Your 'proof' is hysterical! Mike I've said these exact things to shops...company's operate differently some will let all that want to be on their programs on...while others (like my company) do not and have a set number (based on the amount of volumn the shop can handle) in a set geographical area...if we let any and all on (first of all we're backing their work so that ain't happen')...then where would the volumn be for the others? Sorry dude that was just dumb as proof, a guy asked a question and that's proof?
You can spout insinations all day long and natter on about lack of proof, but it's there, you just choose to ignore, accept or believe. Our trade rags and associations are just making this stuff all up just so I can give you proof you refuse to accept. Now that's not only dumb but typical. We're back to the denial phase again with t and lori. Are you suggesting someone has an empirical study on this issue and you would only accept it as validation. I don't think they want that information known.
I have no problems with a shop wanting to prostitute themselves to an insurer for less than market value of their work and services. If they want to work cheaper it shouldn't be at the independent repairer's expense. The problem begins when the consumer is not allowed to choose their shops and are steered to those that only give discounts and concessions. Less than an hour ago a third party insurer that attempted to pull just that with my consumer. Why shouldn't all shops that qualify to be on those programs and want to be on those programs be granted to be on those programs. I would be the last person wanting to defend a persons right to prostitute themselves to the insurer, but that looks pretty discriminatory, capricious, and arbitrary only meant to weaken and devide the herd. _________________ If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
I am one hundred percent liable for the actions of my employees shouldn't insurers be?
I know something about liability and, no... you are not 100% liable in all cases. I'm no lawyer and I can't speak for all laws but in this case I'm betting it would need to be shown that Allstate knew or should have known this person was accepting kickbacks. But also, this sounds like it's just a criminal case and not civil. But I don't disagree completely in this case. I think if needed Allstate would have stepped up to the plate if they needed. But I think we all still agree with the bottom line... the insurance _company_ was not charging a fee for shops to become DRPs.
Quote:
Insurers micro-manage our industry...
No we don't... independent shops have no responsiblity to insurance companies. You stated this and no one disagrees. Again, we are arguing in circles. You can't claim both.
Quote:
They can account for every penny paid, every part used, every part that should have been used of their drp partners.
I'd agree with that... so your saying they are doing a good job. Give a penny, someone will take a dollar.
Quote:
They are in the business of liability, accountability,probability, and deniability sometimes.
I could not agree more! No one ever disagreed with that. You hit the nail on the head! Insurance companies are a _business_. People often loose sight of this. I was just at a meeting this last week... in many of the states where we write business we are currently at or close to a 100% loss ratio (meaning for every premium dollar we collect, we spend one). It's pretty much a given in those 15 states or so that we will loose money this year. Add to this that insurance companies can still make money on investments but only when the market is good. How do you think the market is doing?
Quote:
Most DRP programs require concessions of some sort, if you don't charge for something that anyone not on a program charges for, you're still buying referrals by giving concessions and agreements even though no money changes hands.
"Buying referals"? I have no idea what that means. Do insurance companies pay less to DRPs? In most cases (if not all), no. But do we expect them to make some repairs the way we want? Yes. Read that again.. of course it's true! The Progressive DRP agreement you posted in another thread was a perfect example. It stated that DRPs were _not_ to make any repair not recommended by the manufacture of the vehicle. DRPs are also expected to honor certain insurance companies rates and times. If they don't think they can do this... they are more then welcome to not sign up. If you don't think you can follow these guidelines... feel free to not sign up as well. I've always said, I fail to see the problem.
The TRUTH is, most shops are quite happy to be DRPs... this is why you see so many shops wanting to be DRPs. It means they can make a lot of money... and they do. If they did not, they can simply opt out of the program. The truth is, you just do not like it as you worry about your business. I can certainly understand that. I can also understand why you attack insurance companies. But what is low is that you use falsehoods, 1/2 truths, and hidden agendas to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
But don't get me wrong, I can certainly see why independent shops don't like DRP's. I get that and I can't disagree with that point of view. But if I were in that boat I'd not blame insurance companies for wanting to make a buck and for not doing something that is 100% legal and saves money. To bring this thread full circle (and back on topic), the same is true for AM parts. I understand why shops don't like them (I don't like them) but bottom line... they serve a purpose, are 100% legal, and save insureds money.
The sad fact of the matter is that insurance companies treat their own worse than shops. No taking care of your own in the claims dept. Not sure why that is.
Paying those DRPs too much money, probably.
While this is true of many carriers... truth is, we all think we should be making more money. If they paid me $1,000,000/year I'd probably ask for a raise. I would say that claims gets paid less then most other depts... as it's hard to pay someone more when the purpose of their job is to spend the companies money.
I have no problems with a shop wanting to prostitute themselves to an insurer for less than market value of their work and services.
Good... then I guess we've solve the problem... again. But we all know you really _do_ have a problem with these agreements. That is why _you_ keep raising the issue over and over. This thread was not even about DRPs yet you felt the need to start in on this all over again.
Quote:
The problem begins when the consumer is not allowed to choose their shops and are steered to those that only give discounts and concessions.
But we all know the consumer _IS_ allowed to choose (another one of your 1/2 truths). I think everyone would fully admit that some adjusters push too hard and also that some consumers just don't understand that they still have a choice. This is going to happen. But what amount are we talking about? As was asked before... how did "your consumer" get to you if they thought they could only go to a DRP?
If you are stating that adjusters sometimes push people to hard to DRPs, I'd _have_ to agree with you 100%! But this is not what you have been stating.
Quote:
Why shouldn't all shops that qualify to be on those programs and want to be on those programs be granted to be on those programs.
Simply because the insurance company needs to monitor the work done by a DRP and the DRP needs to have certain equipment and capability. The insurance company also needs to have enough volume going to the DRP to make the arrangement work. Obviously this would not happen if there were too many. It's no secret.
Put on your boots people! T's really dug in the poo bag tonite, must have been a really bad day.
Quote:
But we all know the consumer _IS_ allowed to choose (another one of your 1/2 truths). I think everyone would fully admit that some adjusters push too hard and also that some consumers just don't understand that they still have a choice. This is going to happen. But what amount are we talking about? As was asked before... how did "your consumer" get to you if they thought they could only go to a DRP?
You and I know the consumer is allowed, and I can't for the life of me figure out why vehicle owners call me and tell me that the insurer (1st and 3rd party) is telling me I have to use the insurer preferred shop.
My consumers set up many appraisers, claims people ,and adjusters to step into their own poo and fibs. They already have had explained by me, the BS they will have to listen to and the fight they may have on their hands when they want to exercise their choice.
Amazing how they call me and say, they almost word for word, told me what you explained to me that they would say and attempt to do. That was my customer being steered to a preferred shop. That wasn't a customer that should have been told anything but accepted that they had already chosen a shop. Some states require insurers to stop immediately after they have been informed of shop choice and they do not. That's why non drp's have to be vigilant to maintain and keep our customers before they are directed to a shop that was never on the radar for them.
Quote:
The TRUTH is, most shops are quite happy to be DRPs... this is why you see so many shops wanting to be DRPs. It means they can make a lot of money... and they do. If they did not, they can simply opt out of the program. The truth is, you just do not like it as you worry about your business. I can certainly understand that. I can also understand why you attack insurance companies. But what is low is that you use falsehoods, 1/2 truths, and hidden agendas to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
If that assertion wasn't so absurd it would be funny. How do move around with a nose that long T'nochio? Your credibility shows to be very weak if you have to resort to name calling and slander with incredulous accusations or is this simply a catharsis or form of therapy recommended by a counselor to act out agressively. _________________ If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over.
You and I know the consumer is allowed, and I can't for the life of me figure out why vehicle owners call me and tell me that the insurer (1st and 3rd party) is telling me I have to use the insurer preferred shop.
Because some adjusters make it sound like the DRP is the only choice. Not a good practice but still legal. But also because (a _lot_ of times) people just do not listen! About a month ago I explained to a claimant that he needed to choose a good repair shop because he needed to feel that they would do a good job. He choose a shop that was working out of a warehouse. He even called me and asked about a warrenty on the work. I figured this po-dunk shop was not going to stand behind their work but I'm not about to pull business away from anyone so I tell him the same thing... he needs to be careful about the shop _he_ needs to choose. I go out to look at the vehicle and the shop can't even tell me their correct address. I call the owner and offer to pay to have it moved to another shop (something I don't owe but I know this is going south). He refuses. Speed up to a week ago... he calls me as the shop did a piss poor job and he wants to know what I'm going to do about it. Mike, this same problem manifests itself on both sides. Many people _just don't listen_. I told a guy last week I could only pay for rental while his vehicle was in the shop and they were working on it... this was 2 days of rental... so don't drop it off on a Friday. He calls me on Monday as he dropped it off on Friday and now he needs an extension on his rental. I even included a _letter_ explaining this along with my payment! Again, I agree 100% that some adjusters push _way_ too hard toward DRPs and I know insurance companies even track this information on an individual adjuster level. I know I worked for several companies like this. Personally I never pushed DRPs and I can't think of a time that anyone held this against me. I've also had people get upset at me when I cannot recommend shops (many people like the lifetime warrenty on repairs). I've never denied any of the above.
Quote:
That was my customer being steered to a preferred shop.
How bad was the "steering" when he ended up at your shop?
Quote:
Some states require insurers to stop immediately after they have been informed of shop choice and they do not.
I'd love to see confirmation of this. I've never heard of that.
Quote:
Your credibility shows to be very weak if you have to resort to name calling and slander
What I said was not libel (there is just cause nor was it an attack) nor do I recall calling you any names.
Now that I review the thread, I did find one post with name calling... want to guess who's it was...
Quote:
T'nochio
Funny that you accuse me of what only you did.
I also look back to the subject of the OP's post and it seems like this thread is really about the total loss value on a Toyota. Can we stick to that?
More of the truth if you dare read. T, You don't have a folicle on your posterior if you do not confront these esteemed repair professionals that share the same "untruths as you put it" that I lay claim to so you can reprimand and call them liars as you assert that I am. They make the same assertions perhaps more eloquently and pursuavive than I do. Nah, you just claim they are more disgruntleed shop owners that want to be on DRP programs.
Ok Mike I read that entire, (damn I'm tired now) thread...where was there any talk or proof of ANYONE paying to be on a drp? or are we off of that now? I've lost track... _________________ Have you been helped by a poster? Do you want to show your appreciation? YOU CAN !! Just simply click on the donate button and send them some coin!
