by whatsyurprob » Thu Mar 27, 2008 01:23 am
I'll try to make this as short as possible.
I'm the victim of a parking lot rear end accident. The guy who hit me has admitted all liability. I've gotten an estimate at a shop of my choosing. His insurance company (AAA) sent out to my house an independent appraiser. She did her report but failed to include pictures of the most expensive damage (There's a difference of $500.00 comparing her report and the body shop that I took my car to). After I received the appraisers estimate I called AAA and they said that if I wanted a cash pay-out I would be the one responsible for getting the proof that the part the appraiser 'conveniently' left out was really damaged. This would be at MY expense. AAA, says that my bumper has to be completely dismantled to prove this. I say, BULL!!!
U see, the problem is, it's my car that got hit. If the other party has admitted all liability I shouldn't have to pay a dime, not to mention that it's none of AAA's business if I get the car fixed or not. Am I right?
BTW, Totaling the car out is not an option seeing as though it's worth much more than the damage caused. This is not in dispute.
I live in California.
Thanx in advance.
I'm the victim of a parking lot rear end accident. The guy who hit me has admitted all liability. I've gotten an estimate at a shop of my choosing. His insurance company (AAA) sent out to my house an independent appraiser. She did her report but failed to include pictures of the most expensive damage (There's a difference of $500.00 comparing her report and the body shop that I took my car to). After I received the appraisers estimate I called AAA and they said that if I wanted a cash pay-out I would be the one responsible for getting the proof that the part the appraiser 'conveniently' left out was really damaged. This would be at MY expense. AAA, says that my bumper has to be completely dismantled to prove this. I say, BULL!!!
U see, the problem is, it's my car that got hit. If the other party has admitted all liability I shouldn't have to pay a dime, not to mention that it's none of AAA's business if I get the car fixed or not. Am I right?
BTW, Totaling the car out is not an option seeing as though it's worth much more than the damage caused. This is not in dispute.
I live in California.
Thanx in advance.
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 02:55 pm Post Subject:
.
.
whatsyurprob,
Posted: 27 Mar 2008 11:54 Post subject: Cash out
---------------
whatsyurprob,
The Article below may help answer many of your questions.
NOTE... Laws differ State to State, and Laws Change.!! Consult an attorney in your area versed in Third Party Claims.
FK,
============================
________________________________
============================
System detected duplicate content, converted into image.
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 04:51 pm Post Subject:
I won't get into how repair times are determined as I think we all know an average, qualified, repair person in a shop can easily make the repairs in the time allowed. With that said, what if a shop can repair the vehicle in much less time then allowed? Is the extra money paid refunded to the owner of the vehicle? Nope. Are repairs done in less time 99.99% of the time? Yup! The tools in a shop are some of the best. They deal with rusted parts all of the time. They really pose little problems. If they do, and the repair person needs a little extra time, they still almost never go over the time allowed. It's one of those trade offs on how the system is set up... payments are not reduced when the job is done quickly so they are not decreased when (and it almost never happens) when the job takes a little longer.
OP, yes the insurance company would pay for the tear down if the part is learned to be damaged but this might not be as you expect. They will pay for the tear down only in that they will pay for the part and the cost to replace it, which includes taking off the bumper cover and the part itself. So the payment will be in the form of a higher appraisal, to include the part in question.
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 05:39 pm Post Subject: Good grief Charly Brown
I won't get into how repair times are determined as I think we all know an average, qualified, repair person in a shop can easily make the repairs in the time allowed. With that said, what if a shop can repair the vehicle in much less time then allowed? Is the extra money paid refunded to the owner of the vehicle? Nope. Are repairs done in less time 99.99% of the time? Yup! The tools in a shop are some of the best. They deal with rusted parts all of the time. They really pose little problems. If they do, and the repair person needs a little extra time, they still almost never go over the time allowed. It's one of those trade offs on how the system is set up... payments are not reduced when the job is done quickly so they are not decreased when (and it almost never happens) when the job takes a little longer.
Here we go again!
Before there were manuals or labor guides, the time for repairing and replacing was written in dollars and cents. The cost of repair was determined by the professional repairing the damage based on the amount in dollars that were required for the value of the service. In addition for placing a value on that service, the repairer accepted the liability for the procedure.
Insurers like to micro manage tenths of an hours so they can control costs. You basically have three data providers and in many instances, the times for identical operations will be inconsistent. There should be no reason for these inconsistencies with exception that the data providers use decreases in labor allowances to sell their products to insurers as one that can be proven to save insurers money.
In order for insurers to gain control of the collision industry, they began to rely on labor manuals with supposed time study guides. These guides were compromised with insurance company imput. Shops did not need guides other than parts price guides. Insurers could not dispute labor unless they could look to a guide for a SUGGESTED LABOR TIME. Insurers have so manipulated the guides and the companies that produce the guides have marketed them solely to the insurance industry. The guides or now as they are referred to "data providers" have become the bible of the insurance industry. When an insurer chooses to misuse the guide by using criteria that is not suggested in the procedural pages, it is okay for them to do so apparently. As an example, there is no such thing as blend within a panel in the data guides, but there are suggested allowances for denibbing and buffing clear, but insurers do not believe this is necessary and both are routinely denied by insurers.
Whats yur problem, see if you can get your repair shop to sign an affidavit stating that based on his professional expertise he has determined that rebar is damaged.
I have a customer who is having this same issue with a vehicle that was rear ended. The at fault party struck the rear of the car lifting it in the air and damaging the gas tank. I prepared a complete thorough examination of the damage including some disassembly. The customer gladly paid my fee for the assessment and partial disassembly. Most of the damage could be seen by the naked eye and documented with a digital camera.
Now the at fault insurer says the shop analysis of damage and pictures are not sufficient as they have to see the damage with their own eyes and document it. This is ludicrous to say the least. The customer does not intend to repair the vehicle but to sell it as is and they are entitled to all damages regardless of whether they repair them or not. Apparently proof to insurers only counts if they can control the scope of the examination of damage. Just remember that (whatsyurprob) are not bound by the terms and conditions of a policy of insurance that you are not contracted to. You are owed damages based on the negligence of their insured and tort law is the basis for remedy, not the at fault party's coverage.
The vehicle owner's attorney at my suggestion told the insurer to pay for a towing of the vehicle to their preferred shop and pay for a dissassembly and then place the damage parts back on the car if they did not want to accept an experts analysis and documentation. This is no different than when an insurer demands before settlement that an injured person be examined by their expert doctor. The damaged party is not required to pay for the at fault party's expert opinion, use of their lab or office and equipment. It should be no different when settling issues on property damage. This is just another tactic used by an insurer to attempt to deny what is owed to the damaged party, in my opinion.
You may want to consult with an attorney in your state or the bar association. They will be able to inform you whether you can collect for any expenses required to prove your claim.
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 06:41 pm Post Subject:
.
.
tcope,
It would appear that your comment on repair Time was based on DRP shops that are contracted to accept the times and prices specified on insurer estimates. (or risk being removed from the DRP list) That is very bogus information and we both know it.
Below is a simple repair situation that I had post on several Collision Repair discussion boards back in 2005. I received many responses of which NOT one person that actually does this work said it was possible to be done in the time listed.
If you would, please Print this out and while you are at your local shops show it to their Painter to read and ask them for an Honest "off the record" answer. Then let us all know how many say they can and how many can't.
Looking forward to your findings.
FK,
_____________________________
Time to Blend a Door according to Motor est. guide. 2005
03 Dodge full size pickup:
DOOR ... Refinish outside panel...... 2.8 -50% for blend panel (??).... becomes 1.4
FROM THE P-PAGES [word for word]
COLOR BLEND (adjacent panels)
INCLUDED:
Clean component (solvent/detergent wash)
Initial wet-sand
Clean again in preparation for material application
Mask adjacent panels (3ft. perimeter)
Bonding/adhesive coat application
Blend coat application
Clear coat application (full blend panel)
Remove masking
(This same time also applies to an 1994 full size Dodge pickup)
Note: keep in mind that an blend panel is not New out of the Box, (it can't be) its a
dirty used door attached to the automobile anywhere from a few days to 10 years ago.
Can anyone actually do all of this in 1.4 hours?
Keep in mind that a prepper's time is also part of the 1.4.
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 08:33 pm Post Subject:
Lori,
There is a problem with your Book time of .5 (one half of an hour -- thirty minuets).
Not on R&I Fred! you should know that!What about Stall time waiting for the appraiser to show??
What waiting for them to show? You take off the cover, and put the car outside....it's not dead you know....And a few other items that could come into play.
What might those be Fred?Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 09:28 pm Post Subject:
Before there were manuals or labor guides, the time for repairing and replacing was written in dollars and cents.
The cost of repair was determined by the professional repairing the damage based on the amount in dollars that were required for the value of the service.
So what your saying is that there was little accountability in the industry. We _still_ see this today! Tell me this one thing... why is it when someone get's estimates from shops, they are all for different amounts and can differ easily by 25%? When you have a reasonable answer for this, let me know. [/b]Truth is, body shop estimates differ as much as insurance company appraisals.[/b] You just don't want to mention that as it really negates your point completely.In order for insurers to gain control of the collision industry, they began to rely on labor manuals with supposed time study guides. These guides were compromised with insurance company imput. Shops did not need guides other than parts price guides.
I'm not sure who put together the times but I don't doubt whatsoever that insurance companies helped put them together. When I get two body shop estimates and one wants twice as much labor time for the same job... I think it might be about time to place some accountability into the industry. When the companies come up with the repair times they actually video tape a repair person making the repair and time them. I'm guessing this is done with several different people. That way if someone wants to dispute the data, they have documentation on it. Ever heard of anyone disputing the data? Nope... truth is (and here it is...) almost all repair shops can easily repair a vehicle in LESS time then is allowed. THAT is how they make extra money.You don't mention this, as again, it negates your statement.Are their times when a shop want more time and the insurance company does not want to allow it? Yup. In those cases I've heard that the appraiser and shop usually get together and work it out. One or both might not be happy about it but that is called life. I think I should be paid $1,000,000/year but I'm willing to make some concessions.
Whats yur problem, see if you can get your repair shop to sign an affidavit stating that based on his professional expertise he has determined that rebar is damaged.
Not that my opinion is needed but I agree with this 100%! I think it would probably take care of the issue easily and quickly.Now the at fault insurer says the shop analysis of damage and pictures are not sufficient as they have to see the damage with their own eyes and document it. This is ludicrous to say the least.
Yeah, damn those people why want to actually confirm for themselves the damages they are going to pay for! It's not like the laws of the US allow for this type of thing. Also, what a hardship it is for the owner of the vehicle to have to let someone go out and look at their car! That is _so_ unreasonable. Why not just take the word of a perfect stranger each and _every_ time. Better yet, why not just send a blank check and have the person fill in the cost to repair the vehicle.Apparently proof to insurers only counts if they can control the scope of the examination of damage. Just remember that (whatsyurprob) are not bound by the terms and conditions of a policy of insurance that you are not contracted to. You are owed damages based on the negligence of their insured and tort law is the basis for remedy, not the at fault party's coverage.
Not bound by the terms of the policy but _IS_ bound by the laws of the US! it's called right of discovery (or something like that :) ) and if the person does not produce the damaged item it's called Spoliation of Evidence.The vehicle owner's attorney at my suggestion told the insurer to pay for a towing of the vehicle to their preferred shop and pay for a dissassembly and then place the damage parts back on the car if they did not want to accept an experts analysis and documentation. This is no different than when an insurer demands before settlement that an injured person be examined by their expert doctor. The damaged party is not required to pay for the at fault party's expert opinion, use of their lab or office and equipment. It should be no different when settling issues on property damage.
Perfectly fair request. Though, usually insurance companies simply want to go out to the vehicle and inspect it where it is located. This is done all the time. I'm not sure what the situation was on your particular claim but it's possible that the damages were minor and the person is claiming extensive injuries (hence, the attorney). In that case the insurance _may_ want to pay to have the vehicle town down to by used as evidence. Might not have anything to do with the property damage.No comment on diminishment of value? I thought perhaps this post got your ear for that reason. :) I'm just kidding with you, Mike. I enjoy all your posts and welcome them. :)
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 09:38 pm Post Subject:
It would appear that your comment on repair Time was based on DRP shops that are contracted to accept the times and prices specified on insurer estimates. (or risk being removed from the DRP list) That is very bogus information and we both know it.
NOT TRUE FRED....The estimates are written on a computer program same as your shop writes on...not included operations need to be added for...just as overlap needs to removed if the system did not do so...how do you write estimates in your shop?You basically have three data providers and in many instances, the times for identical operations will be inconsistent. There should be no reason for these inconsistencies with exception that the data providers use decreases in labor allowances to sell their products to insurers as one that can be proven to save insurers money.
The reason there are inconsistancies in the times is generally due to operator error, I've written in all three (adp, mitchell, and pathways)...while I would need a refresher in adp and pathways, (been on mitchell for about three or four years)...all of these systems operate/calculate differently some of them include some operations some do not...adp for example works from the inside out, mitchell out side in...so if you replace say a core support forward the times on each panel will be different but the bottom line, labor time wise should be pretty close if the appraiser knows how to do their job, and read the p pages (or whatever audatex/pathways calls theirs I can't remember)....THAT is the reason for the variance...I've 'taught' shop estimators and owners myself about their own systems and showed them how they were, well shorting themselves!Shops did not need guides other than parts price guides.
come on Fred you know this can't work...if there were not time guides, then abc shop would charge 10.0 hours to replace a fender, and def shop would charge two hours!If you would, please Print this out and while you are at your local shops show it to their Painter to read and ask them for an Honest "off the record" answer. Then let us all know how many say they can and how many can't.
Ok, Fred I ask the five guys that work in the paint dept of the largest shop that I work in...(this is a big shop, they even have two full time detailers! and that's all they do!)...ok these five guys rotate they are all talented painters, one week some prep and buff, then next paint, etc...all five of them said, if they couldn't get that blend done in less than a half hour, it's time for them to stop painting! I'll be in a smaller shop tomorrow only one painter and one prepper in that shop I'll ask them them same question...and let you know what they have to say.Before there were manuals or labor guides,
Geeze Fred, no darnit I mean Mike! Sorry Fred! I'll bet you aren't even that old ! :wink: I know I'm not....Mitchell crash books came out when?DOOR ... Refinish outside panel...... 2.8 -50% for blend panel (??).... becomes 1.4
(I'll play Fred...)Can anyone actually do all of this in 1.4 hours?
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 09:56 pm Post Subject:
Now the at fault insurer says the shop analysis of damage and pictures are not sufficient as they have to see the damage with their own eyes and document it. This is ludicrous to say the least
There are no pictures of the rebar! Did you miss the part where the SHOP didn't have the time to look! Geeze Louise I don't honestly see the problem with ANYONE or ANY COMPANY wanting to see and make sure a part is truly damaged BEFORE they pay to replace it! Man, I'd love for one of you guys to hit my mom's big ole lincoln in the rear end, then for me to demand a complete rear bumper assy and how about replacing the rear body panel while we're at it..all out of your own pocke mind you...but no, no need in tear down, shoot you don't even need to see it I'll just phone it in to you.Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:46 pm Post Subject:
Note: keep in mind that an blend panel is not New out of the Box, (it can't be) its a dirty used door attached to the automobile anywhere from a few days to 10 years ago.
I started to actually enter this into Audatex but then read the above comment. The paint time is based on a part in good, ready to use condition. If a salvage part is being used, the agreement with the salvor is that the part is in this type of condition. I recently toured one of these yards and it's _not_ like what people expect a junk yard too look like! They had 2-3 airplane hangers filled with removed parts. The parts were all in great condition and hanging on racks up to the ceiling.The salvors price is based on a part, in good condition, ready to use. If it's not, the repair shop can call the salvor and the salvor should agree to refund part of the price to compensate for the extra work needed. many times the shop calls the insurance company/appraisal and the appraiser will allow extra time (the shop might even double dip from both parties).
I'm not the greatest at writing appraisals. Let me say that 1st. But if we are just blending the door (to match the surrounding replaced part), why are you saying the door is off of another vehicle? If the door is being replaced, it's not being blended, it's being refinished. Am I missing something?
I have the refinish time on a door as 4.2 hours. I have the blend time as 1.6 hours.
Edit: Forgot about the DPR thing... I think Lori mentioned this. I don't work for a carrier that uses DRP's. So no, it was not based on this.
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:53 pm Post Subject:
I think his point is that most programs give you 1/2 the (outter) refinish time for blend time...and you are blending an undamaged but not new panel, meaning he has to clean/prep it as you would a salvaged door...the blended door is a used door.....the one that came on the truck. BUT he's not having to preform any 'cleanup' like he would if he purchased a used door to use in a repair, he is only blending it...
Add your comment