really just for the love of it.
T, if I didn't challenge your preposterous logic and your sharing of yours and the insurer funds so graciously to shops, you couldn't reply, disagree, and take part in something you love so much so you could humbly pass your rewards on to others. Now T, it's not your money, it's not you indemnifying and paying shops as you claim. Heck, it's the policy holder funds' set aside in reserve to pay for losses to policy holders and on behalf of policyholders; not shops. Policy holders use those funds to pay for repairs to their chosen shop unless the shop has a contract with the insurer. I can see why you and other claims people have false illusions of grandeur using large sums of money not belonging to you, to write checks with shops names and policyholder names on them. It certainly gives you a sense of power and arrogance, it shows. Even you agreed that you are arrogant.
Now, don't tell me that insurance companies control repair centers as you've clearly just pointed out that we don't. Don't tell me we have no right to pay for aftermarket parts or make shops use them. Pretty much take all your prior posts in this thread and throw them all out the window because you've just solved every one's problems.
Insurers control market flow of policy holders by directing them to shops that work for the insurer estimate and dictated labor rates. T, you gotta get out of this forum once in a while a look at the real world.
Many state statutes allow insurers to use aftermarket parts IF and only if they meet the LKQ requirements of quality, fit, and "equal to" parameter. You and most legislators would not know the difference of a quality part if you actually held one in your hand and had to install it. Your statement that aftermarket parts are legal are of inconsequence with regard to what the consumer is entitled under indemnification and being made whole and restoring the vehicle to a pre-loss condition.
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 06:31 pm Post Subject:
Now T, it's not your money, it's not you indemnifying and paying shops as you claim
See my words a few posts above... if it's not the insurance companies money paying the body shops bills I fail to see your problem with insurance companies only paying for AM parts, not paying for all repairs est. That statement just sinks your _entire_ argument.Heck, it's the policy holder funds' set aside in reserve to pay for losses to policy holders and on behalf of policyholders; not shops. Policy holders use those funds to pay for repairs to their chosen shop unless the shop has a contract with the insurer.
I think you said this before. You were 100% incorrect then as now. What your saying throws out the very reason why insurance companies exist! Once the money is paid the the insurance company _it is no longer the insured's money_. Let me be clear... _it's no longer the insured's money_. If it were, the insurance company would be called a _BANK_. Once funds were paid in, they could be withdrawn. I hate to break it to your Mike, but what you stated is not even close to reality. I've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars on behalf of insured's... even though they paid the the insurance company only a few thousand. If you think it's your money so you can do what you want with it, cancel all your policies an put the money in the bank. Let me know when you have your 1st liability claim. See how far that money gets you (hope you can find a cheap attorney).I can see why you and other claims people have false illusions of grandeur using large sums of money not belonging to you, to write checks with shops names and policyholder names on them.
As my managers have always told me... it's my job. People see to like it when I pay them money and don't like it when I don't.Even you agreed that you are arrogant.
I must be getting old... I don't remember stating I was arrogant when it came to issuing payments.Insurers control market flow of policy holders by directing them to shops that work for the insurer estimate and dictated labor rates. T, you gotta get out of this forum once in a while a look at the real world.
No one tells people where they have to have their vehicles repaired. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this. Insurance companies can and do _RECOMMEND_ shops. It's done all the time. It's still up to the owner of the vehicle where they have their vehicle repaired. So don't try to suggest that it's not the owners choice, okay?Many state statutes allow insurers to use aftermarket parts IF and only if they meet the LKQ requirements of quality, fit, and "equal to" parameter. You and most legislators would not know the difference of a quality part if you actually held one in your hand and had to install it. Your statement that aftermarket parts are legal are of inconsequence with regard to what the consumer is entitled under indemnification and being made whole and restoring the vehicle to a pre-loss condition.
Hey, life is not fair. If they don't know what AM parts are, feel free to educate them. As far as your last sentence, it's 100% incorrect. The LAW matters. Just because you don't agree with it does not make it wrong. I don't like driving the speed limit. Doesn't mean a speed limit is wrong.But I thought we solved this problem of using AM parts... you, and every shop who wants to, can put OEM parts on all the vehicles they repair and charge the customer whatever you want. Your happy, the customer is happy, the insurance company is happy. What more do you want?
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 08:04 pm Post Subject:
Trying to discuss the inequality of aftermarket, knockoff, imitation parts to that of quality oem parts with an insurance person, is like an appraiser/adjuster trying to compare the artwork of a Rembrandt to that of an artist that specializes in crushed velvet dogs shooting pool and Elvis rugs and saying they are one and the same.
No one tells people where they have to have their vehicles repaired. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this. Insurance companies can and do _RECOMMEND_ shops.
You are right that you and I know this is illegal unless the insurer elects to take control of the repair, but we disagree as to whether insurers tell consumers where they can have their vehicles repaired.
If I had a hundred dollar bill for everytime I had a customer tell me the insurer said "They said I had to take it to their shop", I could have long retired. Maybe you do not experience or practice this but it is heavily handed practiced among the largest insurers in the country and the bottom dwellers. This alone tells me how secluded and out of touch with reality you are where you are employed.
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:45 pm Post Subject:
I bet you would be more than a little miffed discovering that the designer purse or shoes you purchased that you selected because of the designer name and quality was discovered to be a mere imitation knockoff. If you actually owned a designer anything and it was stolen, you would find it totally acceptible to be indemnified by receiving a generic replacement for the loss? Right!
You've finally made one 1/2 way true statement about me..I don't own designer anything, unless you call my flathead tackle that is quality, designer... :roll: and again you are trying to compare apples to oranges....Mike, I've had vehicle repairs, and have zero trouble with putting a/m parts (capa) on a vehicle that is over a year or two old...none-zero-it is the repair facility's job to contact the insurer or owner if a part ANY part isn't of lkq, how many insurers (oh wait you don't EVER do ins work)...ok if you did, how many adjusters, that wrote to put a used or a/m fender on a car, when the part arrives IF there is an issue with it, and you call them would not say, ok...get a new oem one...or hang on i want to see this...it happens, parts come in damaged, even with new oem and you know it....it's a non-issue...or do your bottom dwelling friends tell you the adjuster says 'tough put it on' I sincerely doubt it...Out of curiousity Mike, what are your door rate? any rates any different for anyone else? How much did you spend last year with say keystone? Since you work for the owner Mike and have zero contact with the insurance company, how many times has an owner came to your shop with an insurance sheet that showed all new oem parts, but because the owner wanted to skirt their deductible you and he 'agreed' to switch that 300 oem fender to a 150 a/m one, thus saving him 150bucks off his deductible, ever happen? And if you are ok using non-oem parts if the owner is ok with it...then what on earth is your problem? In our state non-oem parts are required to be disclosed...so the owners KNOW they are getting non-oem..most people have no issue with this if they are capa and understand that this keeps all costs down.
Add your comment