by msvarghese » Mon Aug 04, 2008 09:47 pm
My 1997 Toyota Corolla was in an accident recently in the Omaha, NE area (68128) and Progressive (my insurance company) "totaled" the car at $2, 520, which is far less than KBB value. This value supposedly includes all fees & taxes, and is still subject to my $250 deductible. This car has current KBB value of $3700.
We bought this car 2 years back from a local dealer for $4250 and in a months' time we had to spent $1750 for changing the transmission belt. I spent a lot on this car and finally according to Insurance people its valued only $2520.According to claim representative, this was totaled before as well which is an unknown fact to us. We had clean title from dealer and even Car fax didn't show that it was totaled. The surprising thing is that Progressive offered insurance quote based on a clean title. I don't know how would they change their records to double-totaled now when we are at receiving end.
We talked to the local dealer and he is still saying that our car was of clean title. At the same time, Progressive is going to send us report which shows it was salvaged. I do not know where to proceed further. I spent around $6000 on that car (excluding taxes) and the totaled value of $2520 can no way compensate that.
Please let me know how I can proceed further...or which is the best way to get the things cleared...
Thanks!
We bought this car 2 years back from a local dealer for $4250 and in a months' time we had to spent $1750 for changing the transmission belt. I spent a lot on this car and finally according to Insurance people its valued only $2520.According to claim representative, this was totaled before as well which is an unknown fact to us. We had clean title from dealer and even Car fax didn't show that it was totaled. The surprising thing is that Progressive offered insurance quote based on a clean title. I don't know how would they change their records to double-totaled now when we are at receiving end.
We talked to the local dealer and he is still saying that our car was of clean title. At the same time, Progressive is going to send us report which shows it was salvaged. I do not know where to proceed further. I spent around $6000 on that car (excluding taxes) and the totaled value of $2520 can no way compensate that.
Please let me know how I can proceed further...or which is the best way to get the things cleared...
Thanks!
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 02:17 am Post Subject:
Really lori, I almost spit my coffee out on that one. There are shops paying to be on programs, and shops asking on discussion forums how they can get on these programs because they face so much steering, they do not know how to market themselves. They want to suck on the sows teat. Woe is them.
Simply another claim you cannot back up.Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 03:22 pm Post Subject:
Located at autobodyonline.com main discussion group Someone is always trying to find out how to get on these programs and others warn them not to. As usual T is wrong again. Not going to dig them all up for you but this forum is chalked full of people trying to find ways to bolster their income by getting on Drps because they are steered so hard against.
Hello all, I own a shop located in Southern California. I have been at this location for over nine years, with zero problems/complaints and lots of repeat customers. However, recently I have been trying to acquire DRPs and it has not been going so well. ALL the insurance companies have either told me "we are not currently adding anyone at this time" or "there is a shop too close in your area already" Is there nothing I can do and just leave it at that, or what are my options? Some of the other shops in the area get DRPS at will it seems, are they "greasing" palms or how is it so easy for them and all I hear are the above two comments without even
setting up a meeting/seeing our shop? ANY insight is greatly appreciated, thanks in advance!
This is an analysis from an insurance attorney on of a recent posting of yours regarding your subrogation rights.
My post
This is the logic of one adjuster who claims to handle fraud cases arrived at how Progressive could sue the shop when I posed the same question.
"Again, I'm not sure you understand the simple principle of transferring the right of recovery. It's easy to see that the customer could file the suit against the body shop. Anyone can assume this right from the customer (it's done in recovery all the time... debts get sent to collection agencies and attorneys all the time). The insurance company has a contract with the insured that states they assume the insured's right of recovery for anything they pay for. So the transfer of recovery is automatic. That is probably one reason why Progressive paid the bill in full... so they could file the suit in the first place."
Maybe Advocate could elaborate if this statement is in fact true.
Attorney's response
Mike, your “friend” is confusing “subrogation” with “assignment”. Although the two legal concepts are similar, they are not the same. Typically, “fraud” claims cannot be assigned.
In this case, “subrogation” could not apply either unless the regressive insured claimed some wrong had been committed by North Shore. I don't believe that the insured has ever alleged such a thing.
Thus, absent some finely worded “insurance fraud” statute governing, unless regressive can claim a contractual relationship with North Shore (which as I have covered many times previously should never ever happen with a body shop if the shop owner has half a brain), it (regressive) is left with really only one choice: file suit against both its insured and the shop alleging some sort of fraud conspiracy. It did not do that here.
Nevertheless, as I stated previously, because it took a couple of years and until the seventh or eighth day of trial to figure out this “technicality”, regressive made its point.
In my opinion, Greg should be asking some very tough questions of his attorneys.
In the meantime, let us hope regressive is satiated.
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 03:37 pm Post Subject:
Some of the other shops in the area get DRPS at will it seems, are they "greasing" palms or how is it so easy for them and all I hear are the above two comments without even setting up a meeting/seeing our shop?
So your proof is someone who is quite clear that they are simply guessing that some shops pay off insurance companies to become DRPs? Laughable.In this case, “subrogation” could not apply either unless the regressive insured claimed some wrong had been committed by North Shore. I don't believe that the insured has ever alleged such a thing.
From the above I think two things are true... the attorney can only guess at the situation as it appears he/she does not know the full story and 2, Progressive _IS_ alleging North Shore commited an illegal act. That is the who point in the suit. I don't remember all the details but I don't think Progressive was alleging insurance fraud. But why are we even discussing this? Progressive _IS_ suing the shop, that is the simple fact. So I fail to see why we are debating weather or not Progressive has this right. If they did not, the case would have been dismissed on under Summary Judgment. Are we going to start that thread all over again here? Feel free to place it in a new thread.Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 05:35 pm Post Subject:
So your proof is someone who is quite clear that they are simply guessing that some shops pay off insurance companies to become DRPs? Laughable.
The proof is the allstate adjuster groebner who was prosecuted for accepting greased money. Sad part is it took the federal government to prosecute him for income tax evasion to expose the act. The industry couldn't or wouldn't discipline him. Is he one of many employees of insurers, the tip of the ice berg, or as Lori implies a rare exception to the rule? Who knows!
You questioned whether anyone was asking how to get on the program and I provide one example. You're never satisfied even when you get the proof.
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 06:02 pm Post Subject:
So when you say shops are "paying" to become DRPs, you don't mean that isnurance companies _charge_ for this type of thing nor do insurance -companies_ collect money for this type of thing... only that in some rare cases some individuals accept bribes. If so, I have no doubt that goes on. You don't think it goes on in every company every day? But who is to blame for this? I'd say it's the shops fault as much as the insurance employee (not the insurance company)! So while you _love_ to point a finger at insurance companies... you seem to always forget to point the finger at the body shop "industry" (what do you do for a living again?).
Do you have 100% control over your employees, Mike? What about if you employed 10,000 people... would you be able to know if any of them were taking money under the table? Again, you make it sound like insurance _companies_ have a practice of charging shops to become DRPs. I think this is pretty underhanded. You critizize insurance companies for being misleading but then you pull crap like this.
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 08:08 pm Post Subject:
In the final analysis, soon most auto policies will be purchased online eliminating agents and most repairs will be done by DRP's and insurance owned shops thereby eliminating most shop owners and appraisers. Hopefully all the money saved by Progressive will not be spent on the Progressive Art Collection and the money saved by AIG will not be squandered on worthless CDO's losing billions of dollars for the last three quarters. The markets will be flooded by new insurance companies popping up everywhere as it will be easier than ever to start an insurance company. All of the talent will move on to other fields of employment and the cost of auto repair will begin to soar as there will not be enough shops left to handle the volume. The consumer loses this one too. Glenn Renwick and Robert F. Orlich will be O.K.
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 08:26 pm Post Subject:
I'd say it's the shops fault as much as the insurance employee (not the insurance company)! So while you _love_ to point a finger at insurance companies... you seem to always forget to point the finger at the body shop "industry" (what do you do for a living again?).
You get no argument from me on that, I believe those that grease the palm are co-conspirators or contribute to an appraisers temptation to pad his income. No body would take the bait if someone fishing didn't present the offer.
Do you have 100% control over your employees, Mike? What about if you employed 10,000 people... would you be able to know if any of them were taking money under the table? Again, you make it sound like insurance _companies_ have a practice of charging shops to become DRPs. I think this is pretty underhanded. You critizize insurance companies for being misleading but then you pull crap like this.
I am one hundred percent liable for the actions of my employees shouldn't insurers be? Insurers micro-manage our industry, you are full of the same crap you claim I pull, if you think that they do not have an accounting of every insurance penny spent and the cost of expenses in the accounting books. They can account for every penny paid, every part used, every part that should have been used of their drp partners. Those shops receive grade cards and they keep the cards on those that are not their partners. They crunch numbers and bean counters count the beans. They are in the business of liability, accountability,probability, and deniability sometimes.
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.
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 09:04 pm Post Subject:
"we are not currently adding anyone at this time" or "there is a shop too close in your area already" Is there nothing I can do and just leave it at that, or what are my options? Some of the other shops in the area get DRPS at will it seems, are they "greasing" palms or how is it so easy for them and all I hear are the above two comments without even
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? :roll: :lol: :lol:setting up a meeting/seeing our shop? ANY insight is greatly appreciated, thanks in advance!
And what did all that with your friend the lady attorney have to do with this?
You questioned whether anyone was asking how to get on the program and I provide one example. You're never satisfied even when you get the proof
When did anyone ask that question? I could've answered that I get about five calls a week wanting to know how to get on our program...so? what's your point? People ask every day what's for dinner too...what on earth does it prove that people want to get on drp's other than you're fighting against the tide, and shops are begging to get on drp's CONSTANTLY...Hopefully all the money saved by Progressive will not be spent on the Progressive Art Collection and the money saved by AIG will not be squandered on worthless CDO's losing billions of dollars for the last three quarters
:lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: I'm with ya' brother...hope all the company's give their adjusters raises instead! :roll: yep, that'll happen... :wink:Glenn Renwick and Robert F. Orlich will be O.K.
:lol: no question about that! :lol:Those shops receive grade cards and they keep the cards on those that are not their partners.
Not where I work...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.
I just KNEW that's where you would wind this around too..just like all adjusters getting kick backs...then you backed that down to 'well, they get raises right'? :roll: Now pullin' the same garbage...make over inflated, lies as statements, then back down, to this...it's a damn shame mike really, if you have to do this, don't you see at all how you lose credability?Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 09:13 pm Post Subject:
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.
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 09:56 pm Post Subject:
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.
Add your comment