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: Thu May 29, 2008 05:53 pm Post Subject:
The web site you visited was chalked full of legal and court informtion not the specific articles I posted. However, it is sad that a 6 to 8 year old article is as relevant today as it was then. One just needs to change the date.
All I had to do was read as far as the name of Jack Gillis and that pretty much ended the credibility for me. If insurers had just specified oem parts instead of propping up this sham by trying to tell professionals they are just as good, consumers would have been much happier and there would be less issues of fit and quality.
You pay for a policy of insurance that promises pre loss and some acutally try for the first year to put oem back on cars, but then the next year you are specifying crapa parts, but charging the same price for coverage. Shouldn't that savings be passed on to the consumer if you are going to devalue the policy?
CAPA has already removed more than 300 parts that did not pass the stringent VTF phase from its list of certified parts. Manufacturers may resubmit for re-certification any part removed from the program, once they have demonstrated to CAPA that previously identified problems have been corrected and the part has successfully passed a vehicle test fit.
Crapa designates parts that were once capa certified and after they sent the ill fitting parts to repairers and the installers in the field who lodged complaints, only then do they remove them from the certified list. Some insurer probably penalized that shop for extra rental days, while they were trying to get a crapa part that fit. Why don't they just call them what they are, cheap, imitation, cost mitigating, contaminated sheetmetal designed to save insurers money guised in the propoganda that they save policyholders money, all the while devaluing their property.
Next you will be trying to tell people here, that your generic lucky charms taste just as good as the real thing, Well I guess if you sugar coat them enough to fool insurance adjusters and blow smoke up their wazzoo they might be edible.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 06:12 pm Post Subject:
The web site you visited was chalked full of legal and court informtion not the specific articles I posted.
Of course the information was there... just not produced. Why would I expect any less then _claims_ of information and nothing to back it up. Nothing new here.Shouldn't that savings be passed on to the consumer if you are going to devalue the policy?
Who said the premium did not consider that AM parts are being used? No one. Truth is, premiums would _sky rocket_ if parts prices increased by 300% or more.Some insurer probably penalized that shop for extra rental days, while they were trying to get a crapa part that fit.
Not the carriers I've seen... and this has been an issue. It's one of the reasons why the carriers I've worked for don't use certain types of AM parts. But that was a long time ago. I've not heard of any problems with AM parts for a long time.Why don't they just call them what they are, cheap, imitation, cost mitigating, contaminated sheetmetal designed to save insurers money guised in the propoganda that they save policyholders money, all the while devaluing their property.
Because most of us live in the real world where this is simply not true.Next you will be trying to tell people here, that your generic lucky charms taste just as good as the real thing, Well I guess if you sugar coat them enough to fool insurance adjusters and blow smoke up their wazzoo they might be edible.
Run out of "facts" to post? Or just having a tough time backing up your claims.I've said it before and I'll say it again... personally I don't like AM parts. But they are _legal_ and necessary in order to keep OEM parts prices down to a reasonable amount. Without AM parts _every one's_ premiums would be _far_ higher then they are now. But body shops would not really care about this, would they. You'd stop "helping" people at the point, huh.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 06:24 pm Post Subject:
I will concede one point to you. It is better crap than it was 6 years ago. Being better crap doesnt make it equal to or just like the real thing, it's still cost mitigating crap.
The weight of insurers and their colleagues in the taiwan and ROC sheetmetal cartel, have simply wore most repairers down. They simply gave up. Used by a majority of shops that prostitute themselves to insurers and those rebuilders that buy it to use on those totals they purchase at auction from you, does not qualify it a quality part.
Just shows to go you what Ole Abe said, you can fool some of the people some of the time. Defending that stuff says a lot about the quality one aspires to.
You got all your scripts memorized for today? You sure have a lot of time on your hand. Does your boss know you are posting on company time or do they pay you to sell this propoganda.
Oh yeah, did you notice some of those direct repair agreements posted at the web page I sent you?
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 08:22 pm Post Subject:
You got all your scripts memorized for today? You sure have a lot of time on your hand. Does your boss know you are posting on company time or do they pay you to sell this propoganda.
No scripts... as I mentioned before, carrier I work for does not use AM parts. But I've seen the question raised a million times and have done my own research on the issue.I work as a resident adjuster with my boss in another state. I get my work done and no one knows I exist. :)
Oh yeah, did you notice some of those direct repair agreements posted at the web page I sent you?
Nothing came my way. I would like to see them. Carrier I work for does not use DRP's but even when I worked for carriers that did, I never pushed them (a few of the larger carriers mandate that DRPs be pushed but most of the smaller carriers don't really review those stats. I think they have their place and can benefit both carrier and customer but the downfall is when carriers don't keep on top of the program. Also, I agree that the customer needs to review the repairs as well but this is true no matter where they take their vehicle.Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:56 am Post Subject:
Now really T this is the last time I am coming back to this thread to expose your ineptitude.
above quote was oh, three or four posts back STILL can't even keep your word about anything huh? :roll:If insurers had just specified oem parts instead of propping up this sham by trying to tell professionals they are just as good, consumers would have been much happier and there would be less issues of fit and quality
One has to wonder if this were the case, just what would the 'bad' shops use as an excuse for poor repairs? You even use the word ''less'' regarding issues of fit and quality!! No doubt life would be easier if we didn't even have to 'visit' the alternative parts topic...but that's just not life...Think I remember libby and others screaming their heads off about generic drugs too when they first became popular, but the consumer was the benefactor! and guess what happened? Same thing that happend with oem parts, the price started to fall...You know if people were paying all their claims out of their own pockets, you can bet your bippy that given the choice they would go with the aftermarket...why? because it saves money! Do I EVER use non-capa certified parts? NO NEVER....how often do I have an a/m part quality problem? Maybe one out of a hundred jobs....if that!!!!Shouldn't that savings be passed on to the consumer if you are going to devalue the policy?
First the policy isn't ''devalued''...and second the savings IS passed on! Imagine how high premiums would be if there were no alternative parts! Or maybe someone that makes so much money writing diminished value reports doesn't worry about their insurance premiums.. :roll:CAPA has already removed more than 300 parts that did not pass the stringent VTF phase from its list of certified parts.
And isn't that terrific!? CAPA will not allow crap parts out! Man, did that ever benefit OUR argument...nice work Mike!Oh yeah, did you notice some of those direct repair agreements posted at the web page I sent you?
Nothing came my way. I would like to see them.
Please mike...post these here for ALL to enjoy!!! You've been promising to show all of the ''claims''you've made that are in them....I'll have to review, your statement of 'fact' regarding what is in all these DRP contracts...but surely your proof will show them.... :roll:
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 02:46 pm Post Subject:
CAPA has already removed more than 300 parts that did not pass the stringent VTF phase from its list of certified parts.
And isn't that terrific!? CAPA will not allow crap parts out! Man, did that ever benefit OUR argument...nice work Mike!
You just don't get it or are you just dense. These parts were once claimed to have been certified and claimed to fit. Only because some shops and techs have the gonads to inform and file complaints do these parts ever get de certified. Why should capa be praised for decertifying them when they should never have been certified in the first place.
Once they are decertified, who's job or responsibility is it to inform the vehicle owners that were told that they had certified parts installed on their car as per policy requirement, that now they have parts that are not certified and may be dangerous? Where is the tracking and liability there?
They run these parts out on the market when they think they are good and safe and hope someone doesnt complain or get hurt.
Please mike...post these here for ALL to enjoy!!! You've been promising to show all of the ''claims''you've made that are in them....I'll have to review, your statement of 'fact' regarding what is in all these DRP contracts...but surely your proof will show them....
Some body please show Lori, how to use a link and read those agreements. They do not need to be posted and clog up space in this thread, she is doing that quite well herself.
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 03:09 pm Post Subject:
These parts were once claimed to have been certified and claimed to fit. Only because some shops and techs have the gonads to inform and file complaints do these parts ever get de certified.
And the parts that auto manufactures put out are perfectly good? Right now I have a recall on my brakes as they might fail. Look at Firestone a few years ago. You think companies put out 100% perfect parts 100% of the time? Again, all auto manufactures are guilty of failed parts as well.Some body please show Lori, how to use a link and read those agreements. They do not need to be posted and clog up space in this thread, she is doing that quite well herself.
I must have missed it also as I never saw the link. If there is a BS person out there that knows how to link this information, please do so.Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 03:22 pm Post Subject:
Here is the entire archive
http://www.princetonautobody.com/archive.htm
Go to drp related documents
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 01:25 am Post Subject:
I'm reading the reports now but in the meantime Mike, why don't you see if you can help this poster:
http://www.ampminsure.org/auto/about4906.html
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:00 pm Post Subject:
Well I just lost a giant post....with tons of research...great...
The link you provided has ONE, count them ONE 'drp' contract which is actually (per a friend of mine I called that works for progressives drp)...their CSC not drp contract (it's their "concierge" program)...doesn't matter because this contract has NOTHING, yep NOTHING in it that you claimed was in them! no parts discounts, nothing! again, didn't read your own link...
RE: capa decertification, first where did this info come from? and second, the VTF was institued in 1999, I don't know if they have retested all prior to 99 certified parts or not I know that in 2001 they were to begin this...I also know that about 90% or more of any decertification (from what I have read) appear to be 'lot' driven...This happens with EVERYTHING material occassionally! For whatever reason when they were certified everything passed muster, then a problem popped up and when notified of the same it is handled...isn't that they way it should be?
Why don't you explain tech service bulletins to the folks Mike...why don't the big three send these to the owners? tell you why because unless and untill it is evelated to a recall they won't do a darn thing about it unless and until a vehicle owner complains, and then only if they have enough umph to find out there is a TSB on the issue and push it...miraculously it's repaired for free...why aren't you championing the poor consumer here? Can't tell you how many times I've had an owner complain about a reoccuring problem (not accident related) I'll have a friend/tech run it on alldata, bingo! tsb...they go to the dealership with the tsb number and ka-bam! it's fixed for free...where's the equity in that? Why arent' you worried about those poor folks?
I see nothing wrong with the contract you provided or with the way capa stringently tests these parts, and decertifies them if needed...also the VTF is a ''fit'' test, nothing to do with safety...
Add your comment