by Guest » Thu May 15, 2008 04:49 am
Hi!
I am hoping someone can help me on this!
I was involved in an accident on Dec. 1 07. I was rearended by a Hummer going approx 45 mph. My minivan had approx 11,500 in damage (it is a custom 07 Sienna) and I had a rental car for 12 weeks. After the accident, I had to take my 4 kids (ages 6,4, 2, 6 mths) to the er and then one to the pediatrician 4 days later. Two were treated with whiplash and had chiro for about 5 months. Medical bills totaled 2950. Lost wages to take the kids were approx 680, diminished value on my vehicle is about 4K. They also didn't pay the car rental bill for 6 weeks and it was charged to me so I paid an over the limit fee and lost my 0% promotional rate due to default (even though the charge has been reversed.) The insurance company offered me an accident settlement of 2,150 and then they were going to pay the 1500 of chiro (there is a lein and that is included in the 2950) I told them I was looking for around 16300 (four times medical bills, 4K in diminished value, lost wages and over the limit fee.) Am I asking too much? They told me I was being unreasonable and that Missouri doesn't recognize diminished value. My insurance company says they do. What is a fair accident settlement amount?
I am hoping someone can help me on this!
I was involved in an accident on Dec. 1 07. I was rearended by a Hummer going approx 45 mph. My minivan had approx 11,500 in damage (it is a custom 07 Sienna) and I had a rental car for 12 weeks. After the accident, I had to take my 4 kids (ages 6,4, 2, 6 mths) to the er and then one to the pediatrician 4 days later. Two were treated with whiplash and had chiro for about 5 months. Medical bills totaled 2950. Lost wages to take the kids were approx 680, diminished value on my vehicle is about 4K. They also didn't pay the car rental bill for 6 weeks and it was charged to me so I paid an over the limit fee and lost my 0% promotional rate due to default (even though the charge has been reversed.) The insurance company offered me an accident settlement of 2,150 and then they were going to pay the 1500 of chiro (there is a lein and that is included in the 2950) I told them I was looking for around 16300 (four times medical bills, 4K in diminished value, lost wages and over the limit fee.) Am I asking too much? They told me I was being unreasonable and that Missouri doesn't recognize diminished value. My insurance company says they do. What is a fair accident settlement amount?
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 06:35 pm Post Subject:
Were you aware that if the insurer or shop places a part not made by your manufacturer such as a radiator or condenser, the dealer most likely will attribute any failure in the system to the insurer mandated part, thus ruining your warranty.
Gee, why does this statement not surprise me one bit. Another naysayer comment from Mike. No way to back up the statement, just meant to scare people away from aftermarket parts with no substance to back it up.Here is one that I'm sure your familiar with, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
The TRUTH is, the manufacture would need to prove that the aftermarket part caused the loss. How many people use aftermarket oil filters? How about gas that is not recommended by the manufacture? Why don't we hear about manufactures not honoring warranties because of these items? Huh, because it does not happen with any frequency.
Also, many carriers use aftermarket fender, deck lids, etc. People might not realize that this are not structural items on a vehicle. They are actually _designed_ to crumple and absorb the force of an impact.
Of course, body shops make far less money from aftermarket parts themselves as they are simply less expensive. Body shops mark up parts about 20% for.... picking up the phone and calling the parts store. Good deal, huh. Not only do they make less money on aftermarket parts but aftermarket parts help keep the cost of OEM parts WAY down! Again, less pure profit for the body shops. But also it saves anyone money who buys an OEM part. Once aftermarket parts started to be used, the prices dropped on my OEM parts by 300%!
So when someone comes along and warns that an aftermarket part might void your warranty, simply ask them to show some proof of this. Also ask them if they stand to loose money from people using aftermarket parts. if so, per their own admission, perhaps you should not heed their advice.
Oh, how abotu something to back up my claim? Now there is a novel idea some people don't know about:
http://www.iihs.org/laws/testimony/pdf/testimony_slo_032100.pdf
"A car's cosmetic repair parts (often called crash parts) include fenders, door skins, bumper covers, and the like. In the continuing debate about whether such parts from aftermarket suppliers are as good as cosmetic parts from original-equipment manufacturers, the issue of safety keeps cropping up. Claims are made that using cosmetic crash parts from sources other than original-equipment manufacturers could compromise safety. But the fact is, the source of the parts is irrelevant to safety
because the parts themselves, except possibly the hood, serve no safety or structural function. They merely cover a car like a skin.'
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 07:18 pm Post Subject: Checkmate
T are you one of those guys that get bonuses for the more aftermarket parts you push and write on peoples cars? Sure sounds like it, or are you on the board of capa or are you one of those people swayed by the notions of Jack Gillis who goes around to state legislaters trying to hawk these parts off as equal?
T does not repair cars, he pays for, I mean indemnifies for losses. Most people are sharp enough to know that Taiwan knockoff parts arent even close to original parts quality. So how can a person that only pays for them have a clue as to the quality and fit. Those hoods are designed to crumple all right, but crumple in a certain fashion that works with the air bag timing mechanism.
Those aftermarket parts like like oil filters, air filters, water pumps etc often exceed manufacturer warranties, but aftermarket collision damage parts do not even come close.
Toyota says and here is your proof T
Warranties: Toyota vehicle factory warranties transfer when repairs are completed with new Toyota Genuine Parts. The use of used salvage and/or imitation/counterfeit parts is not covered by the Toyota transferable limited warranty on such parts and all adjoining parts and systems which are caused to fall or trust by those parts.
Used Salvage: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., is an environmentally-conscious corporate citizen. We understand the merits of recycling and promote them. Additionally, we are concerned about our customers and maintaining Toyota vehicle image, value, functional and safety systems, and transferable factory warranties. Since Toyota does not warrant used salvage parts, we want to make sure customers are aware of the consequences of having used salvage parts installed on their vehicles. At this time, we believe there are no systems or processes in place to regulate the quality of used salvage parts in market. Therefore, we are concerned about improper use of used salvage parts, i.e., wrong application as well as the use of damage materials.
Supplemental Restraint Systems (SRS): Due to the critical nature of the supplemental Restraint Systems, also known as air bags, Toyota does not support the use of any used salvage or limitation parts for repair. Only new Toyota Genuine Parts should be used in repairs.
I am sure I could find more examples
I certainly hope that if you own a rolex and someone steals it, that they don't try to replace it with a taiwan knockoff. It serves the function of the original doesn't it?
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 07:48 pm Post Subject:
T are you one of those guys that get bonuses for the more aftermarket parts you push and write on peoples cars?
"One of those guys"? Typical response from you. No one makes any "bonus" off putting AM parts on a vehicle. This is just another one of your implied lies. If you really want to know, the company I work for does not use any AM parts. Nor do I like that they need to be used. So I guess that discounts the rest of your rambling on this subject.So how can a person that only pays for them have a clue as to the quality and fit.
I don't have to bolt them on a vehicle to know what they are like. I've looked at them, touched them, compared them, read the reports on them, and educated myself on their use. Somehow I think that makes me informed. But I guess I can't know anything unless I turn a few bolts.Toyota can _write_ whatever they want... but truth is, they don't void the warranty on their vehicle unless it can be shown that the AM part lead to a compromise. Again, I refer you to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Read it. I'll quote part of it here, "One of the most important provisions of the Act prohibits a warrantor from disclaiming or modifying any implied warranty whenever any written warranty is given or service contract entered into." I'll also quote someone who has read the Act, "This means that, under the provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975, an automotive dealership/carmaker cannot void your warranty because your vehicle has been modified with aftermarket parts. They (the manufacturers) have to prove that the failure was the direct result of the installed aftermarket part."
Parking garage owners post signs stating that they are not liable for damage to vehicle. But if they can be shown to be negligent, they _are_ held legally liable. Again, anything can be claimed or written down but it's another thing to hold any legal muster.
I pointed out all of this information prior to your last response. Perhaps you should do some research before replying next time. You seem to be running a pattern of this.
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 08:56 pm Post Subject:
Toyota can _write_ whatever they want... but truth is, they don't void the warranty on their vehicle unless it can be shown that the AM part lead to a compromise. Again, I refer you to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Read it. I'll quote part of it here, "One of the most important provisions of the Act prohibits a warrantor from disclaiming or modifying any implied warranty whenever any written warranty is given or service contract entered into." I'll also quote someone who has read the Act, "This means that, under the provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975, an automotive dealership/carmaker cannot void your warranty because your vehicle has been modified with aftermarket parts. They (the manufacturers) have to prove that the failure was the direct result of the installed aftermarket part."
So you would rather put crapa parts on sorry, capa a/m parts and force the claimant and insured to litigate against the manufacturer of their car to maintain the warranty. Good job T.
You and lori work for insurers that are an exception to the rule, thats great. But a/m is still junk. Why do you look at aftermarket parts fit when you do not have to install them? What makes you an expert at fit?
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 09:51 pm Post Subject:
So you would rather put crapa parts on sorry, capa a/m parts and force the claimant and insured to litigate against the manufacturer of their car to maintain the warranty.
If it ever happened that the vehicle manufacture was in violation of the law, yes. The insurance company should be responsible for someone else's violation of the law?What makes you an expert at fit?
Mainly when the body shop tells me or an appraiser has told me that that a certain part probably won't fit or does not fit. I understand that body shops don't like AM parts partly because some of them don't fit. It also cost them time when this happens (but if I understand correctly, they get paid for this time). But what else will keep OEM part prices reasonable? As time goes on fewer BS's complaint about AM parts as they realize they are here to stay. People want to complain about AM parts but then they turn around and shop for the lowest price insurance. So which do they want. You don't want to admit this but they won't have both.Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 11:21 pm Post Subject: Alternate parts
I was once told by an adjuster from the geco company that he was bonused for the use of alternate parts. Other companies adjusters tell me that writing for alternate parts is part of a grading system that affects their raises. It is my understanding that if an aftermarket condenser or radiator has a different number of coils in it it is not of like kind and quality. The aftermarket radiators that I have seen come with a large warning label on them that says they are not warrantied unless the system is flushed which usually makes them not cost effective. Mike, my shop works on mostly high end cars, and they don't make aftermarket parts for them. Do you think that greater dv factors into that? I have had to help some customers who relented and said they would give them a try. I have had the company tell me that the rejection rates are as low as 1% just to get them here and find something wrong with them. Tcope, I think I understand why you don't respect the people who do this work. Let me tell you that their is no shortage of people who do.
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 11:50 pm Post Subject:
I was once told by an adjuster from the geco company that he was bonused for the use of alternate parts. Other companies adjusters tell me that writing for alternate parts is part of a grading system that affects their raises.
I think this is out of context. If it's the policy of an insurance company to use AM parts, one is available and it's not used, then the appraiser may need to explain why it was not used or it could be held against him/her. But this is just like any other aspect of the job... if you don't follow the rules, it's held against you. But I've _never_ heard of an insurance company giving bonuses to appraisers for _using_ AM parts. There is a difference.The aftermarket radiators that I have seen come with a large warning label on them that says they are not warrantied unless the system is flushed which usually makes them not cost effective.
I could see that... though how would a radiator be installed unless the fluid was changed?Tcope, I think I understand why you don't respect the people who do this work. Let me tell you that their is no shortage of people who do.
People who push DV or adjusters (I'm sure there are more that hate adjusters :) ). I just don't agree with pushing DV and it only benefits an extremely small portion of people and will only serve to increase insurance cost for everyone. Also, it's vary nature is that it's a perceived loss in value. The loss in value has nothing to do with the repairs making the vehicle any less functional.Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 01:28 am Post Subject:
People who push DV or adjusters (I'm sure there are more that hate adjusters ). I just don't agree with pushing DV and it only benefits an extremely small portion of people and will only serve to increase insurance cost for everyone. Also, it's vary nature is that it's a perceived loss in value. The loss in value has nothing to do with the repairs making the vehicle any less functional.
There would be no need for DV if the public had the confidence that enough was being paid to repair cars correctly and short cuts weren't being taken trying to accomodate those discounts promised to insurers inexchange for referrals. This is another form of payola, giving away the profits to keep the work coming in. I could care less if I never had to write another DV report. I wish all repairers would be accountable to their customers rather than the adjusters trying to shepherd the companies gold. When people regain the confidence of repairers those notions that a wrecked and repaired cars are not worth as much as one that has not suffered damage would diminish or cease to exist.
You pay for cheap repairs with imititaion parts, you get cheap wrecked and repaired cars for trade in.
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 04:12 am Post Subject:
There would be no need for DV if the public had the confidence that enough was being paid to repair cars correctly and short cuts weren't being taken trying to accomodate those discounts promised to insurers inexchange for referrals.
I don't think the public is the driving force of DV... I think it's the people who make a living off pushing it that is the driving force. So yes, I think it would still exist.But hey, I said it before and I'll say it again... I'd rather not see any insurance company allow for AM parts. But the flip side is that parts prices would triple and insurance rates would be raised to accommodate it. Anyone for paying 50% higher premiums and no AM parts would be used _if_ you happen to need them?
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 12:12 pm Post Subject:
don't think the public is the driving force of DV... I think it's the people who make a living off pushing it that is the driving force
ABSOLUTELY! If 'someone' wasn't out there hocking their 'services' and insisting that every repair even a bumper cover causes diminished value, then it would be gone....unless and this is the only time I personally agree there is diminished value...if a vehicle has been repaired subpar, the body shop did a crappy repair job...then of course there is diminished value...but this is in EVERY repair of EVERY type....if the guy installing the siding on my house does a lousy job, then my house isn't worth as much either! But who's fault is that? My home owner's company ? NOT.....I'd rather not see any insurance company allow for AM parts. But the flip side is that parts prices would triple and insurance rates would be raised to accommodate it.
Honestly, I've been in this business in one way or another since 1986...In the past ten years or so, I've had virtually no trouble with a/m parts, it's very rare when it happens...fit, quality etc....and if there is an issue, it's handled quickly...the shops I deal with have no problem what so ever with these parts.....course they are ALL wrong, I'm sure according to MIke.....the cost of oem parts has fell thru the floor to the point that I've actually in the past month had two parts that oem was cheaper than a/m! can you imagine? Think this would have happened if a/m parts hadn't moved into main stream?Add your comment