by Guest » Tue Aug 05, 2008 09:36 pm
Okay, went and got an estimate from a Geico express site today for a 2008 Toyota Matrix. The car is about 5 months old and has 5,000 miles. They want to give me aftermarket parts on a practically new car. Even worse, the shop that's attached to the Geico Auto Repair Express site is a certified Toyota repair shop.
1. Isn't a 5 month old car new enough to get certified parts?
2. Doesn't a certified shop have to use certified parts?
3. Do I have any recourse here? Is there any sort of leverage when dealing with a Geico adjuster? Does the lawyer card work? How about mentioning that I work for a local newspaper?
1. Isn't a 5 month old car new enough to get certified parts?
2. Doesn't a certified shop have to use certified parts?
3. Do I have any recourse here? Is there any sort of leverage when dealing with a Geico adjuster? Does the lawyer card work? How about mentioning that I work for a local newspaper?
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 01:15 am Post Subject:
Insurers specifying the use of after-market parts shall consider the cost of any modifications which may become necessary when making the repair
Sorry again Mike, but this prior quote does NOT say this next statement to me...My Missouri State Unfair Claims statute says that insurers must pay the costs of alteration to make imitation parts fix.
Do insurers not pay cut, trim and fit on some used assy? I've never paid (in over 20 years) additional time to hang an a/m part...if we have a bad part...fine, don't use it...just takes a phone call..
That's the problem there is no mandate for crash testing of all outer sheetmetal a/m parts
Orginal Equipment Manu. don't either though...they do not, nor are they required by the gov't. to crash test ANY replacement parts, your, (this following) statement was a little misleading, at best, the oem is required to test their newly built vehicles...but NOT their replacement/crash parts...required by the government to product test and crash test every outer shell sheetmetal part that is installed on a vehicle allowed to be sold by the Automakers?
Why shouldn't a reverse engineered part be required to meet those tests and why should they not be required to pay for the original tests if they are going to make cheap imitations.
ah...because they don't build cars which is the ONLY time the OEM is required to crash test Mike, and you know this....To believe we are having this discussion because insurers can save $3.75 per month per policyholder is amazing. Because insurers are willing to concede the use of generic parts instead of original quality parts to save the price of a whopper a month is a juicy whopper. .
The insurer's are also saving Mike...surely you didn't forget that.... :wink: I'll tell you what depending on the vehicle/insured and coverages...this could add up over a years time...mom and dad, and two teenagers, four cars, high premiums...yep it's more than 3.75 a month for them...and I'm sorry with this economy a bucks a buck buddy, and I'm for keeping all of 'mine' I can...So it really is all about saving a few dollars
Well duh....who said it wasn't? not me...it's about saving the insurance company and the insured money...but what is wrong with that Mike? Don't you try to save a buck wherever you can in your business? Of course you do...and I know where you are going...and NO IMO (and the O of many) these savings are not at the expense of quality/saftey or anything else negative you want to say... :wink: [/quote]Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 01:55 am Post Subject:
Lori, so your saying if a part does not fit all the garage has to do is call and the adjuster takes care of it ? sounds like a great way to handle things. The way I see it is insurance could cost a heck of a lot more if all the garages were required to use OEM parts. Would using OEM parts not drive up the cost of the repair and then the cost of insurance also somewhere along the line. These parts are as safe as any other in my "average person" opinion. I do not know why people are always screaming "this is what is owed to me". If the insurance companies were doing such a bad job at getting vehicles repaired you would think they would lose business and it would be smothered all over the news. I am in agreement with you..a buck is a buck is a buck...
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 03:32 am Post Subject:
As a collision business owner, it is my responsibility, as the expert seen by the courts, to repair your vehicle with parts that bear no danger to you and your occupants. I carry liability coverage for making those decisions.
Are you suggestion that these parts being used provide safety? Aside from hoods, they don't. It's been brought up before... fender, door skins, lower 1/4 panels, etc are _not_ part of the saefty system of the vehicle.Does it seem fair to you that someone can copycat your product and not perfrom any crash test studies to determine the safety of you and your family.
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:10 pm Post Subject:
Lori, so your saying if a part does not fit all the garage has to do is call and the adjuster takes care of it ?
yep it's called a supplement and they happen all the time...The way I see it is insurance could cost a heck of a lot more if all the garages were required to use OEM parts
Of course it is...and it would continue to rise....Would using OEM parts not drive up the cost of the repair and then the cost of insurance also somewhere along the line
exactly...These parts are as safe as any other in my "average person" opinion.
And here is the deal...crash test prove that with all of these parts off the car (with exception of hood on 'some' cars)...the safety is the same...these parts are only to 'pretty up' the vehicle, and provide no safety at all...they crash tested vehicles with the parts stripped off the car, and with the parts on the car, and there was no difference to the passengers safety...Here's my deal..if you are paying for it yourself what would you buy and put on your vehicle? Same with the generic drugs I keep asking Mike about...which one do you 'opt' for? You have a choice there and most people chose the generic/aftermarket because it's as good (or so they say :wink: ) and it costs less...another thing if nothing else a/m parts have forced the oem's to greatly reduce the price of their (previously) over priced parts...in fact I'd say the vast majority of the estimates I write with a/m parts the oem vendor is 'price matching' the a/m and new oem goes on the car for the price of a/m....now how is that possible? I'll tell you how because the oem has been gouging the ka-who-ga's out of everyone, and they can't do it anymore (well they still do it on some parts), because there is an 'alternative'.
Are you suggestion that these parts being used provide safety? Aside from hoods, they don't
the highway safety recently did a crash test with no parts on the car....same result...these parts are not safety items....no one seems to want to answer that question, along with others, (especially my generic drug question)Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 02:39 pm Post Subject:
I actually looked into a lot of this about midway through the post just to give benefit of the doubt. I find that my assumptions were correct and so was the information from garages and auto stores..they are safe. We have used these parts for years.I am sure when my vehicles were repaired at different times they were used. As I said thats fine by me. I knew it had to keep insurance down somewhere along the line but even if it didn't I still fail to see waht the big deal is. I like your example of perscription drugs...it was rather fitting.
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 05:49 pm Post Subject:
Insurers specifying the use of after-market parts shall consider the cost of any modifications which may become necessary when making the repair
Sorry again Mike, but this prior quote does NOT say this next statement to me... Quote:
My Missouri State Unfair Claims statute says that insurers must pay the costs of alteration to make imitation parts fix.
Are you saying that considering the cost is not meant to be interpreted as paying of the cost to make alterations to make the parts fit? The code is in the state statutes.
One of the studies that you quoted appear to have been paid for by property and casualty industry. It would appear to be biased since they had something to gain by their a favorable outcome. For every pci study done, there is one done by the manufacturers that prove differently.
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 01:14 am Post Subject:
Are you saying that considering the cost is not meant to be interpreted as paying of the cost to make alterations to make the parts fit?
Well kind of yeah, that is what i'm saying...I don't know what 'alterations' you are going to make to an a/m fender/h/lamp, bumper cover, etc...but if i had a shop that said to me (as an example) 'look lori, ''i'' charge 2 or 3 ADDITIONAL hours per a/m panel used in a repair in my for ''alterations''... then i would weigh this (crazy IMO) request/demand against the cost of a new oem part. But in truth, we both know that would be the vehicle owners responsiblity if they want to use that shop...but the difference in price would of course (more times than not) would be less to use the OEM part.I understand this is in the fair claims practice code Mike, but when have you ever seen or heard of this being paid? and what exactly are the 'alterations'? If the part is junk, then you don't use it...you don't fight it you call the adjuster tell them this particular part just doesn't fit, then the adjuster says, 'ok, get an oem' or 'I'll call keystone (or whomever) and see what the problem or history on this part is and call you right back'...
One of the studies that you quoted appear to have been paid for by property and casualty industry. It would appear to be biased since they had something to gain by their a favorable outcome. For every pci study done, there is one done by the manufacturers that prove differently
If by that you mean the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ...then yeah. who else does 'unbiased' crash studys? they do the majority of their work on brand new vehicles (you know this)...I don't know what you mean by a p&c company though.....'show me' where a OEM did a CRASH study with oem and a/m parts REPLACEMENT parts , AND no parts on the vehicle...to gauge the occupants safety...don't think there is one...Are you saying Mike, (as Tcope asked)
Are you suggestion that these parts being used provide safety? Aside from hoods, they don't. It's been brought up before... fender, door skins, lower 1/4 panels, etc are _not_ part of the saefty system of the vehicle
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 04:06 pm Post Subject:
understand this is in the fair claims practice code Mike, but when have you ever seen or heard of this being paid? and what exactly are the 'alterations'? If the part is junk, then you don't use it...you don't fight it you call the adjuster tell them this particular part just doesn't fit, then the adjuster says, 'ok, get an oem' or 'I'll call keystone (or whomever) and see what the problem or history on this part is and call you right back'...
When the law was written, it was not uncommon, and perhaps all too often, a/m parts required wollering out of bolt holes, tweaking and twisting to contour to bodylines. Insurers by law were required to pay for the time to make these parts fit. This has improved but I can share pictures with you of crowns and bows of hoods (from the last 6 months) that do not even align to the same a/m companies fenders all of which are suppose to be oem equivalent.
Am I going to halt production to wait twenty four or more hours for another bad a/m part? probably not! I take authorization from the owner for installing a new oem part and the insurer always pays for both. The a/m part companies don't even want the parts back, they say toss em in the metal bin. Absent the vehicle owner not wanting to pay for the oem part, we will twist and tweak to make them fit as best as possible and bill for additional labor or get a credit from the distributor for the labor.
Insurers specify that a/m is all they will pay , and generally the a/m vendor will pay the cost to repair the new part to make useable or just give it to the shop. In many instances they will just credt the shop for the cost of oem and credit the junk part since it is they the (distributor for the manufacturers) that must warranty these parts.
Are you suggestion that these parts being used provide safety? Aside from hoods, they don't. It's been brought up before... fender, door skins, lower 1/4 panels, etc are _not_ part of the saefty system of the vehicle
Any double walled fender which incorporates the apron is considered in the timing of the air bag. HSS oem radiator supports and back bars for bumpers are often specified a/m which are also safety items.
You have some insurers even specifying non certified parts in their estimates on which settlements are based. They only upgrade to capa certified if it is brought to the insurers attention by the vehicle owner who was informed by the shop. Anything to save a buck. Sent a supplement for a capa headlite from a prominent Missouri insurer because the price they specified was for a non certified value line headlamp that the distributor claimed on the inventory was not even insurance quality. Wait is that an oxymoron? They probably mean oem quality.
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:33 pm Post Subject:
HSS oem radiator supports and back bars for bumpers are often specified a/m which are also safety items.
I agree these are structural components, a core support and rebar, but we are not talking about those...(fyi, the company i work for will not use ANY a/m structure parts)...we are talking about exterior sheet metal mike.You have some insurers even specifying non certified parts in their estimates on which settlements are based. They only upgrade to capa certified if it is brought to the insurers attention by the vehicle owner who was informed by the shop
If this is true, (and I'm not doubting you I just don't know)...then I totally am in agreement with you...in that ONLY capa certified parts should be written on a/m parts...Sent a supplement for a capa headlite from a prominent Missouri insurer because the price they specified was for a non certified value line headlamp that the distributor claimed on the inventory was not even insurance quality. Wait is that an oxymoron? They probably mean oem quality.
Well who ever wrote that was, a bit of a moron too...but see you've made my point...(well one of them) if there is an issue, it's as simple as contacting the adjuster and getting a supp paid...bing bang boom, you're done...no problem...On another note, I finally remembered to ask 'my' shops re: do you ever get 'used' a/m parts when you buy 'used' parts or clips...none, zero, noda...not one, in fact they all looked at me like i was nuts....so as i said before this is clearly a yard issue, not a shop or ins issue...i don't know about the parts in PA but (as I have said) here in "God's country" this is not a problem (was that this thread or another one? :oops: )
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 01:19 am Post Subject:
I did not know this, I have a toyota, I am really glad that I read this post through. Warranties are something that we never delve into unless something does not go our way, like a fat bill after a repair. More fine print. Thanks for the post guys and gals, it has been educating.
Add your comment