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: Wed May 28, 2008 04:11 pm Post Subject:
Continue to lambast what you call it lies since you can't disprove otherwise.
Not sure what you are referring to... I think anyone can see that you've been called on most everything you've posted. I've posted documentation and facts that show most of what you've posted is incorrect. You simply then move on to more made up statements. I have no issues with what you post... as long as it's correct and not just purely made up thoughts represented as fact.Mike, it seems your biggest gripe is that the insurance industry is trying (and I guess succeeded) in controlling body shops. I can understand that point of view... to a certain extent, it's true (we just disagree on the reason and semantics behind it). But then you also claim that this does not affect you... but then you indicate it does. Perhaps I'm just nit picking your posts.
As far as the site you mention... I read the posts. Not many have much substance at all. Most seem to be people complaining (which is fine) about things and they are not related to insurance. That site seems to be more in-line with body shop's... something I know little about. This site is about insurance... something I know quite well. I'd no more expect to be well received if I went there and starting touting body shop information like I knew what I was talking about then if someone from over there came here and acted like they knew the insurance industry.
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 06:04 pm Post Subject:
Continue to believe as you wish. I have indeed supplied you with documentation, it just does not seem agree with your point of view so you simply say it isn't fact but do not prove otherwise. Others have emailed and thanked me for the truth.
Those people at the other board are discussing collision industry/ insurance industry relations today for example. The data providers now require a agreement clause that they have the rights to property uploaded and extracted from shop's computers. Who do you suppose they sell all that data to? They are also admonishing those industry leaders who think they can achieve a level playing field with insurers by enacting legislation that winds up biting them in the hind end. Yeah they're just a bunch of whiners, not. You'll simply say conspiracy theories and Lori will say bald faced lies.
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 07:41 pm Post Subject:
I have indeed supplied you with documentation, it just does not seem agree with your point of view so you simply say it isn't fact but do not prove otherwise.
See this is what I mean... you actually say that you spout fact and I've not done the same. You say this in the _same_ thread where you posted,How does it make you feel knowing a Chinese company is using kids in the production of parts you mandate.
and quoted an article to confirm this. I then pointed out that the article had _nothing_ to do with what you posted. I'll quote is here:As I mentioned, laughable... and typical. Here is the _REAL_ truth, quoted right from the article:
You said radioactive parts were coming from China and LINKED TO AN ARTICLE ABOUT LATIN AMERICA, the PARTS WERE NOT VEHICLE PARTS, AND IT WAS AN "ACCIDENT". HELLO!???"Italians seize 30 tons of radioactive steel"
Last time I checked, we were in America not a Latin country. Let me get my globe out.... yup, still in America.
"The environmental protection police squad said the steel was destined for the industrial production of chimneys and pulleys, and long-term exposure could have been dangerous for workers handling it."
I just got back from my garage and checking my vehicle for a chimney. As I suspected, there was not one.
"The steel had been accidentally mixed during production with cobalt-60, a radioactive isotope of cobalt, police said."
Notice the word "accidentally", as in not normal.... was a one time occurrence (we learn what "accident" means in our secret insurance meetings).
You also stated the following:
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.
and I explained:Here is one that I'm sure your familiar with, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
andThe 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.
http://www.iihs.org/laws/testimony/pdf/testimony_slo_032100.pdf
as well as"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.'
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, again, your 100% incorrect. You think you can just post information and a link that has nothing to do with your claim as well as spouting off propaganda with no facts to back it up. You then claim that I've not provided anything to back up my statements? Perhaps you need to come down off the mountain, I suspect the lack of air is affecting your brain. You lost your credibility a long time ago and with every post you just keep proving it.Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 11:53 pm Post Subject:
Again you proved my point that you only accept your sources and nobody elses. I have already posted documentation that shows the difference of how a/m sheetmetal does not fold or crumple as the oem sheetmetal did. What you don't seem to comprehend is that the timing mechanisms are so critical that the skins are a factor in the crumple zones and that altering them or using fenders that are double wall fenders as many are will not function identical to the oem parts and the insurer keeps trying to sell you that they do. GM has studies that circle can crapa parts studies.
Jack Gillis keeps trying to convince legislators that they are LKQ and even legislators recognize that they are not and are protecting consumers.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 01:54 am Post Subject:
I have already posted documentation that shows the difference of how a/m sheetmetal does not fold or crumple as the oem sheetmetal did.
Where was this posted....? Maybe on another web site....? Cause it was not in this thread. If you feel up to backing up those words, feel free to quote the documentation your mentioning.I can save you some time... here is the quote where you mention this:
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.
You then quoted the following: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.
In no way does this state that AM parts do not perform as OEM. What Toyota DOES say is that they don't warranty those parts (of course they don't... they are not their parts. They come with their own warranty). That they are "concerned" about people using salvage parts (nothing to do with AM parts but gee... they don't even trust their own OEM part. They only "trust" the parts they make a huge profit on. Imagine that). The we finally get on point with this statement, "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.". Now, where does that say AM don't fold like OEM? _Truth_ is, it doesn't... they probably don't want to get sued for making such a claim. They _only_ say they don't "support" it. Well of course they don't... they only "support" the parts that they make a huge profit from! They said it themselves... they don't even support their own used parts! Again, these are not AM, they are _perfectly_ good, EVERY reasonable shop will use them all day long, they ARE OEM and Toyota does not "support" even these! We can CLEARLY see why Toyota is making this statement.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.
But the bottom line, you _did not_ offer any documentation showing AM don't crumple like OEM parts. I renew my request that you back up your prior post with quotes. Or we can just let this post stand on it's own to show, yet again, that your are 100% incorrect.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 09:59 am Post Subject:
You should stay here,
I intend to thank you...You wouldn't last one day on that board,
True, I'm not into 'that' scene...The bs o meter would sniff your lack of knowledge of the collision industry and the true sentiments of your lacky shops that serve only you instead of consumers.
I'll be sure and pass that compliment around to the boys...from some of the most independent free thinkers in the industry over there
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:I have no issues with what you post... as long as it's correct and not just purely made up thoughts represented as fact.
BINGO, we have both said that, I don't know about a hundred times!you simply say it isn't fact but do not prove otherwise
tcope and i have over and over and over showed documentation that what you are posting is well crap-ola....you don't even read you own ''documenation' well enough to realize in most cases you are contradicting yourself!If you feel up to backing up those words, feel free to quote the documentation your mentioning
Just like he was going to post all the proof here, then just 'decided' no, we'd need to go to the ins hate board for it..tcope we all know it doesn't exsist...wait, i smell a change of topic again! :roll: After you (tcope) went to all the trouble to post docs (i did the same about few months ago in another thread)..that an OEM manu. CANNOT void the factory warranty without PROVING the non oem part failed...he again two pages later spouted the exact same thing....man, didn't you promise...As far as I am concerned , my participation in this thread is finished,
:roll: :roll: :roll:Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 02:22 pm Post Subject:
But the bottom line, you _did not_ offer any documentation showing AM don't crumple like OEM parts. I renew my request that you back up your prior post with quotes. Or we can just let this post stand on it's own to show, yet again, that your are 100% incorrect
That documentation is in the earlier threads on direct repair shops or one of several others discussing discusting a/m parts. Sorry too busy helping real people to educate you guys today. Knock yourselves out looking for it. You guys obviously arent really working the field, you have too much time to pontificate in here. Hope we don't see you over at Jobvent soon.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 02:38 pm Post Subject:
That documentation is in the earlier threads on direct repair shops or one of several others discussing discusting a/m parts. Sorry too busy helping real people to educate you guys today. Knock yourselves out looking for it.
Again, laughable! :) :) You _claim_ that you've posted documentation then when your asked for it and shown that you did not, you suddenly get too busy to simply provide confirmation. Gee, I did not see that one coming. :) Most people would be embarrassed to be caught not telling the truth. You claim how unsavory adjusters are but then you stoop to these levels. It's a joke."Helping" others? You mean people who still think you are honest and above-board?
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 03:25 pm Post Subject:
Great big gobs of grimey gopher guts T, does your mommy have to wipe your behind too?
Perfect avatar for you T.
Check out this treasure trove of government, court, gao studies to find some of the answers for yourself.
GM report and study on A/M Parts
http://www.princetonautobody.com/docs/pdf/GMSPO2.pdf
Generic parts do not make the grade
http://www.princetonautobody.com/Docs/PDF/Allianze.pdf
one study on A/M parts useage
http://www.princetonautobody.com/Docs/PDF/true2.pdf
Keep yourself busy today learning the truth instead of spouting insurance rhetoric. I am sure you say GM lied and real studies are bogus compared to your ability as an adjuster to see feel and touch a/m sheetmetal. See you over at Jobvent, are you going to use the same alias over there?
Now really T this is the last time I am coming back to this thread to expose your ineptitude.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 05:10 pm Post Subject:
First, lets just be clear... this information was not posted as you claimed. So your posting new information. Just so we are clear on that.
I'm looking at the GM report and it's 6-7 years old! This is back when AM first came out! Things have changed _greatly_ over the past 6 years. On top of that the report was done my GM... not an unbiased independent 3rd party (how about if I post information from CAPA... would you accept that as fact?). The GM report mentions nothing about the AM part not folding like OEM... which is what we are discussing. Remember?
Second link... same issues, "This summer, AZT published the results of a
study on repairs with generic parts it carried out during 1999-2000". Also, again... this study focused solely on fit. Nothing about folding.
Third link... well do I need to say it? Yup, it won the oldest report award at over 10 years!. And again, it spoke only about fit, not folding.
This is getting old but I'll say it again.... you've failed yet again to provide any documentation to back up your claim. When asked you stated that it was provided. When this was shown to be incorrect you said that you did not have the time to provide the confirmation but then you did provide some links. But, as is typical, the documentation you provided had nothing to do with what was being discussed. This has been asked before... did you even read the information you linked to?
And here we are... right back to where we started... you're STILL spouting off comments and trying to pass them off as fact. When asked for confirmation of your statements you simply cannot provide any.
You also claimed in this post that these reports were from the government and courts. Yet again, you are 100% incorrect. The reports are from GM, a company in Germany and a body shop.
If you want to discuss fit, you really should start a new thread. That is not what we are discussing here. But if you really want to review information about the fit of CAPA parts, try reading the following from the repair industry:
http://www.collision-insight.com/news/20011227-capa.htm
http://www.collision-insight.com/news/archives/9903-feature.htm
These reports are from the repair industry, not CAPA or even from independent 3rd parties. So if anything they are bias against CAPA parts. If you care to read them they point out that 7-8 years ago there _were_ issues with _fit_. But even at that time look at the body shop reviews of the CAPA parts. About 90% of the body shops would recommend the CAPA parts (one case it was as low as 50%).
Again, this report is also very old and AM parts have improved greatly over the past 6-7 years. But even this report, from the repair industry, did not paint AM parts in such a bad light. It showed that, at the time, there were issued with AM part _fit_ but that a majority of the shops would recommend AM parts in all but a few cases.
Add your comment