If the insurance adjuster authorized the repairs to my vehicle and I did not should I have to pay the $500 deductible?
Total Comments: 33
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:06 am Post Subject:
No I wouldn't be this upset if there was no deductible, the reason I am upset is because it was done when I told them I was not ready for it to be done because of the deductible.
Yes I dropped it off on a Monday nothing done by Thursday ... called the adjuster and asked him when he was going to go look at it for the estimate so that I could get it back until I had the money for the deductible. He said he was trying to get a hold of them to see it they had it in the shop yet. But I know that was a lie because when I took the car there the shop called him to see if there was a way to set an appointment for me to bring the car back for this and he told them to put me in a rental. I told them I did NOT want to leave the car there but this is the only way he would do it.
I have talked to the same guy that i dropped the car off with every time I have called over there. He is the shop supervisor. I had called back to see if they had got the estimate done on the next Wednesday because I had other things going on all week. And that is when I found out the car was done and I needed to bring over $500 to get my car. Then I checked on the website for my carrier and they had already cut a check the same day that I got the estimate off that site... and the date that the estimate was wrote was the same day they cut out a check. They paid $2727.83 for the repairs and the total was $3227.83. I had started calling them and they told me to talk to the adjuster but he just gave me a line of bull.... and then I tried to get a hold of his supervisor and still till this day and it has been about 3 days I have not received a phone call back from his supervisor.
All they keep telling me is that they put me in a rental so that the car could get fixed but what was honestly said to me is that they were going to look at it and get the estimate. Nothing ever said about it being repaired.
I am upset at the insurance carrier because they knew it was being repaired and I had told them I was not ready for it to be repaired right now. But they had already cut the check out. So they knew what was going on and still no contact from them, the adjuster, or the shop.
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 01:04 am Post Subject:
Ok, I want to see if I have this correct..you dropped the car off on monday...called that thurs...then didn't call or talk with anyone again till the following wed...when the shop said, your car is done? is that right? so from the time you dropped it off until the time you talked to them on wed and found out it was ready was 9 or 10 days right?
Ok, did the adjuster that you first talked to when you reported the claim discuss repairing your vehicle? Did they ask you where you wanted it repaired etc? what was said in that conversation? What I'm wondering is if there was verbal permission? I know I know you didn't give permission, but I'm wondering if there was a misunderstanding about that...
I think what you will need to do at this point is to talk with the shop manager and see if you can work out some type of payment arrangements for your deductible, if the at fault carrier will not front that to the shop now...If he says no, then remind him he had no auth to repair your vehicle, the ins. company CAN NOT give auth to repair your vehicle, and he KNOWS this. so unless he wants a giant mess on his hands he needs to work with you on this..frankly i don't understand, either, why you called on wed and they said your vehicle was done...when was it done? and why did they not call you?
call your carrier back ask to speak to the branch claims manager, or regional manager, do NOT take no for an answer...if your claim is viewable on line there should also be contact information.
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 01:39 am Post Subject:
There is contact information and I have called everyone on that list and even the claims supervisor but that supervisor has not returned any phone calls.
NO BODY called me to discuss the repair options... In the first phone call with them they asked the what the closest repair facility was and I told them. So thats where they wanted me to take it to be estimated and their adjuster to come over there to look at it for their estimate.
yes it was like 9 or 10 days even on the estimate it says it would take a week to fix but it wasn't even that long.
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 07:36 pm Post Subject: Unauthorized Vehicle Repair
Days: You said these difficulties occurred in Ohio, right? I am an attorney licensed in Ohio and I deal with insurance claims/auto and collision repair issues every day. So here is what I know and my suggestion to you:
First, it is a breach of Ohio's consumer protection law for the shop to have a) failed to provide you with an estimate of repair costs (if more than $25, which this clearly was from your information) prior to beginning repairs; b) failed to obtain your authorization prior to beginning repairs; and c) failed to obtain your express authorization for repairs with "aftermarket parts" if such parts were used. The body shop's failure to comply with Ohio's consumer protection law can render them liable to you for three times the amount of damages you suffered, and the payment of attorney fees if you have to hire a lawyer and go to court over this problem.
The reason we have consumer protection laws requiring advance notice and authorization for vehicle repairs is to prevent exactly what has happened to you.
Furthermore, the body shop cannot exercise a possessory lien and withhold your vehicle from you without first proving that it complied with all of the provisions of Ohio's consumer protection laws -- which it has not according to the information you posted.
Second, the insurance company has/had no right to pay the collision repair shop for work you did not authorize. Since you are paying a deductible, it appears that you are using your own contract of insurance to obtain repairs. That being the case, you are entitled to receive any and all money that represents the damage/repair cost to your vehicle based on your insurance policy. The insurer has no right or ability to pay the repair shop on your behalf unless you expressly authorize them to do so. If you didn't sign anything, your insurer has/had no right to pay the repair shop. If it did so, your insurer acted wrongly as well as the repair shop.
My suggestion to you is that you file a complaint with the Consumer Protection Division of the Ohio Attorney General's Office regarding the unauthorized repairs to your vehicle. The AG's office is charged with investigating and addressing problems just like yours and are good at resolving these types of problems. They will be able to help you promptly get your vehicle back.
Also, I would suggest you file a complaint with the Ohio Department of Insurance against your insurer. The insurer appears to have contributed to this problem, and the fact that its employees will no longer communicate with you is something the Ohio DOI needs to be informed about as a possible unfair and deceptive property/casualty claims handling practice. Insurers operating in Ohio have obligations to respond within a certain limited amount of time to you regarding your communications to them about your claim. The fact that several employees at your insurer are simply ignoring you and your claim now that there appears to be a problem is very likely a violation of Ohio's insurance regulations. Based on my own meetings and experience with representatives of the Ohio Insurance Department, they always recommend that you, the consumer, file a complaint to alert them to these types of problems. Unless you do so, they never have any idea that these problems exist, and cannot investigate nor correct the behavior.
Additionally, if you did not authorize your insurer to pay the body shop for any activities they have undertaken with your vehicle, your insurer still owes you the money representing the damages suffered by your vehicle. You can write and demand the insurer issue you a check representing the full cost of repairs (less your deductible). If the insurer has issued any payment to the repair shop for repairs, it is the insurer's problem to try to get that money back from the shop, not yours. Remember, the insurer's contract of insurance is with you. Its obligation to remedy the damage to your car is to you. If your insurer acted prematurely and paid someone else, that doesn't mean you are not entitled to what is owed to you under the policy.
I hope this helps.
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 07:38 pm Post Subject: It is apparent
...in reviewing the documents provided by the VO that the shop very likely did indeed establish an agreement and make a bargain with the insurer.
The "agreed figure" that insurers ask their appraisers to "get" with a shop - that is improper as well, perhaps even more so than the DRP arrangement.
Why? Because it requires that the repairer act in representation of the vehicle owner. This is the common practice whether the claim is an insured or third party loss. common however does not make it legal. It is exactly the institutionalized fraud and secret keeping I was alluding to in earlier posts.
Lori - Do the companies you write damage appraisals for ask you to get agreed figures with shops? Do you think that asking/requiring a repairer to act in a way that violates the law is good business?
Based on thier behavior thus far I cannot imagine that this repairer cares much, but I see a growing list of pretty serious issues in what I have read.
For instance - if the paperwork is accurate - an aftermarket radiator has been installed in the car. While that should come as no surprise to many of us - in OH it is a specific requirement of law that the VO approve in writing the installation of all aftermarket parts. Since Day's mom says she has signed nothing we can add this to the list of other required behaviors ignored in favor of moving the repairs along expeditiously rather than legally. No repairer's estimate has been presented, No authorization has been signed. I imagine that there will be no final billing presented to the VO either. Really it does not matter now anyway, the damage has been done.
The repairer has forgotten who their customer is - unless there is a definition of "is" with which I am unfamiliar.
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 08:03 pm Post Subject:
Why? Because it requires that the repairer act in representation of the vehicle owner. This is the common practice whether the claim is an insured or third party loss. common however does not make it legal. It is exactly the institutionalized fraud and secret keeping I was alluding to in earlier posts.
I see this all too often. I believe many drp shops assume since the vehicle was towed to the insurer preferred shop, that the owner has conceded authorization in some fashion. They are gambling that the vehicle owners are uninformed of their contractual rights and they proceed as if the insurer is their customer; not the vehicle owner.
I performed a visual post repair inspection on behalf of an attorney for a vehicle owner because he suspected his vehicle lacked complete repairs and wanted another professional opinion before they accepted the work. It created quite a scene to say the least. At one exasperated point, the shop manager boasted "you'll take your car just like it is or I'll set it outside and you'll owe storage, because I've already been paid by the insurer who authorized the repairs."
Another repairer assumed again since the vehicle was at the dealership drp, that they had this magical implied authorization or gambled on the notion that they would likely be performing the repairs. They ordered parts and initiated a disassembly all without the owner authorization. Knowing they made a mistake when the owner authorized it towed to my business, the drp shop called a pleaded with me to purchase their pre-ordered parts at a huge savings.
I think a long time tactic of many shopowners is to use a tactic of disassembling the vehicle and scattering the parts, all without proper authorization and the befuddled vehicle owner simply allows repairs to be made because they feel entrapped by the shop and the insurer who worked with the shop.
I feel the Illinois Collision repair act would/should be the standard by which all states allow insurers, vehicle owners, and shops to interact in the repair of vehicles via contract of insurance or third party claims.
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 02:40 am Post Subject: insurance
SD this would make zero sense for her carrier to not actively pursue the other carrier
LORI...then why is the OP's Insurance company giving her the 'run around' about the claim to the OTHER Insurance company, the repairs, etc.? I can see where you're coming from, LORI, but...when the OP needed questions answered, the OP's Insurance company shouldn't have been 'sitting on it.' If it were 'my' Insurance company, and I waited THIS long for answers, I would have been thinking that something was wrong ( lack of a better word).
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 06:43 am Post Subject:
Hi,
I know I know you didn't give permission, but I'm wondering if there was a misunderstanding about that...
I guess it was a verbal authorization..but then it also falls within the state guidelines that a service provider has to inform a consumer that their conversation would be recorded for legal verification purposes prior to the commencement of the service. Believe me this has to be done before switching on the recorder. I guess that applies for all our states.
Roddick
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:34 am Post Subject:
LORI...then why is the OP's Insurance company giving her the 'run around' about the claim to the OTHER Insurance company, the repairs, etc.?
Why the other carrier is not responding to her carrier? I have no idea..and remember we are only getting one side...There is NO excuse for her carrier to not be returning calls the same day if they come in within two hours of quit time (IMO) and if after that then no later than noon the next day..HUGE pet peeve of mine.....as to the claimant carrier...who knows..could be both adjusters are lazy could be the other carrier's insured in uncooperative..you can bet in the 'end' they will pay this subro claim back to her carrier..Personally I'd have already done my best to get to a VP of claims..to complain about my calls not being returned..and the rest of this mess...
Good advise on this thread Days, If I were you I'd get on those complaints today...
Interesting point about the owner being paid direct "again" I'm sure this would take an attorney, so Days, looks like you might be entitled to ..$9,683.48 from the shop and $2727.83 from your carrier to you or you and your lein holder...sweet....I would assume that Ohio also has in their contract that if a lein holder is present they also must be protected. Think if it were me I'd be looking for an atty..you can bet that neither the shop nor your carrier is likely to up this money freely....might try it, but I'm betting an atty will be required, but then apparently you can ask for their fee as well...
...Lori - Do the companies you write damage appraisals for ask you to get agreed figures with shops? Do you think that asking/requiring a repairer to act in a way that violates the law is good business?
Yes, and no...We agree on what we know at the time...hopefully there has been complete tear down (if needed) and the estimate is gone over at side of car so both of us are on the same page...I don't see how this is in any violation, Wade... The MO policy gives the adjuster the right to write the estimate. Are there supps occasionally? Sure there are...Let me interject something right here before I forget, that the company I work for doesn't let one bolt be turned without authorization from the vehicle owner...If the owner is too far away or doesn't want to go to the shop then a three way (recorded) call is made with the adj,owner, and shop manager on the phone, giving authorization.. (yes everyone knows it's being recorded).The 'script' is very very clear..does blank shop have your permission to blank...and so on...
Rod, in MO only one party of the conversation has to know it's being recorded...unless this law has been changed...this is the way it was in about 1995 or so when I was involved in a big giant deal over this very thing...
Days, looks like you've got a lot of calls to make now..let us know how it's coming and if we can be of any additional help.
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 02:33 pm Post Subject: The agreement
Lori -
Agreements made by anyone in representation of the vehicle owner require a specific credential. That would be "attorney" and in some states and for ONLY first party claims a license as a Public Insurance Adjuster.
An Adjuster or Appraiser can represent your company but cannot represent the vehicle owner.
A Repairer can represent his company but cannot represent the vehicle owner.
Two businesses coming together and forging an agreement that affects a consumer - who believes (because of reliance) that each business is acting in his best interest - when they are not - is what the courts call a civil conspiracy to defraud the consumer.
Such methodology puts the shop in a position to act in a manner for which they are not licensed and can not be insured. Additionally - Because everything performed under an agreement is an intentional act - the existence of any agreement with a party outside of the contract of repair can have the effect of suspending the repairer's liability insurance for repairs performed under that agreement.
What you write about how your company handles claims makes the process seem innocuous. "That is the way things are done" is a convenient means of getting those claims files cleand up. I notice you avoid the issue of upon whose estimate you and the repairer argree. If you are saying that you write the estimates and the repairer agrees to do it your way and/or for your dollar figure then I would say that your company is engaged in a very common practice. The other way 'round is not really better, where an insurer before during or after the fact "influences" what a repairer writes or how the repairs are done. Each method leaves the Vehicle Owner (who is in many cases not even one of your insureds) compromised and totally in the dark.
Interestingly, as in this case, when the curtain is pulled back and consumer is no longer in the dark the entire business model falls apart
What has happened to Day Day's Mommy has nothing to do with insurance and everything to do with insurance. The repairer did what they did (violate the consumer protection laws of OH) because there was an insurer involved. Period.
The easiest path to a remedy for DDM is directly through the improper actions of the repairer. I can tell you with confidence that other than possibly an attempted defense of waving their hands over their heads and screaming "this is not fraud!" the Consumer Fraud issue will abate the participation of the repairer's liability carrier. The repairer is on their own.
It is also my understanding that for consumer fraud actions such as this, attorneys' fees are by statute paid by the guilty party and calculated separately from any award or settlement.
Damages (up to treble) go to the consumer.
We can only hope - given what insurers and the "financial services sector" have done and continue to do to this Country - that consumers like Stephanie continue to push for answers where there have previously only been secrets.
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:06 am Post Subject:
No I wouldn't be this upset if there was no deductible, the reason I am upset is because it was done when I told them I was not ready for it to be done because of the deductible.
Yes I dropped it off on a Monday nothing done by Thursday ... called the adjuster and asked him when he was going to go look at it for the estimate so that I could get it back until I had the money for the deductible. He said he was trying to get a hold of them to see it they had it in the shop yet. But I know that was a lie because when I took the car there the shop called him to see if there was a way to set an appointment for me to bring the car back for this and he told them to put me in a rental. I told them I did NOT want to leave the car there but this is the only way he would do it.
I have talked to the same guy that i dropped the car off with every time I have called over there. He is the shop supervisor. I had called back to see if they had got the estimate done on the next Wednesday because I had other things going on all week. And that is when I found out the car was done and I needed to bring over $500 to get my car. Then I checked on the website for my carrier and they had already cut a check the same day that I got the estimate off that site... and the date that the estimate was wrote was the same day they cut out a check. They paid $2727.83 for the repairs and the total was $3227.83. I had started calling them and they told me to talk to the adjuster but he just gave me a line of bull.... and then I tried to get a hold of his supervisor and still till this day and it has been about 3 days I have not received a phone call back from his supervisor.
All they keep telling me is that they put me in a rental so that the car could get fixed but what was honestly said to me is that they were going to look at it and get the estimate. Nothing ever said about it being repaired.
I am upset at the insurance carrier because they knew it was being repaired and I had told them I was not ready for it to be repaired right now. But they had already cut the check out. So they knew what was going on and still no contact from them, the adjuster, or the shop.
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 01:04 am Post Subject:
Ok, I want to see if I have this correct..you dropped the car off on monday...called that thurs...then didn't call or talk with anyone again till the following wed...when the shop said, your car is done? is that right? so from the time you dropped it off until the time you talked to them on wed and found out it was ready was 9 or 10 days right?
Ok, did the adjuster that you first talked to when you reported the claim discuss repairing your vehicle? Did they ask you where you wanted it repaired etc? what was said in that conversation? What I'm wondering is if there was verbal permission? I know I know you didn't give permission, but I'm wondering if there was a misunderstanding about that...
I think what you will need to do at this point is to talk with the shop manager and see if you can work out some type of payment arrangements for your deductible, if the at fault carrier will not front that to the shop now...If he says no, then remind him he had no auth to repair your vehicle, the ins. company CAN NOT give auth to repair your vehicle, and he KNOWS this. so unless he wants a giant mess on his hands he needs to work with you on this..frankly i don't understand, either, why you called on wed and they said your vehicle was done...when was it done? and why did they not call you?
call your carrier back ask to speak to the branch claims manager, or regional manager, do NOT take no for an answer...if your claim is viewable on line there should also be contact information.
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 01:39 am Post Subject:
There is contact information and I have called everyone on that list and even the claims supervisor but that supervisor has not returned any phone calls.
NO BODY called me to discuss the repair options... In the first phone call with them they asked the what the closest repair facility was and I told them. So thats where they wanted me to take it to be estimated and their adjuster to come over there to look at it for their estimate.
yes it was like 9 or 10 days even on the estimate it says it would take a week to fix but it wasn't even that long.
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 07:36 pm Post Subject: Unauthorized Vehicle Repair
Days: You said these difficulties occurred in Ohio, right? I am an attorney licensed in Ohio and I deal with insurance claims/auto and collision repair issues every day. So here is what I know and my suggestion to you:
First, it is a breach of Ohio's consumer protection law for the shop to have a) failed to provide you with an estimate of repair costs (if more than $25, which this clearly was from your information) prior to beginning repairs; b) failed to obtain your authorization prior to beginning repairs; and c) failed to obtain your express authorization for repairs with "aftermarket parts" if such parts were used. The body shop's failure to comply with Ohio's consumer protection law can render them liable to you for three times the amount of damages you suffered, and the payment of attorney fees if you have to hire a lawyer and go to court over this problem.
The reason we have consumer protection laws requiring advance notice and authorization for vehicle repairs is to prevent exactly what has happened to you.
Furthermore, the body shop cannot exercise a possessory lien and withhold your vehicle from you without first proving that it complied with all of the provisions of Ohio's consumer protection laws -- which it has not according to the information you posted.
Second, the insurance company has/had no right to pay the collision repair shop for work you did not authorize. Since you are paying a deductible, it appears that you are using your own contract of insurance to obtain repairs. That being the case, you are entitled to receive any and all money that represents the damage/repair cost to your vehicle based on your insurance policy. The insurer has no right or ability to pay the repair shop on your behalf unless you expressly authorize them to do so. If you didn't sign anything, your insurer has/had no right to pay the repair shop. If it did so, your insurer acted wrongly as well as the repair shop.
My suggestion to you is that you file a complaint with the Consumer Protection Division of the Ohio Attorney General's Office regarding the unauthorized repairs to your vehicle. The AG's office is charged with investigating and addressing problems just like yours and are good at resolving these types of problems. They will be able to help you promptly get your vehicle back.
Also, I would suggest you file a complaint with the Ohio Department of Insurance against your insurer. The insurer appears to have contributed to this problem, and the fact that its employees will no longer communicate with you is something the Ohio DOI needs to be informed about as a possible unfair and deceptive property/casualty claims handling practice. Insurers operating in Ohio have obligations to respond within a certain limited amount of time to you regarding your communications to them about your claim. The fact that several employees at your insurer are simply ignoring you and your claim now that there appears to be a problem is very likely a violation of Ohio's insurance regulations. Based on my own meetings and experience with representatives of the Ohio Insurance Department, they always recommend that you, the consumer, file a complaint to alert them to these types of problems. Unless you do so, they never have any idea that these problems exist, and cannot investigate nor correct the behavior.
Additionally, if you did not authorize your insurer to pay the body shop for any activities they have undertaken with your vehicle, your insurer still owes you the money representing the damages suffered by your vehicle. You can write and demand the insurer issue you a check representing the full cost of repairs (less your deductible). If the insurer has issued any payment to the repair shop for repairs, it is the insurer's problem to try to get that money back from the shop, not yours. Remember, the insurer's contract of insurance is with you. Its obligation to remedy the damage to your car is to you. If your insurer acted prematurely and paid someone else, that doesn't mean you are not entitled to what is owed to you under the policy.
I hope this helps.
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 07:38 pm Post Subject: It is apparent
...in reviewing the documents provided by the VO that the shop very likely did indeed establish an agreement and make a bargain with the insurer.
The "agreed figure" that insurers ask their appraisers to "get" with a shop - that is improper as well, perhaps even more so than the DRP arrangement.
Why? Because it requires that the repairer act in representation of the vehicle owner. This is the common practice whether the claim is an insured or third party loss. common however does not make it legal. It is exactly the institutionalized fraud and secret keeping I was alluding to in earlier posts.
Lori - Do the companies you write damage appraisals for ask you to get agreed figures with shops? Do you think that asking/requiring a repairer to act in a way that violates the law is good business?
Based on thier behavior thus far I cannot imagine that this repairer cares much, but I see a growing list of pretty serious issues in what I have read.
For instance - if the paperwork is accurate - an aftermarket radiator has been installed in the car. While that should come as no surprise to many of us - in OH it is a specific requirement of law that the VO approve in writing the installation of all aftermarket parts. Since Day's mom says she has signed nothing we can add this to the list of other required behaviors ignored in favor of moving the repairs along expeditiously rather than legally. No repairer's estimate has been presented, No authorization has been signed. I imagine that there will be no final billing presented to the VO either. Really it does not matter now anyway, the damage has been done.
The repairer has forgotten who their customer is - unless there is a definition of "is" with which I am unfamiliar.
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 08:03 pm Post Subject:
Why? Because it requires that the repairer act in representation of the vehicle owner. This is the common practice whether the claim is an insured or third party loss. common however does not make it legal. It is exactly the institutionalized fraud and secret keeping I was alluding to in earlier posts.
I see this all too often. I believe many drp shops assume since the vehicle was towed to the insurer preferred shop, that the owner has conceded authorization in some fashion. They are gambling that the vehicle owners are uninformed of their contractual rights and they proceed as if the insurer is their customer; not the vehicle owner.
I performed a visual post repair inspection on behalf of an attorney for a vehicle owner because he suspected his vehicle lacked complete repairs and wanted another professional opinion before they accepted the work. It created quite a scene to say the least. At one exasperated point, the shop manager boasted "you'll take your car just like it is or I'll set it outside and you'll owe storage, because I've already been paid by the insurer who authorized the repairs."
Another repairer assumed again since the vehicle was at the dealership drp, that they had this magical implied authorization or gambled on the notion that they would likely be performing the repairs. They ordered parts and initiated a disassembly all without the owner authorization. Knowing they made a mistake when the owner authorized it towed to my business, the drp shop called a pleaded with me to purchase their pre-ordered parts at a huge savings.
I think a long time tactic of many shopowners is to use a tactic of disassembling the vehicle and scattering the parts, all without proper authorization and the befuddled vehicle owner simply allows repairs to be made because they feel entrapped by the shop and the insurer who worked with the shop.
I feel the Illinois Collision repair act would/should be the standard by which all states allow insurers, vehicle owners, and shops to interact in the repair of vehicles via contract of insurance or third party claims.
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 02:40 am Post Subject: insurance
SD this would make zero sense for her carrier to not actively pursue the other carrier
LORI...then why is the OP's Insurance company giving her the 'run around' about the claim to the OTHER Insurance company, the repairs, etc.? I can see where you're coming from, LORI, but...when the OP needed questions answered, the OP's Insurance company shouldn't have been 'sitting on it.' If it were 'my' Insurance company, and I waited THIS long for answers, I would have been thinking that something was wrong ( lack of a better word).Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 06:43 am Post Subject:
Hi,
I know I know you didn't give permission, but I'm wondering if there was a misunderstanding about that...
I guess it was a verbal authorization..but then it also falls within the state guidelines that a service provider has to inform a consumer that their conversation would be recorded for legal verification purposes prior to the commencement of the service. Believe me this has to be done before switching on the recorder. I guess that applies for all our states.
Roddick
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:34 am Post Subject:
LORI...then why is the OP's Insurance company giving her the 'run around' about the claim to the OTHER Insurance company, the repairs, etc.?
Why the other carrier is not responding to her carrier? I have no idea..and remember we are only getting one side...There is NO excuse for her carrier to not be returning calls the same day if they come in within two hours of quit time (IMO) and if after that then no later than noon the next day..HUGE pet peeve of mine.....as to the claimant carrier...who knows..could be both adjusters are lazy could be the other carrier's insured in uncooperative..you can bet in the 'end' they will pay this subro claim back to her carrier..Personally I'd have already done my best to get to a VP of claims..to complain about my calls not being returned..and the rest of this mess...Good advise on this thread Days, If I were you I'd get on those complaints today...
Interesting point about the owner being paid direct "again" I'm sure this would take an attorney, so Days, looks like you might be entitled to ..$9,683.48 from the shop and $2727.83 from your carrier to you or you and your lein holder...sweet....I would assume that Ohio also has in their contract that if a lein holder is present they also must be protected. Think if it were me I'd be looking for an atty..you can bet that neither the shop nor your carrier is likely to up this money freely....might try it, but I'm betting an atty will be required, but then apparently you can ask for their fee as well...
...Lori - Do the companies you write damage appraisals for ask you to get agreed figures with shops? Do you think that asking/requiring a repairer to act in a way that violates the law is good business?
Yes, and no...We agree on what we know at the time...hopefully there has been complete tear down (if needed) and the estimate is gone over at side of car so both of us are on the same page...I don't see how this is in any violation, Wade... The MO policy gives the adjuster the right to write the estimate. Are there supps occasionally? Sure there are...Let me interject something right here before I forget, that the company I work for doesn't let one bolt be turned without authorization from the vehicle owner...If the owner is too far away or doesn't want to go to the shop then a three way (recorded) call is made with the adj,owner, and shop manager on the phone, giving authorization.. (yes everyone knows it's being recorded).The 'script' is very very clear..does blank shop have your permission to blank...and so on...
Rod, in MO only one party of the conversation has to know it's being recorded...unless this law has been changed...this is the way it was in about 1995 or so when I was involved in a big giant deal over this very thing...
Days, looks like you've got a lot of calls to make now..let us know how it's coming and if we can be of any additional help.
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 02:33 pm Post Subject: The agreement
Lori -
Agreements made by anyone in representation of the vehicle owner require a specific credential. That would be "attorney" and in some states and for ONLY first party claims a license as a Public Insurance Adjuster.
An Adjuster or Appraiser can represent your company but cannot represent the vehicle owner.
A Repairer can represent his company but cannot represent the vehicle owner.
Two businesses coming together and forging an agreement that affects a consumer - who believes (because of reliance) that each business is acting in his best interest - when they are not - is what the courts call a civil conspiracy to defraud the consumer.
Such methodology puts the shop in a position to act in a manner for which they are not licensed and can not be insured. Additionally - Because everything performed under an agreement is an intentional act - the existence of any agreement with a party outside of the contract of repair can have the effect of suspending the repairer's liability insurance for repairs performed under that agreement.
What you write about how your company handles claims makes the process seem innocuous. "That is the way things are done" is a convenient means of getting those claims files cleand up. I notice you avoid the issue of upon whose estimate you and the repairer argree. If you are saying that you write the estimates and the repairer agrees to do it your way and/or for your dollar figure then I would say that your company is engaged in a very common practice. The other way 'round is not really better, where an insurer before during or after the fact "influences" what a repairer writes or how the repairs are done. Each method leaves the Vehicle Owner (who is in many cases not even one of your insureds) compromised and totally in the dark.
Interestingly, as in this case, when the curtain is pulled back and consumer is no longer in the dark the entire business model falls apart
What has happened to Day Day's Mommy has nothing to do with insurance and everything to do with insurance. The repairer did what they did (violate the consumer protection laws of OH) because there was an insurer involved. Period.
The easiest path to a remedy for DDM is directly through the improper actions of the repairer. I can tell you with confidence that other than possibly an attempted defense of waving their hands over their heads and screaming "this is not fraud!" the Consumer Fraud issue will abate the participation of the repairer's liability carrier. The repairer is on their own.
It is also my understanding that for consumer fraud actions such as this, attorneys' fees are by statute paid by the guilty party and calculated separately from any award or settlement.
Damages (up to treble) go to the consumer.
We can only hope - given what insurers and the "financial services sector" have done and continue to do to this Country - that consumers like Stephanie continue to push for answers where there have previously only been secrets.
Add your comment