by AutoBody by Jake » Thu Jan 17, 2008 02:36 pm
Thought it best to start a new topic. Maybe there's people out there that have questions about DRP's and the shops that become one.
I've got quite a bit of experience with the direct repair program process and it's ups and downs, yes. There's a fair bit that goes on behind the scenes, and that's where I see some headaches.
Do you have any experience with them where you are? What do you think of them?
I've got quite a bit of experience with the direct repair program process and it's ups and downs, yes. There's a fair bit that goes on behind the scenes, and that's where I see some headaches.
Do you have any experience with them where you are? What do you think of them?
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 02:55 am Post Subject:
WOW !!!
I don't know how to quote, other wise I would ...
First, on the subject of diminution of value, or DV. Easch and every state recognizes DV in a third party setting, with the possible exception of Michigan with their archaic "no-fault" laws.
Lori, the quotes you've posted are in reference to FIRST party claims, which are governed by the contract of insurance. Third party claims, on the other hand, are NOT governed by the insurance contract, instead, they re goverened by tort law. Essentially, the law of torts aims to restore an injured party to as good a position as they held prior to the loss. If the vehicle is not worth as much after the reapirs as it was prior to the loss, then the vehicle owner was not restored to their previous position.
Let's talk about this "diminishment". Someone said that the loss is in the propsective purchasers mind. The problem is that their mind translates quite quickly to their wallet.
Those who keep mentioning "restoring the vehicle to pre-loss condition" are missing a few vitally important points.
First, the repair industry cannot duplicate the factory. Not when it comes to factory robotic welds. Not when it comes to dipping the body for corrosion protection. Not evn when it comes to the finish itself (factory piant is chemically substantially different from aftermarket paint).
Have you ever seen bird droppings on a repainted vehicle ? They'll etch the finish down to the substrate - not so with the factory finish.
Also, the manufacturer's warranty is voided by any collision repair (on the parts affected by the repair). NO MANUFACTURER warranties work done as a result of a collision, with the possible exception of those manufacturers like BMW when the repairs are done at a certified BMW repair facility. Even then, if there is body filler in the panel, the warranty on that panel is voided.
You could try to argue that the insurer warranties the repair (and aftermarket parts for that matter, but those warranties are not transferrable like the manufacturers warranties are.
So in reality, the potential purchaser "thinks" it's worth less, so they are willing to pay less - guess what ? It becomes a reality.
Of course, this presumes that all relevant facts are known - full and open disclosure of the damage history. Please don't use the feeble "argument' of "if it was't disclosed, they would pay the same, making the DV non-existent". That's the same as someone paying for a diamond when it's nothing more than a piece of glass being sold by an unscrupulous salesman.
(by the way Lori - you're right- it IS "don't ask, don't tell", plausible deniability, but even then, as alleged experts, especially when a dealer does an inspections, this has bitten quite a few dealers)
So, shops can't really restore a vehicle to true loss condition, and market forces, defined as paying consumers, have decided that DV is real.
As far as shops giving their tax number ... that's just silly. Really. Unless the shop is doing work FOR the insurer, the insurer should NOT be paying them.
Unless something has drastically changed, the shop owner has a contract to do work for the vehicle owner. It's the vehicle owner who has to pay the bill. If I were a shop wner (I am not) I wouldn't really care where they got the money (well, I might care, but only in extremes). They could get the mmoney from their insurer, or the at-fault party's insurer, or their Uncle Mark and Aunt Pam, or they could sell their furniture - really doesn't make a difference to me.
Perhaps even more simply, it is thevehicle owner who authorized the repairs, it s the vehicle owner who is receiving the benefits of the service, it is the vehicl owner who owes for the bill.
Tell me why the insurer would be paying me (unless I was fixing "IRV") ?
OK, last (at least for me, for now) bt not least, aftermarket parts.
Wow.
OK - first,I want a MSDS for a Ting Coi fender. That dust could contain harmful chemicals, and I want to know about them.
Second - OE panels are glavanized, A/M is not. Instant difference. NOT like kind.
Let's go ack to the warranty issue again. OE parts arry a 12 mo/12 mile warranty - or te balance of the manufacturer's applicable warranty, whichever is GREATER. In most cases, the longest warranty is the outer body rust through warranty. A/M has no such warranty. A/M "warranties" offered by insurers (which may or may not be lega to begin with, yet another story) are NOT transferrable.
A/M parts, for the majority, are not truly LKQ.
Oh - and back to the DV/properly repaired issue for a minute ... how in the world does John and Jane Doe know if a vehicle IS properly repaired ? Answer: In most cases they don't. I clearly remember when "bondo" was a taboo - everybody knew that it would evnutally bubble (70's & 80's era and maybe a bit later).
It is at least in part this "fear of the unknown" that furthers the positionof DV exists.
I hope everyon here understands that I am not tying to be combattive or condescending, I am merely tying to clarify, factually, a few issues that I've seen discussed here.
Just my nickels worth.
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 01:49 pm Post Subject:
Good morning Alex and welcome!
Lori, the quotes you've posted are in reference to FIRST party claims
Thank you Alex I know that as I said either in this thread or another one....All states may 'recognize' dv, meaning as we all know a third party is not contractually bound to the policy. Their was no statement that we were talking about exclusively third party claims when this assertion was made re dv.....And in virtually every state in this country, you can collect for those damages once you have proven them
Have you ever seen bird droppings on a repainted vehicle ? They'll etch the finish down to the substrate - not so with the factory finish.
I don't know who's refinishing the cars you're seeing this in....The shops I handles ALL have bake booths, I was a shop manager myself for several years NEVER once had this complaint, have had vehicles repaired myself, one I still have that was painted five years ago...NEVER seen this.....EVER......Also, the manufacturer's warranty is voided by any collision repair (on the parts affected by the repair).
Sorry Alex this is absolutely NOT TRUE...if you are saying that a manu voids (or can, because they can't) their warranty on a vehicle because a used or a/m fender is put on that car...you are incorrect, in fact there is a thread around here with tons of research in it showing same...I've even talked to and have the info somewhere I'll look for it, showing that they cannot do this....if however you are stating they won't warrant that particular part, ok I agree with that....I disagree with the transfer of both the new manu warranty and the repair warranty though....you'll need to show that to me....I'm looking at a brand new car warranty of my own (10yr/100k) that is NOT transferable...this has bitten quite a few dealers
I agree happens all the time and rightfully so, that they are burned, when (and yes I've seen it) they 'ding' the trade in, but 'forget about it' when they re-sell.As far as shops giving their tax number ... that's just silly. Really. Unless the shop is doing work FOR the insurer, the insurer should NOT be paying them.
This is something you'll have to take up with the IRS I suppose, because the state I'm in we are required to do so, and IF a draft is issued to a provider (shop, vendor etc) and that number is not found on the draft the insurance carrier is fined, and fined big....another thing is lets not forget that the leinholder must be protected...again I'm talking about first party claims, claimant, doesn't matter, we don't have the contract with them, nor must we protect their leinholder in anyway-
...Let's go ack to the warranty issue again. OE parts arry a 12 mo/12 mile warranty or te balance of the manufacturer's applicable warranty, whichever is GREATER. In most cases, the longest warranty is the outer body rust through warranty. A/M has no such warranty. A/M "warranties" offered by insurers (which may or may not be lega to begin with, yet another story) are NOT transferrable.
Wait a minute here, and you can't just write this off, if the owner gets a warranty from the insurer that says for as long as they own that vehicle the repairs and parts are covered, and yes before you go there I have been party to coming back years later and repairing or replacing something that has failed, you can't deny that benefit...which is far greater than OE/AM or most shops will provide...The warranty I'm talking about even covers the repair if that shop goes belly up....so atleast give that some credance....Oh - and back to the DV/properly repaired issue for a minute ... how in the world does John and Jane Doe know if a vehicle IS properly repaired ? Answer: In most cases they don't. I
again EXACTLY so because they don't know we will AUTOMATICALLY say that there is dv simply by virtue of a repair? no....I say.....Another thing that has always bugged me about this dv thing...let's say a 7year old car had ONLY a rear cover replaced, let's say for the sake of argument it's new oem....let's further say that the orginal one while needing replaced from this loss, was not in good condition prior to the hit, dings/scratches, even the paint or clear coming off of it, in other words it was an eye sore...(no betterment taken) so we replace this crappy cover (before the wreck) that in truth would've had a prospective buyer wanting to to pay less...now you're telling me he also has a dv claim, when in fact his vehicle is worth MORE post loss/repair? And it is, you can't deny that (worth more given the points in this example)........
I hope everyon here understands that I am not tying to be combattive or condescending, I am merely tying to clarify, factually, a few issues that I've seen discussed here.
No one thinks that Alex you are a respectful poster and we welcome your opinions... :)
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 02:31 pm Post Subject:
Mike,
It is a common argument used by the insurance industry. If you fix the car the way they estimate, and correctly, there is no DV. Well which way is it? The amount insurers pay based on their estimate or the correct way which is a matter of expert opinion based on which side of the issue you stand. If I fixed vehicles based on the insurer estimate instead of the repair invoice that the law says I must produce and become liable for, many cars would not be fixed properly.
Are you saying that you never get an acruate estimate from an insurance carrier? See I'm just not getting this, when I write a sheet before I 'lock' it, I go over it with whomever has the authority, are there supps some times? Sure, but by and large there are NO ARGUMENTS, I might have missed something, or the shop did, we discuss it and come to an agreement, it appears from all your posts that you don't think there is one adjuster out there with the knowledge to properly repair a vehicle...please make yourself clear on that point.......Insurers are looking for cheap fast repairs instead of quality repairs.
Well kind of, the insurer is looking to have the vehicle repaired quickly for the least amount of money, but you are dead wrong when you say ''INSTEAD'' of QUALITY REPAIR....and that's just plain not fair, to say that I (as a 'pd' adjuster, writing sheets all day) am not concerned with the quality of the repair..that is number one! PERIOD....I don't write to repair ANY car any differently than I would my own.....and to make it sound like there is absolutely no concern for the quality or more importantly the safety of the owners and occupants of the vehicle, well Mike that's just wrong, and the same as me saying, ALL body shop owners, lie, steal, cheat, charge for things they don't do, blah, blah, and are ONLY concerned with their bottom line, and to hell with the quality and safety of the repair, if the owner can't see it, butch it....I don't believe that nor do I think the majority of shops operate in this manner there are some though, just like there are some carriers that do business the way you are insinuating all do....There is a inherent problem when you have the fox guarding the hen house
And you don't see it as this if a repairer has an open check book, which is what it appears you want....just have the owner drop off the car, and when it's done I'll call you and tell you how much it costs? No options nothing? I don't see how this could work....what other industry has this? What a sweet deal...I'm not saying that you wouldn't be by the book Mike, but you and I both know this would lead to horrificly high premiums.There has to be 'someone' policing the repair, otherwise we'd be painting the entire car, to match because we put a fender or bumper cover on the car Mike...
the premise of diminishment in an acv policy.
how so? Also you have to remember when you are comparing an auto vs homeowners policy that the h.o. policy is not always an acv as many have replacement cost endorsements, as well as guarantee rebuild, etc....not the same at all.Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 05:12 pm Post Subject: We could beat this horse from today til this time next year.
This will probably be my last post regarding this topic as it probably does not answer questions that consumers really understand and it has ventured away from the original discussion. Since this forum is to benefit consumers and vehicle owners, our discussion serves no purpose for them rather than to see their is a devide between the insurance and collision industry. Insurers should never have been allowed into the collision industry to be able set controls on pricing and practices, but too many collision owners thought that a partnership may be the best way to serve mutual customers.
The insurance industry knows that there are more shops than vehicles needing repairs. The odds are in the insurer favor, knowing that they can dangle a relationship for the promise of referrals and some shop will take that agreement even if it means low profit margins that will drive them out of business. The collision industry does not owe the insurance industry and endless source of cheap labor so they can provide cheap policies. Something has to give and it is happening. Many shops operating on fumes and cash flow will go out of business. Those that survive will ultimately be able to price their services comparable to other trades using similar skillsets. When there are insufficient shops to service those contracts of repair for insurers, the day of the insurance industry dictating to us how to repair vehicles and for what compensation will cease to exist. And yes insurance rates will go up or your corporate profits will diminish. If our industry had been allowed to be indexed to the cost of living over the last 30 years, shop rates would have been exceedingly higher and deservedly so.
From my perspective, I do not believe the insurance industry has a right, obligation, or legal standing to tell me as a business person the method or cost to repair a vehicle for whom I have a contract with the owner of that vehicle.
You can choose to pay based on your investigation, the amount you feel is required based on policy and state statutes to the vehicle owner. It may be more or it may less than my invoice. It matters not to me and many other independent business people as we recognize that we are not obligated to negotiate the terms, conditions, or the costs of repair based on a contract that we are not a party to.
Nearly every estimate that a consumer brings to me is deficient to properly restore a vehicle. I have a vehicle in for repairs now, that my original estimate was 6200.00. the insurer estimate was for 3400.00. When I realized that the vehicle was close to a total loss, I spoke with the owner and asked what their preference was. Did they want to repair if possible or allow it to be totaled after they presented the insurer our cost of repairs. They chose to repair. I located some used parts, I personally made a concession to the vehicle owner to repair some things that should have been replaced to properly restore so as to keep the vehicle from totalling.
All said and done, the insurer paid the vehicle owner based on my invoice which was around 5800.00. Had the vehicle owner (third party) accepted the insurer check and estimate as the cost of repairs and traded that vehicle in, they would have been shorted 2300.00. This is typical and not uncommon as insurance adjusters and hired appraisers are told to write only what they can see from the outside.
There was a study conducted by a collision repair group that took insurer estimates and compared them to final bills. The consensus or only conclusion that could be drawn as to why insurers underpay initially on claims was that it was either intentional or from the lack of training and experience in understanding the repair concept. We must conclude that if the insurer only paid based on their initial appraisals, claimants( both first and third party) are being taken advantage of if they do not repair their vehicles or accept only what the insurer is willing to pay based on their investigation.
I don't lump all adjusters into the same group as far as being dishonest or unqualified. However, if you ask me whether an appraiser or an adjuster that works for an insurance company is allowed to use their acquired knowledge and training to write an estimate that is accurate, complete, and totally unbiased, I would say most are not permitted to do so. You can not write an unbiased and accurate estimate if you are restricted by company criteria and guidelines that only allow the vehicle owner partial funds. The only reason a company appraiser should be allowed to inspect the vehicle is because the policy requires that they be allowed to inspect the damage.
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 08:38 pm Post Subject:
There was a study conducted by a collision repair group that took insurer estimates and compared them to final bills.
It's really hard to address comments like this when it's just that... a comment. I'm betting if I took a group of body shop owners and asked them if they felt underpaid, 100% would say as well. But the real theme of your post is that the insurance companies initial appraisals are almost always deficient. I have no problem with that statement whatsoever. It's probably true 90% of the time. But the _real_ question is -WHY- it's deficient and what is the -END- result. Almost all of the time they are deficient because there is no reason for the insurance company to guess as to what hidden damages exist. If customers walk into a body shop where they are paying the bill, they don't want to get an estimate for $500 and walk out with a bill for $1000. So shops take educated guesses on what needs to be done. Bottom line, an insurance has no need whatsoever to make these guesses. They write up what they see/know, issue the payment and then wait for a supplement. Mike, I'm sure you know supplements are paid each and every day by insurance companies. It does not mean the initial appraisal was intentionally lowered.The only reason a company appraiser should be allowed to inspect the vehicle is because the policy requires that they be allowed to inspect the damage.
Or perhaps because they have no obligation to pay what one particular shop is going to charge? See, it works both ways. Insurance companies could ignore shops all together, just like your saying body shops should ignore the insurance company. At the end of the day, the how process comes to a halt. Thing is, insurance companies _do_ work _with_ body shops to make sure the process is as smooth as it can be.Are you also saying that many body shops don't over charge on repairs? I think I'd be happy if you finally answered that question.
Examples... I inspected a SUV last week that had a dented lift gate. The shop wrote up replacement of 4 emblems. They were not damaged in any way. As I understand, sometimes the emblems cannot be reused. But until they are taken off, who knows? I guess the shop wrote them up just in case... but do you think they would have R/I'ed them and lowered their bill is they _could_ have been reused? Of course not. They would have put knew emblems on anyway. Now I wrote it up as RI... this was so the shop would try to reuse them if they could. If not, they just call me to let me know and I'd pay for new emblems. That is me, trying to keep the cost to what it _should_ be (as low as possible), still allowing the body shop to make the correct repairs, possibly creating a statistic that the insurance companies initial appraisal was too low, and keeping the body shop more honest. BTW - there were only 3 emblems on that lift gate, not 4. Also, the shop charged $40 labor and I pay $42. Some shops want $44. I pay $42. The shops that charge $44... they have a _choice_ (same as you and any body shop)... they can lowered their rate to the average of they can tell the customer they cannot do the work. Which gets me to my last point...
You say the insurance should not interfere with the body shops work. That is an easy statement to make... as long as all body shops are 100% honest and fair. Now go back and re-read that. Now... just one more time, re-read that. You think that is true? Just like insurance companies in some cases don't operate the best that they should, neither do body shops. Your posts indicate that all (I could even say most) body shops are 100% correct all the time and 100% honest and up front. If they were, I'd agree with _everything_ you've posted. But sadly... this is simply not the case. It's also not the case that OEM's charge a reasonable price for their parts. As I've said, without AM parts being _available_, OEM parts would cost twice as much (proven). You've also never answered by question as to if you want all carriers to only use OEM parts and have your insurance rates doubled. Everyone wants to eat their cake but no one wants to pay for it.
Let me just add a few comments... I'm mentioned before that the carrier I work for does not use AM parts. We do use PXN parts (for others, that's Parts Exchange New parts). I've saved my carrier a _lot_ of money just using those parts! I'm also sure a _small_ portion of that savings goes on to lower premiums. Why did those shops not even look for PXN parts? They _are_ OEM parts. Am I wrong in using those parts? I've not seen any argument against them yet. If it's okay to use these quality parts can I take the same stance and say that the body shops are just trying to rip people off by charging too much? That would be as much a blanket statement as your about insurance companies undercutting body shop bills. My main point is that this is not a perfect world. There are concessions made in _every_ business where two bodies have to work together. If one of those bodies does not want to work with the other, no one is forcing them... so they should have no complaints. It almost reminds me of complaints against Walmart in that they _demand_ lower prices from manufactures. Manufactures complain about this. Hmmmm, then don't sell to Walmart. So no problem really exists. You say Walmart controls the market? Then the consumers must like to buy from Walmart. Same thing with insurance companies. Insurance companies _do_ try to keep expenses down. Some times they get too aggressive. But it's not always the insurance companies fault. They are many other "hands stirring the pot". It's up to the insurance company to keep those people honest. They only way they can do this is by controlling the money being paid. Sometimes that will rub some people the wrong way. But to not look at the big picture is simply, wrong.
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:19 pm Post Subject: The study was done, I have a copy.
Would you like me to post the study here, or email it to you. It was a study conducted by the CIC. Collision Industry Conference made up of the collision industry and the insurance industry. The study is available but was not allowed to be officially entered into the conference because of insurance industry demands.
The prevailing competitive rate is 45.00 in my locality and I consider that appalling and at least 20.00 low. If shops knew how to job cost and know their true cost of doing business and reasonable profit margins built in, the prevailing rate would be 65 to 85 comparable to mechanic's rates or diesel truck rates.
If all shops truly charged what we consider reasonable for our labor, your employers would claim price fixing and collusion. You say you only pay what we ask for based on surveys, so if everyone raised their price to 65 per hour and we decided we wanted 35 percent markup on lkq parts which would only be a 25 percent profit margin that we typically receive on new or a/m parts, you would pay, because the survey results would reveal that rate. Yeah, when pigs fly!
In truth, drp shops are afraid to ask for price increase and told they will be removed from drp programs if they ask. They shouldn't even have to ask, but they made that choice by signing an agreement. I as an independent should not have to work for the same concession wages paid to drps. Court cases recently have revealed that insurers could be held to pay a higher rate unless they could prove that the charge for the labor was unreasonable just because it was higher than a prevailing rate in an area.
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 02:00 pm Post Subject:
The prevailing competitive rate is 45.00 in my locality and I consider that appalling and at least 20.00 low.
WOW! Are you kidding me? Based on what? A 100% profit margin? What are you paying your techs Mike? Is that 20buck an hour going to them?As I've said, without AM parts being _available_, OEM parts would cost twice as much (proven).
Absolutely correct tcope, as I posted before, in the past year ALL US OEM parts vendors (GM, FORD, CHRYS ETC,) in my area are 'miraculously' matching the a/m parts! Explain that to me! I have a new oem cover for a list price of 200 buck, and a/m or reman for 125.00 ''some how'' the new oem vendor will match that a/m part price for the shops! Now we all know damn good and well they ain't taking a loss on any of their parts! So what is the hugely over inflated profit margin? They have been forced to charge a reasonable price/profit to sell their parts...Why aren't you mad at the OEM parts vendors for ripping you and the public and the ins carriers off all of these years?Collision Industry Conference made up of the collision industry and the insurance industry. The study is available but was not allowed to be officially entered into the conference because of insurance industry demands
Come on the ins industry is now telling the CIC what they can and cannot show/discuss in one of 'their' conferences? I'm sorry, THAT'S what I want to see even more than the study.....You say you only pay what we ask for based on surveys, so if everyone raised their price to 65 per hour and we decided we wanted 35 percent markup on lkq parts which would only be a 25 percent profit margin that we typically receive on new or a/m parts, you would pay, because the survey results would reveal that rate. Yeah, when pigs fly!
That's exactly what I'm saying. If the prevailing rate and markup were consistant. You can't just pull figures out of the air and think you're worth that....I think I'm worth about 150bucks an hour too Mike, but I only get about 28.00. What other repair industry makes (routinely) over 25% markup on parts?In truth, drp shops are afraid to ask for price increase and told they will be removed from drp programs if they ask.
NOT TRUE NOT TRUE NOT TRUE! And how would you know anyway since you are not one. As a matter of fact, my largest shop just ask me last week when I thought another rate increase would be forthcoming (been about a year or so since the last one). I said, 'you know what I don't know let me find out' and I did! There will be a survey began this week. If that survey calls for an increase there will be one! I have not one shop I handle (i have seven presently) that is 'afraid' of anything with me or my company. We all have a terrific relationship based on our mutal customer. I'm sorry Mike but this was just an overly dramatic statement.drp shops are afraid to ask for price increase and told they will be removed from drp programs
You prove to me one program or company that has instilled such great fear in the hearts of a shop that they won't even bring up the subject! geeeeeeze..... :roll:I as an independent should not have to work for the same concession wages paid to drps.
You are correct then don't...and it's not the same concessions or rates as drp shops it's the prevailing rate in the area, of ALL SHOPS....There was a study conducted by a collision repair group that took insurer estimates and compared them to final bills.
I don't need a study to believe this anyway, I'm sure it's true, if a vehicle isn't completely torn down, then you will not see the damage, many owners as you know especially if a vehicle is driveable will not want it rendered non-driveable for an inspection. As tcope stated and he is of course 100% correct the final anaylsis is the question...once the vehicle is in the shop and torn down then the adjuster comes back and writes and PAYS the supplement. what on earth is wrong with that? Is the end result not the same? What kind of a moronic person/company is going to write to replace a rear body panel because a bumper cover is shoved in if they can't see it? You and I both know, maybe it's not damaged at all, maybe it's creamed, maybe it can be repaired....Are you saying that these field inspections should just guess on the 'high' side? And hope that the owner or shop will reimburse them the over payment? THAT my friend is a joke and you know it.The fact is like it or not, there are some insurance companies out there that are practicing bad claims handling, and there are some theiving shops as well. Neither are in the majority. The other fact is that MOST OF THE TIME, insurance companies/adjusters and shops get along just great, and come together to repair the vehicle the way 'it should be repaired'. Regardless of the ascertians made here. It is rare (in my 22 years working 'both sides') that a mutual agreement cannot be reached with the customer's interest at heart and in the for-front.
I don't understand though Mike why you fail to want to 'help' rather than 'hender' the situation. You have some valid points and I'll give you that, but it appears that you have zero desire to aid our 'mutal customer' instead everything the shop's do is right and the carriers are 100% wrong and the problem. Why is there no 'coalition' with the customer satisfaction truly at the heart of it? It appears rather that the bank accounts of the shops are the real motivator. Why not start some coalition to police your own industry. Why not put some effort into cleaning up the mess in your own industry? I'm serious, the 'bad' shops have hurt you way more than the insurance industry. Who is watching out for the poor consumer, regarding the shops? Who is making sure they are doing the right thing by the consumer? We have one ! DOI, to name one big one! Surely if your industry could remove their own black eyes, and clean up their own back yards, and all shops were run like yours there would be more credibility given to the shop's view/agenda. You and I both know I could fill this forum with shop horror stories and 'studys'. Just a thought, that 'some' of the energy spent on trashing the insurance industry could be well spent cleaning your own house.
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 06:10 pm Post Subject: I am sorry Lori, I misjudged you! You are ill informed
You operate in a very closed minded environment, you only know what your supervisors and trade journal authors want you to know. You do not operate a shop and you have no idea of what it takes financially to run a shop. Your industry has no business in my industry's business just because we have mutual customer. Just the same, I as a shop owner have no business in the settling or negotiating claims on behalf of consumers without being licensed as adjusters or by having a law degree. What I do have is a right to do is to conduct my business and determine my profits without your industrys heavy hand of suppression.
You evidently do not read my industry's trade magazines and do not have grasp on the severity of the impact of the impending financial future failures because collision people in my industry are just now beginning to realize the insurance companies are not our friends or partners. It's all about corporate financial gain for insurers and control of the consumer at the expense of the collision shop owner and technicians.
The fact is, that people are just beginning to realize the detriment they face when they allow the insurer to make repair decisions based on cost, much like physicians have come to realize. Manipulation of the collision industry and medical profession is all about controlling costs for the benefit of corporate coffers
It's laughable. shops nudge their labor rates up one or two dollars an hour and wait for the insurance industry to flinch in hopes they do not upset the applecart. The cost of supplies and materials have risen over 25 percent in four years and the average formula of hours times dollars to calculate compensation for those supplies and paint has not kept pace. The cost of these materials rises 7 to 10 percent annually and compensated rates are adjusted about ten percent bi annually.
The oem's are not stupid but they may be greedy. They will allow their sheetmetal, grilles and lamps to be copycated and fraudently passed off as equivalent to oem. They are happy to deplete their shelves and warehouses of sheetmetal that takes up space and investment by matching a/m pricing. When you can charge one thousand dollars for a sliding door that takes no more technology than making a hood that is sold for 350.00, it's smart business to make more on less. Why else would a hinge for half an upper or lower door cost 135.00 or a plastic moulding cost 300.00.
Shop owners are not even allowed to charge a surcharge for fuel prices for heating and electricity, but your average garbage truck business can add such a charge monthly. We're told that's overhead, just absorb it into your cost of business.
Lori, two business trade magazines you probably have never turned one page on have been reporting on the dwindling profits of shops and the demize of the promised beneficial relationship of drps and insurers have turned sour.
Need we even mention Allstate again and threatening to pull their good hands out of Florida, and how most major insurers treated policy holders in the gulf region. A lot of major insurers have an image problem with people as well as some shoddy body shop businesses. But that's okay, insurers can aborb that cost and run to the DOI for an increase in rates.
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 08:14 pm Post Subject:
Since this site is to provide information for consumers. I hope any consumer who read's this topic will think twice after they listen to the song and dance from their insurer about how they should use the insured's recommended shop. Every person who owns a vehicle should research and find a body shop that does good work and has a good reputation. Just like people have their favorite stores. They should have a shop they like and use that shop every time they need work done. It is the consumers choice to have their vehicle repaired where ever they want. If you have a accident and want your car to be fixed properly find a shop that has a good reputation, and goes by their own estimates. A good shop will disregard the estimate written by a insurer and write there own accurate estimate and explain the whole estimate to you and why they wrote what they wrote. Do not let your insurer force you to use their DRP shop. Choose your own shop you feel comfortable with.
Every topic Mike has mentioned on here is true. Any shop will agree on this. A insurer wants to fix your car as fast and as cheap as possible. A good body shop wants to fix your car the right way, with the right parts, and do a job they and you will be happy with. Who should you listen to? Please find a shop that you can count on anytime you need them. If you are loyal to them they will be loyal to you. Do some research about the body repair business and you will see everyone in it feels the same way. Most bodyshop websites have consumers forums where you ask questions. The site I go on has some great people that will give you good honest answers.
This post does not need to be quoted and chopped apart by anyone. This is for consumers to read and make their own decision next time they have a accident.
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 08:25 pm Post Subject:
The prevailing competitive rate is 45.00 in my locality and I consider that appalling and at least 20.00 low.
WOW! Are you kidding me? Based on what? A 100% profit margin? What are you paying your techs Mike? Is that 20buck an hour going to them?
So your saying that shops have no right or reason to charge 65.00? Please explain. Progressive used to raise my rates for no reason at all, but thats ok? Maybe you should go back to managing a shop and see how far that 45.00 a hour goes when your painting panels for 1 hour because of "blend within", and setting up and measuring for 2.5 on a machine that you just paid $60,000 for.
Add your comment