by Guest » Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:30 pm
I was also in a car accident head on with a ups international truck. The vehicle had to be towed because it shut off no power what so ever. The insurance appraiser did an estimate on just the body damage stated the hood would not open on inspection and also he stated the vehicle was drivable which it was not. His estimate was for a used front clip and the rest was for paint and labor and the amount was for 8632.53 before my 500.00 ded. Now I drive a 2004 Chrysler Pacifica and i also have gap insurance and don't feel safe that they found everything wrong with it and I am really not sure what the ACV is for my vehicle. Is there anything I can do to get the insurance company to total it. Thanks...
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 05:07 pm Post Subject: Working on those fact for you Lori,
Here is a link for anyone wanting to read about the CIC fraud study.
http://www.princetonautobody.com/Docs/PDF/FraudReport.pdf
Here is some interesting reading about consumers preferring oem parts over bootlegged, imitation, copykat, cloned, taiwan parts. This study was conducted by J.D. Powers associates who recently conducted another different study on Progressives Concierge Service which showed people being very displeased with results of the service and not having contact with the shop that repaired.
http://www.princetonautobody.com/JDPsurvey.pdf
Here is a link for some pictures showing how poorly non original parts performed on barrier impact tests.
http://www.princetonautobody.com/Docs/PDF/Crashtest.pdf
Still working on that Progressive information on them suing a shop for rental reimbursement. Hope to have it for you soon.
Have a great week, may all your estimates this week be accurate and at least as close as the CIC study indicated.
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 07:21 pm Post Subject: Regards: Progressive sues shop for rental expenses
This is a portion of a published story authored by Attorney Erica Eversman from vehicle information services. I hope this will suffice as evidence of the practice. If not I will try and retrieve the actual court case a couple of years ago where progressive sued a shop for the very same thing. The entire article can be found in Hammer and Dolly Magazine recent edition. Lori, if you would like the pdf file provided by the attorney and author, I would be happy to email it to you.
In the last year and a half, Progressive Insurance has
initiated a new tactic of cost control: Demanding
“repayment” by independent collision repair shops
of expenses paid to rental car companies for both
first and third-party customers' repairs.
It begins with the letter from Progressive informing the
collision repair facility that the insurer has determined that the
shop took too long to repair the customer's vehicle, and typically
involves Progressive's attempt to recoup rental car expenses
paid. The letter starts by stating, “Please take this letter as
formal notice of our subrogation rights in regard to the abovecaptioned
claim. We have completed our investigation into
the facts of the above claim and find that your shop has
delayed repairs by [X] days.” Progressive then demands the
independent shop issue a check payable to Progressive
Insurance, and the claims person promises to follow up within
a certain number of days.
If the body shop does not send off a check, approximately
a month later, the independent collision repair facility
receives a letter from a law firm representing Progressive
Insurance retained to “collect the outstanding balance due and
owing on this account.” The law firm, Cleveland, Oh.-based
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co. L.P.A. and its various branch
offices, informs the shop that it is attempting to collect a debt,
as required by the federal Fair Debt Collection Act, stating
that “as of the date of this letter, you owe the amount listed
above,” and demands that the shop contact the law firm to discuss
an appropriate resolution. The letter closes with a threat
that the shop's failure to pay the balance or enter into satisfactory
payment arrangements may subject the shop to further
collection efforts.
Progressive's claim against the independent collision
repair facility is purportedly one arising from a right of subrogation.
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:16 pm Post Subject:
Ok Mike, your first three links have nothing to do with what we were talking about (most recently).....but informative, more on that in a minute...the second still doesn't prove your point you stated that progressive has a legal dept who's sole purpose is to collect rental car bills from shops that's not true! Now you've changed your statement to them sueing ONE SHOP!
suing a shop for rental reimbursement
. and precisely my point, you can show me one case (maybe). I don't doubt that they've sued a couple, my point is your inflamitory statement that a company as big as progressive has an entire legal dept set up for this purpose as you intimated is bad information!!! and I think you are doing a good job of proving that for me! ...as a side note, the shops I deal with out of their own desire to provide excellent customer service have many many times offered or put an owner into a rental if the repair took too much longer than they had thought (if their own fault, and some times if not). I personally have told them point blank, 'you do not have to do this! No one expects you to, it is not your responsiblity' but ''my'' shop's TRULY put their customer first, and their customer's satisfaction....you all ever do that? Do you really care that your customer is grossly inconvenienced being without a car ? (assuming they do not have rental), again I cannot say this loud enough...they are not required to, they do this because they are all excellent businesses that know how to treat their customers, and they gain a customer for life doing things like this and they know it....re: progressive sueing a shop for rental bills because a repair took way to long to finish, apparently you don't know the reason behind the delay either, and have not provided it, how do you know it wasn't warranted? I'll need to see the case to see what the problem was...how do you know that this shop didn't get all the parts needed then leave this vehicle on the back lot for 30day? After promising the owner it would be done in two weeks? Let's assume Mike that is the case, do you as a shop owner feel no obligation to this customer? We'll have to read the case once you find it....to see the trouble.
may all your estimates this week be accurate and at least as close as the CIC study indicated
Now why do you want to start trying to be ugly Mike? Run out of bullets? That's just childish...what the study said was what we have already discussed. Even you Mike cannot not write a fully acurate estimate unless the vehicle is torn down to expose all damages, you HAVE to agree with that....They didn't in their study bother to reinspect all the estimates that are written at shops from 'walk-ins' did they? No they didn't, but I'll bet you the result would be really close. Unless of course the shop walkins are guessing at what is damaged without actually seeing the damaged part...sorry we can't do that...also they didn't follow up their study with the point both tcope and I made that after these 'inital' estimates are written when the vehicle goes to the shop, the shop merely calls the adjuster who writes a supplement....there problem solved, and it happens thousands of times a day and you know it! So this is of no use....because the walkin shop estimates would be exactly the same! Here we go again on this linkhttp://www.princetonautobody.com/JDPsurvey.pdf
That you provided not a word about progressive, this is only a survey about vehicle owners satisfaction re: oem and non-oem parts, and if they thought that was was they were getting or not! Absolutely NOTHING about fit, quality etc....of either part choice, it simply talks about if owners 'thought' their vehicles were being repaired with new oem parts, and if they would be dissatisfied were they not...so that link (again) makes no sense to your argument....as a side note, it is mandated by the company that I work for that after I write an estimate I call the owner and advise them of same, in that conversation it is further required that I tell them EXACTLY what types of parts are being used to repair their vehicles (of course they are clearly identified on the estimate but in my case the owner has already left the vehicle at the shops)...so I must tell them, it's a used or a/m hood etc....so in my case there is FULL disclosure of each and every part!Oh my gosh! your last link
http://www.princetonautobody.com/Docs/PDF/Crashtest.pdf
Shows photos taken in a front crash test in 1999 on a 1996 taurus! It says absolutely NOTHING about safety aspects etc, all it says is that the panelspreformed in a different manner
, the hinges areas moved more in the non-oem hood and the amount of tenting...There are no federal rules or independent tests surrounding the crash testing of ANY REPLACEMENT PARTS! a/m or new oem...if you have an independent third part test please provide it, I'd truly like to read it...because I've never seen one! Couple things I found while researching this....The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that cosmetic, non-structural auto body parts, the type of parts CAPA certifies, have no safety ramifications. Contrary to what Ford would have you believe, these parts are not covered by any federal safety standards. One needs to question why the government says crash parts are not safety related but Ford continues to promote that concept."
Another concern raised by OEM parts manufacturers and auto makers is that safety is compromised when generic crash parts are used. According to crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) (report released 2/17/2000), the source of a car's cosmetic crash parts is irrelevant to crashworthiness.
IIHS tested a 1997 Toyota Camry from which the front fenders, door skins and front bumper were removed. The OEM hood was replaced with a certified hood from an aftermarket supplier. The test results were compared with those from an earlier test of a 1997 Camry with its original equipment parts intact. Both Camrys, according to IIHS, performed with distinction in 40 mph frontal offset impact crashes. Both earned good crashworthiness ratings, with essentially no difference in crashworthiness performance. The findings provide conclusive evidence that front-end cosmetic crash parts such as fenders and bumpers serve no structural or safety function.
This is not the first time the Institute crash-tested a vehicle equipped with generic crash parts. When the controversy heated up in the 1980s regarding whether or not a vehicle repaired with generic cosmetic replacement parts would meet federal motor vehicle safety standards, IIHS conducted a similar test. A 30 mph front-into-barrier crash test of a 1987 Ford Escort without front fenders, door panels and grille, and equipped with a competitive parts hood, far exceeded federal safety requirements
Before I forget it, there was a comment re: corrosion protection on non-oem parts...now I hope it is understood we are discussing CAPA parts only, I don't know any companies that source non-capa certified parts, I certainly don't anyway found this little tidbit re:corrosion protection:
Fact: Since CAPA's incorporation in 1987, over 18 million CAPA certified parts have been sold. There have been only two complaints about corrosion in that time. CAPA parts undergo an industry recognized 1000 hour salt spray test to replicate weather conditions. They must pass the test in order to bear the CAPA Quality Seal. This test has been used by the automotive industry as a predictor of corrosion protection for years
someone also said some silly statement about capa being formed by the insurance companies while I have this on my screen I'll drop it in here as well....Auto Body Parts Association (ABPA), whose efforts established CAPA
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 06:10 pm Post Subject: One more last time.
On insurers underwriting estimates
Now why do you want to start trying to be ugly Mike? Run out of bullets? That's just childish...what the study said was what we have already discussed. Even you Mike cannot not write a fully acurate estimate unless the vehicle is torn down to expose all damages, you HAVE to agree with that
Actually I don't agree with that. I can write an estimate with a higher degree of accuracy and completeness than most any staff appraiser. Most of my estimates are complete when handed to the customer. That is what they want. I convince my customers to not fall game to the write an WYSIWYG estimate based on the insurer criteria. "lets get it in the shop where we can maintain further control" and limit the shop to asking permission from the insurer for every repair procedure. My customers want me to repair their cars based on my experience and knowledge and they will either pay the difference or I will take an assignment of proceeds on the repair and sue the at fault party. It works and is included in my contract of repairs. There is a study that states that 38 percent of vehicle owners that recieve checks based on insurer estimates shop that job around for a cheap repair or never repair the car. What a great way to keep money in the bank for the insurer by not paying for all damages. I personally feel that if an insurer wants to write an estimate, they should have their own lift, a spot lamp, and repair knowledge to devise a repair plan that is at least 90 percent accurate. A supplement should be reserved for the unforeseen and not lack of having a facility or means to properly examine a wreck.
A reputable on your side insurer would never specify non capa a/m parts would they?
Before I forget it, there was a comment re: corrosion protection on non-oem parts...now I hope it is understood we are discussing CAPA parts only, I don't know any companies that source non-capa certified parts, I certainly don't anyway found this little tidbit re:corrosion protection:
I currently have a customer insured with Allied. The vehicle is a 2006 Buick Ranier with 9000 miles on it. Allied prepared an estimate with hood and Radiator support with non capa non oem parts. The radiator support is designated HSS. Never happens? Doesn't a HSS radiator support contribute to the protection of the occupants and is critical to the timing of the air bag.
On CAPA or most installers of these parts refer to them as CRAPA
someone also said some silly statement about capa being formed by the insurance companies while I have this on my screen I'll drop it in here as well....Quote:
Auto Body Parts Association (ABPA), whose efforts established CAPA
If I wanted to sell an inferior part, I would think the best way to sell and promote it would be to create an association financed by State Farm, All State and others, to give the insurer stamp of approval for these parts in order to save money on servicing a policy they sell. I would also go to some state legislators and have them pass a law that states in effect that LKQ a/m parts are equivalent to oem. Hey then you don't even need a test. Oh that was attempted and failed a couple of times, thankfully.
You do not see a hood not performing as designed to tent at pre determined points, nearly separating at the hinges as not being a safety problem. Does it only become a safety problem at a higher impact when the hood comes through the windshield? And a fender that is so weak that the impact overlaps the door preventing occupants from egressing is not a safety issue?
On Insurers suing shops for rental costs
and precisely my point, you can show me one case (maybe). I don't doubt that they've sued a couple, my point is your inflamitory statement that a company as big as progressive has an entire legal dept set up for this purpose as you intimated is bad information!!! and I think you are doing a good job of proving that for me! ...
In the April 2006 issue of a respected trade magazine Hammer and Dolly is a story about three cases of Insurers suing shops for rental expenses with whom they have no contract or agreements.
In Illinois Progressive sued Collision Care Inc; In Finksburg, Maryland, Nationwide sued Mudgett's Auto Body unsuccessfully for rental expenses and delayed repairs; and Myla Williams of Virginia sued Allstate for her rental expenses that the insurer refused to pay because they claimed she would not have had any expenses if she had chosen the Allstate Pro shop and she won because the shop had no contract with All State.
These are just a few of the many more that I am sure are out there. But this should suffice to show that it is an abusive practice of denying legitimate claims for expenses .
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:13 pm Post Subject:
Actually I don't agree with that. I can write an estimate with a higher degree of accuracy and completeness than most any staff appraiser.
Then you are writing a WAG estimate, because if you cannot SEE the damage, then you SHOULD NOT be including it on your estimate...pure and simple...let's put it this way Mike, lets say that YOU rearend me at a stop light (i won't be hurt I promise :roll: ) I've got a textured rear cover, and it is dented way in...you have zero access to seeing the absorber/rebar, or the rear body panel for that matter...now you are paying this OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET...not your carrier but Mike's own bank account....I go get an estimate from your competior and bring it to you FOR PAYMENT NOT REPAIRS PAYMENT... The estimate says to replace the cover, absorber, rebar, and repair the rear body panel....you look at the car, and say, all i can see damaged FOR SURE is the cover...whos' replacement would cost 600 buck...but my estimate for all of this other damage (vehicle was not torn down by the way your competitor inspected it in the same condition you did)....is 1700.00...Now Mike you are telling me that you are gonna' say, ''ok lori here's my check for 1700.00' NOT!!!!!!!! and you know it! You are going to say (let's assume I will not let your shop repair it) Ok, after it's in the shop and torn down and I can SEE that indeed these parts are damaged, THEN I will pay the other 1100.00 but not untill~ Then I say, 'no way Mike, I'm not fixing it but I still want you to pay for damages you cannot ascertain are even damaged!' Come on Mike! Give me this please! It ONLY makes perfect sense! I'd really like an honest answer to this one Mike..I personally feel that if an insurer wants to write an estimate, they should have their own lift, a spot lamp, and repair knowledge to devise a repair plan that is at least 90 percent accurate. A supplement should be reserved for the unforeseen and not lack of having a facility or means to properly examine a wreck
That's great in theory, but unfortunately most of these inspects that you are referring to are occuring the owners driverway, or the parking lot where they work...are you telling me that every single drive in estimate that comes to your shop (people estimate shopping) is taken to the shop disassembled and put on a lift? I doubt it....Now the estimates I write are done this way because they are in a shop enviroment, the vehicles are completely disassembled and on a lift (if need be).....so a complete estimate can be written, but unless a vehicle is in a shop this isn't possible....A reputable on your side insurer would never specify non capa a/m parts would they?
Most carriers that I am aware of their 'rules' will only use capa certified parts (on parts that are eligible for this certification).I currently have a customer insured with Allied. The vehicle is a 2006 Buick Ranier with 9000 miles on it. Allied prepared an estimate with hood and Radiator support with non capa non oem parts. The radiator support is designated HSS. Never happens? Doesn't a HSS radiator support contribute to the protection of the occupants and is critical to the timing of the air bag.
This is bull, I agree....and HAS to be a mistake....has anyone taked with the estimator to see if it was a mistake? Or their supervisor? That they 'forgot' to turn the px search off on that estimate? I'd bet that's the case.....I can't speak specifically to allieds rules, but would bet that this estimator broke about three of them! And should be taken down a peg or two, but I'm sure Mike this is an isolated instance....The company I work for (and all that I'm aware) have rules regarding a/m part usage, one is they must be capa, my company same year or 15k or less miles new oem only....3years or between 15k-36k reman, new oem or used only, no a/m sheetmetal...(can use capa lamps/plastic etc)...after that, over three years plus 36k, capa certified, new, used parts, can be used...we cannot use ANY a/m structure regardless of the capa certification, we cannot use, used suspension period...(except a dead rear axle/housing)...do mistakes happen? well, of course they do, especially with an inexperienced adjuster, I'll bet you even make a mistake or two on a rare occasion, (I make several every day! :wink: ) but that doesn't make it that company's policy! (a kin to the one progressive case re:rental bills that you make sound like it happens all the time :roll: )..... I'll be anxiously awaiting what you are told once you speak w/allied to find out if they are sticking with that estimate...be sure and let us know I know about three or four allied adjusters/supervisors, one or two I think are now drp supervisors or managers. I'll be calling to find out about this if it's not a mistake, that they quickly correct!! ........
If I wanted to sell an inferior part, I would think the best way to sell and promote it would be to create an association financed by State Farm, All State and others, to give the insurer stamp of approval for these parts in order to save money on servicing a policy they sell.
You're from the same state I am mike, ''SHOW ME''...PROVE IT.. you make these outlandish statements with NOTHING to back them up!The Certified Automotive Parts Association is a non-profit organization that certifies the quality of automotive parts used for collision repairs-- CAPA was founded to promote price and quality competition in the collision part industry, thereby reducing the cost of crash repairs to consumers without sacrificing quality.
Pretty funny the companies you name aren't even on the list of contributor! ha ha:
CAPA Insurance Company Contributors:
American Family Mutual Insurance
American International Group
Amica Mutual Insurance
Auto-Owners Insurance
Employers Mutual Companies
Erie Insurance Group
Farmers Insurance
GEICO
General Casualty Insurance
NGM Insurance Company
SAFECO Insurance
MetLife
USAA
MEMBERS YES, CONTRIBUTORS NO...and you say they
create an association financed by State Farm, All State and others'
which clearly isn't true (againnnnnn).......There are 10 times the number of shops and auto repair distrubtors that are members than insurance companys in fact here are the only ins companies listed as 'member's...
CAPA Insurance Company Members:
Allstate Insurance
GuideOne Insurance
Liberty Mutual Insurance
State Farm Mutual Insurance
In the April 2006 issue of a respected trade magazine Hammer and Dolly is a story about three cases of Insurers suing shops for rental expenses with whom they have no contract or agreements.
I never doubted there were 'some' cases out there, and without reading the cases cannot comment on the validity of them...but you are again proving my point, you make these hugely exaggerated statements 'progressive has a legal dept set up to sue body shops for rental bills' and can come up with one case (kind of)...that is my point Mike...You didnt' say, 'i have one case I found here where progressive sued a shop' no you make it sound like there are a team of progressive attorneys rubbing their hands together as they file suit after suit after suit on the innocent unsuspecting body shops for rental bills! and as you have 'proven' (again) for me that isn't the case! Thank you....In Illinois Progressive sued Collision Care Inc; In Finksburg, Maryland, Nationwide sued Mudgett's Auto Body unsuccessfully for rental expenses and delayed repairs; and Myla Williams of Virginia sued Allstate for her rental expenses that the insurer refused to pay because they claimed she would not have had any expenses if she had chosen the Allstate Pro shop and she won because the shop had no contract with All State.
These are just a few of the many more that I am sure are out there. But this should suffice to show that it is an abusive practice of denying legitimate claims for expenses .
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 04:41 pm Post Subject:
Now who's getting ugly
Then you are writing a WAG estimate, because if you cannot SEE the damage, then you SHOULD NOT be including it on your estimate...pure and simple...l
The fact is, I could have determined all that damage with a few examinations from a creeper and a flashlite and possibly a mirror. Sometimes even sticking a camera under a car will give details. A box cutter quickly makes a door in a fascial to examine the backbar or absorbers on wasted covers. My experience from working on cars allows me to understand with a degree of certainty what damage is lurking because, as a repairer, I know where to look for clues to hidden damage. Sometimes its as simple as having worked on certain vehicle before, and having an understanding how it is constructed and knowing certain things will be damaged by angles and severity of impact. WAG is an term used to describe a guess made by an incompetent and untrained profession not base on experience.
I could care less what an insurer estimates on a third party loss. A damaged party has no obligation to an insurer paying with their funds to allow them to dictate the scope and terms of the repair. They owe for proven damages. If you wanted to sue me because I was unfortunate or stupid enough to be running around without liability coverage, you would have to prove your damages. I heavily document my estimates and reapirs and go to great lengths to verify my estimates. I would have no problem with someone billingme or my insurer for a thorough estimate to prepare a repair plan that a settlement could be paid on should the vehicle owner choose not to repair.
In fact the collision industry gives away way to much free labor to insurers such as allowing insurer to use our facilities to inspect damage property with out tools and time. Shops should be charging for their time helping the inexperienced and untrained to do their paper work so that funds could be set aside for the insurer to pay losses.
You know I give you examples of proof to you and T and that isn't good enough. I am merely showing you that this type of abuse is common. I don't have court case numbers for you to peruse each case . I got T the CIC study , I got you examples of Progressive's tactics. The point of all of it is, that the insurance industry is looking under rocks to find ways to recoup losses at the collision industry expense. I believe that naming a legal firm as described in the quote to handle Progressive subrogation rights to rental expenses was sufficient to corroborate my argument that they have an entire legal department (maybe should have said office) to do just that. I did not mean to imply that there is a legal division within Progressives walls subrogating these claims but there is a legal firm hired just to handle these claims for them.
I appreciate your ability in keeping this discussion civil. If nothing else, it shows anyone reading that some shop owners in the collision industry are totallly independent if they are looking for a shop that is not influenced or intimidated by the insurance industry.
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:54 am Post Subject:
A box cutter quickly makes a door in a fascial to examine the backbar or absorbers on wasted covers
And someone that is not committed to letting you repair their vehicle is going to allow this? hmmmm...wouldn't fly in my world..then what you cut a little hole thru the foam? well that gives you access to a tiny portion of the rebar, then how you gonna see the rear body? Come on Mike you're reaching...would you pay out of your own pocket for UNSEEN damage or not?..How is this ugly?
Now who's getting ugly Quote: Then you are writing a WAG estimate, because if you cannot SEE the damage, then you SHOULD NOT be including it on your estimate...pure and simple...l
seriously how?The fact is, I could have determined all that damage with a few examinations from a creeper and a flashlite and possibly a mirror. Sometimes even sticking a camera under a car will give details.
No you (nor anyone else) couldn't not on all vehicles Mike and you know this...please stop playing games you know that their are some vehicles that you cannot without removing the cover thus exposing the absorber/rebar/rearbody panel...come on Mike...My experience from working on cars allows me to understand with a degree of certainty what damage is lurking because, as a repairer, I know where to look for clues to hidden damage. Sometimes its as simple as having worked on certain vehicle before, and having an understanding how it is constructed and knowing certain things will be damaged by angles and severity of impact.
I'll agree with you to a minimal degree...but even you cannot say that a rearbody panel needs 2 or 6 hours of repair without seeing it,WAG is an term used to describe a guess made by an incompetent and untrained profession not base on experience
Not in my definition re: "incompetent and untrained profession " it just means if you can't see it you are making a ''wild ''a'' guess'' I've done it...what would you call it if you cannot see the panel? again 2 or 6 hours? you don't know you are making a wild guess without visually inspecting the damage....They owe for proven damages.
BINGO! Isn't that EXACTLY what I've said..??? If not show me different! The insurer or any 'at fault' party owes for proven or actual damage...not 'unseen' damage..........If you agree with that as you have just typed...what's the problem?I would have no problem with someone billingme or my insurer for a thorough estimate to prepare a repair plan that a settlement could be paid on should the vehicle owner choose not to repair.
Exactly....so you agree you wouldn't out of your own pocket pay for unseen damage that someone guessed at? Nor should you....as I said you wouldn't pay for the rearbody damage that another shop wrote, because, they are pretty sure it needs 6 hours repair based on their experience repairing this model....even though their eyes NEVER SAW THE DAMAGED PART! but if that part were visible and you could see clearly it required six hours you'd have no problem paying it...same with the carriers....You know I give you examples of proof to you and T and that isn't good enough.
We simply ask for verification and FACTS to support the statements you make Mike....if you'd have said (in this instance) progressive has sued a body shop for rental bills, then continued the story, no problem...the problem results when you inflate the statement to, they have a legal dept set up to sue shops for rental bills...when that's simply not true....all we want you to do is state the ''truth'' that is fact based...there are plenty of 'true' insurance horror stories, same with shops....you don't need to make them up, or exaggerate the facts in an attempt to sway people to your opinion, in fact, and the final analysis you lose creditablity in so doing...do you not see that?I got you examples of Progressive's tactics.
You gave one example of progressive sueing a shop for a rental, minus the facts of the case...you gave one example of what you said was a shop sueing progressive when in fact it was a counter suit, progressive sued the shop!I believe that naming a legal firm as described in the quote to handle Progressive subrogation rights to rental expenses was sufficient to corroborate my argument that they have an entire legal department (maybe should have said office) to do just that.
Where did you provide that? you showed us ONE CASE, actually you didn't you said that hammer and dolly had a article about it...receives a letter from a law firm representing Progressive
Is this what you mean by that? Mike that in no way says,Insurance retained to “collect the outstanding balance due and
owing on this account.” The law firm, Cleveland, Oh.-based
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co. L.P.A. and its various branch
offices
I believe that naming a legal firm as described in the quote to handle Progressive subrogation rights to rental expenses was sufficient to corroborate my argument that they have an entire legal department (maybe should have said office) to do just that.
We don't know if this is two cases, or any for that matter....have you got such a letter?I appreciate your ability in keeping this discussion civil.
And I yours.Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 04:36 pm Post Subject: The law firm for you.
A legal department, a law firm, it's various branch offices on behalf of Progressive You must have missed reading this above
If the body shop does not send off a check, approximately
a month later, the independent collision repair facility
receives a letter from a law firm representing Progressive
Insurance retained to “collect the outstanding balance due and
owing on this account.” The law firm, Cleveland, Oh.-based
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co. L.P.A. and its various branch
offices, informs the shop that it is attempting to collect a debt,
as required by the federal Fair Debt Collection Act, stating
that “as of the date of this letter, you owe the amount listed
above,” and demands that the shop contact the law firm to discuss
an appropriate resolution.
Customers who want to receive full indemnification without complete disassemby do not mind having a portion of a damaged bumper cut in a flap to expose hidden damage. Particularly if the bumper is non repairable.
WAG is a disrespecting term used to describe an unknowledgeable guess, not a term I would use to descibe a collision repair inspector who makes a reasoned and calculated appraisal based on experience and knowledge following examination of the damage. People who do not repair cars make WAG's. Actually I often make judgement calls based on the amount in dollars where I am willing to accept liability for a repair based on the value of that service that comes from experience. Data providers and their partners created books to assist the inexperienced in calculating costs of repair in time increments. The reason for that madness was so time increments could be challenged based on supposed time studies. Time studies are done on new undamged vehicles. We work on wrecked vehicles. Time studies are like bigfoot. I have heard of them, no one has seen one, but they supposedly exist.
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 08:27 pm Post Subject:
My experience from working on cars allows me to understand with a degree of certainty what damage is lurking because, as a repairer, I know where to look for clues to hidden damage.
AGAIN... you state that your _estimates_ (they are still only estimates, not the actual cost to repair the vehicle, correct) are very good and almost always right on the money. I'm betting no one has a problem with that. The PROBLEM is, many shops estimates are just as inferior as you state most appraisals estimates are. That is a simply fact. That alone negates any complaint you might have. But on top of that:1) An insurance company has every right to apply their guidelines and state laws to their payment. Fact... pure and simple. You may not like that AM parts are used but if the state allows it, it's legal.
2) You are writing an _estimate_ of your _charge_ for service. The insurance company is doing something different. They are writing up what they are _initially_ paying. You insist on breaking these actions out so let do just that. Since it's the _insurance company_ that is paying the bill (not you) they have _every right_ to confirm damages and apply their guidelines as well as state laws to their payment. Again, you are not doing this... you are simply telling the customer what _you_ would _charge_. I think Lori also mentioned this aspect.
3) Lastly:
A damaged party has no obligation to an insurer paying with their funds to allow them to dictate the scope and terms of the repair.
Again, if you want to split hairs, I can do that. Your right... the person who suffered the loss can do any they want with their vehicle. They can have their 10 year old parts replaced with brand new parts and walk away with a better vehicle. But... _AGAIN_ the insurance company has every right to apply their guidelines and state laws on what is owed for the loss. No matter how you break it down, no matter how you twist it around, it always comes down to that.You've certinaly given good information that carriers do the wrong things many of times. But if you want, I can find _plenty_ of documentation showing that body shops over charge for repairs, charge for repairs not done, make incorrect and unsafe repairs, etc. The world is not a perfect place. Mostly bad news is news. No one wants to report on the great jobs people are doing... it does not sell. Out of billions of claims handled the news tends to focus on a very small percentage.
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 09:36 pm Post Subject: I think we are in agreement to an extent.
I think there could be a little house cleaning in both industries!
You've certinaly given good information that carriers do the wrong things many of times. But if you want, I can find _plenty_ of documentation showing that body shops over charge for repairs, charge for repairs not done, make incorrect and unsafe repairs, etc. The world is not a perfect place. Mostly bad news is news. No one wants to report on the great jobs people are doing... it does not sell. Out of billions of claims handled the news tends to focus on a very small percentage.
You'll never see, on my final invoice, a charge for which I did not perform a service or for parts not replaced. I understand that some insurers and some shops play a cost shifting game to cover procedures asked for but in which the insurer refuses to place a line item in their estimates. For example, if an insurer tells the shop we don't pay for clamp damage marks on rockers so I will pay you extra time on the frame or paint time to cover it. Fraud on both parties in my book. The appraiser does this because they are not allowed by the criteria given them by their supervisors. The fraudulent shop takes money for something they didn't do if they bill the insurer direct. These shops should face fraud and the appraisers that cost shift should be subject to fraud as well. The marriage of the entire two industries is way to cozy on this subject.
I really do not care what is on the insurer estimate as long as I have a contract of repair with the vehicle owner (first or third party), and my final invoice reflects what procedures I actually perform and charge for. The insurer is not guaranteeing my work or parts. The state requres that the repairer is liable for the repairs and parts they install, at least in my state.
If the insurer elects to take the option to take control of the repairs, authorizes the repairs, selects the repairer, and they do not pay for the repairs in money to the policy holder, then they are liable for those repairs or their drp partner who has promised to hold the insurer harmless even though they are performing repairs upon the request of the insurer.
I would not be heartbroken to see any shops put out of business that conspire by themselves or with insurers to cost shift or fail to uphold contracts with consumers and their insurance partners if they have any agreements. Likewise I wouldn't be sorrowful to see more than a couple of insurers lose market share and fade into the sunset.
I have a question; Who's responsibility is it to police our industry? Is it the DOI? Don't think so! Is it the insurance industry? Nope. If someone wants to point a finger of fraud with a party they do not have a contract with, they better hand their evidence over to a prosecuting attorney or the attorney general of that state and have the assistance of the defrauded policy holder.
Maybe all states should have a Bureau of Auto Repair as they do in California, but it should not be connected in anyway with the insurance industry or comprised of ex- agents, appraisers, ceo's etc of any insurer. It should be an elected office and not appointed. The playing field needs to be leveled. Fines should be leveled against fraudulent repairers and the states need to put teeth in consumer fraud laws perpetuated by some insurers.
The only good legislation enacted of late is the one in Washington state, that makes an insurer pay triple damages for bad faith or failure to pay claims they know they owe instead of forcing policy holders to court to prove their damages. Now that's model legislation that every state should enact that is protection for consumers.
Add your comment