by Guest » Sun Sep 20, 2009 01:56 pm
Long story short. My car was hit in a parking lot. The other drivers's insurance company accepted the blame and paid for the repair ($4800).
About a week later, I bring the car back because a door they replaced began peeling paint. The guy at the shop apologized and said they would take care of it. He said probaly what happened when the used door came in, it wasn't cleaned right before they put paint on it. Used? I asked him. The put a door from a junk yard on it! When we went over the bill there is other stuff like parts not made by Ford. I have an 08 Mustang. It's pefect in about every way. Has low miles and taken care of very well! I never was told about these things, what can I do? I has now become a fight between the shop and the insurance company. One says the other should have explained this to me and vice versa. I would think that the guy who wrote the report and gave me a check would have told me that. Now the insurance company is saying it's really my fault because I didn't read the report before I left and should have asked questions. Well maybe I should have if someone would have explained it to me in the first place at which point I would have asked a lot of them!!!!!
About a week later, I bring the car back because a door they replaced began peeling paint. The guy at the shop apologized and said they would take care of it. He said probaly what happened when the used door came in, it wasn't cleaned right before they put paint on it. Used? I asked him. The put a door from a junk yard on it! When we went over the bill there is other stuff like parts not made by Ford. I have an 08 Mustang. It's pefect in about every way. Has low miles and taken care of very well! I never was told about these things, what can I do? I has now become a fight between the shop and the insurance company. One says the other should have explained this to me and vice versa. I would think that the guy who wrote the report and gave me a check would have told me that. Now the insurance company is saying it's really my fault because I didn't read the report before I left and should have asked questions. Well maybe I should have if someone would have explained it to me in the first place at which point I would have asked a lot of them!!!!!
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:07 am Post Subject:
This is how I see it. If the 2008 door came from a totalled 2008 vehicle, chances are that vehicle suffered substantial damage, and some argue that theres no way to determine if that part may have defects of any kind.
PLEASE! This is just absurdity. A vehicle is rear ended and totaled out. I guess that front fender will just never be the same. It's not like you can look at a fender, door skin, etc. and tell it's in perfect condition. Come on.he part is no longer considered OEM, it's now a salavaged part.
Yes... a salvaged OEM part... or better put, a used OEM part.... just like what was already on the vehicle. You can't get a more exact replacement then that!It has no warranty backed by the manufacturer.
1/2 truth. It has a warranty backed by the seller. When is the last time anyone has ever heard of a car manufacture having to make good on a body panel?The problem with that is, the guides do not account for a majority of the non-included operations. When correctly written, it's not cost effective to estimate with recycled.
Huh? Okay, I guess the insurance company has been spending more money on LKQ parts then OEM all these years. Yeah, right. I write up a few each day. When I click on the LKQ replacement the over-all cost goes down. I guess I've been mistaken all these years.Partly an opinion but many of the methods used to replace such items like a recycled quarter panel, are not recommended by the manufacturer and in too many cases, repairers install them in an improper, unsafe and a nonquality replacement manner.
Huh? There is nothing wrong with using a LKQ vs an OEM 1/4 panel for repairs. Of course the manufacture does not recommend _any_ LKQ parts... they don't make any money off them. Other then that, there is no difference. As far as the warranty... the manufacture is only going to warranty the parts they supply. They are not going to warranty the work the body shop performs anyway. So if the supplier warranties the part, then it's the same warranty terms. But again, I've never heard of a body panel itself failing in some way that the warranty was used.Niether is ther term "LKQ", which is an insurer created term
Actually its a _legal_ term... one which the insurance companies use for this very reason.But in his/her case, it doesn't sound like there was ever an option for him/her to authorize the use of them
Very few states have this requirement. It appears from the OPs post that he was informed that LKQ parts were being used. In a perfect world an adjuster would sit down with everyone and spend 1/2 the day explaining every facet of the claim process, appraisal, and repair procedure. Sorry, this is just not done. However, the appraisal does explain this in big bold words.or under trained insurance appraisers
That would be me. :)There have been a few times when I go to Copart for an inspection and find many unnessecary procedures and parts thrown on an estimate by an insurer just to total it.
I don't doubt it. It's funny though. If the owner wants the car totaled then the appraiser did not include all of the damage. If the owner wants it repaired then the appraiser add in too much (or should have used AM parts).Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:51 am Post Subject:
I don't doubt it. It's funny though. If the owner wants the car totaled then the appraiser did not include all of the damage. If the owner wants it repaired then the appraiser add in too much (or should have used AM parts).
It's the owners property in most cases except where liens are considered. They have the right to repair, sell, or dispose of their property in any way they see fit. If they want to pursue repairs and the insurer is attempting to total it just to avoid a month of rental expense (third party claims only) the third party insurer does not have the legal right (in my opinion )to decide how property not belonging to them or one they have no contractual policy on is repaired especially when they do not have the contractual authority to do so.
In the case of first party claims, the insurer always has the right to total when it is to their economical advantage even when the repairs are below the threshold. In this scenario, the vehicle owner could retain salvage and repair as they wish in any manner they wish so long as any liens are removed or satisfied.
Huh? There is nothing wrong with using a LKQ vs an OEM 1/4 panel for repairs. Of course the manufacture does not recommend _any_ LKQ parts... they don't make any money off them. Other then that, there is no difference. As far as the warranty... the manufacture is only going to warranty the parts they supply. They are not going to warranty the work the body shop performs anyway. So if the supplier warranties the part, then it's the same warranty terms. But again, I've never heard of a body panel itself failing in some way that the warranty was used
T, as most appraisers have likely never had to chase a used quarter panel salvage donor across a shop floor to properly remove the outer skin. Drilling the donor panel to chisel the outer panel off most often creates holes larger than are recommended to plug weld. Not nearly enough time is charged by most shops or paid by most insurers to remove these donor scabs. You are in essence removing two outer panels (two operations) and repairing the mating flanges all of which exceeds half the removal times two. Two or three hours which most insurers attempt to hold a shop to for reconditioning these donor scabs is laughable. In cases where the wheel house and inner panels have to be installed in separate operations, it is impossible to properly install a used panel. Sometimes insurers are merely looking at estimating programs and not the actual vehicle and have no comprehension of the procedures required to make the actual manufacturers recommended repair.
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 01:39 am Post Subject:
PLEASE! This is just absurdity. A vehicle is rear ended and totaled out. I guess that front fender will just never be the same. It's not like you can look at a fender, door skin, etc. and tell it's in perfect condition. Come on.
In your opinion it's absurdity, some people feel that it is not. So it's ok only if can't tell the difference? Bolt on sheet metal is different. I would be more concerned about a structural assy more than anything. Is that what you tell someone when they ask? I'm just curious thats all, because I never heard someone give a reasonable explanation for it, perhaps you have some insight.
When is the last time anyone has ever heard of a car manufacture having to make good on a body panel?
Never.
Huh? Okay, I guess the insurance company has been spending more money on LKQ parts then OEM all these years. Yeah, right. I write up a few each day. When I click on the LKQ replacement the over-all cost goes down. I guess I've been mistaken all these years.
Insurance companies had a big hand in publishing those guides, the data providers even admit to this. They haven't been spending more, they use the guides as if they are written in stone. But that is why they are guides, and even the data providers state that other options and repair methods that were not considered or availible at the time of the labor study. When a panel such as quarter panel comes in, it's not ready to just hope on the car. The "skin" of the quarter has to be removed from the assy. The guide does not account for much of these steps. A tech can spend a considerable amount of time just prepping the panel for install. He will likely see none of that on his paycheck, except 1 or 2 hours "LKQ clean up" :roll: . The insurance company will never payout more LKQ than OEM as long as they have a hand writting the guides :lol: Like Mike said, and I don't know what your shop history is, but if you have not had to "chase" a used or install one for that matter, you'll never understand.
Actually its a _legal_ term... one which the insurance companies use for this very reason.
:lol: :lol: So is pre-loss condition
Very few states have this requirement. It appears from the OPs post that he was informed that LKQ parts were being used. In a perfect world an adjuster would sit down with everyone and spend 1/2 the day explaining every facet of the claim process, appraisal, and repair procedure. Sorry, this is just not done. However, the appraisal does explain this in big bold words.
I do it on every one, what my sheet consists of anyway if the vehicle owner is present. You don't go over what you wrote with the owner? How do you know that you haven't missed anything or addressed their concerns? Do you write a lot of supplements? The problem with the "big bold words" is that in most cases, it might as well be in chinese to the average person who doesn't know the meaning of "legal terms".
I don't doubt it. It's funny though. If the owner wants the car totaled then the appraiser did not include all of the damage. If the owner wants it repaired then the appraiser add in too much (or should have used AM parts).
:shock:
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 02:30 am Post Subject:
I do it on every one, what my sheet consists of anyway if the vehicle owner is present. You don't go over what you wrote with the owner? How do you know that you haven't missed anything or addressed their concerns? Do you write a lot of supplements?
I do usually mention the things I'm allowing for. But it's usually met with a glass stare and a person who seems to look like I'm boring them.I can't tell you the number of times I've asked someone what was damaged just to have them point out things that could not possibly have been damaged in the accident. I don't want to stand in front of them and call them a liar. 99% of the time its clear. About the only time I ask them is if the damage is so minor that I can't really tell the wear and tear from the accident damage. I do always explain that they need to talk to the shop about the repairs needed and that I'm not writing up all the damage, only the damage I can see. Lastly I explain that if the shop needs to make other repairs, they will simply send me that supplement.
Do I write a lot of supplements? I'd say I do. But that is mainly as I'm not great at writing appraisals (its a small part of my job). Also, I tell the shops to just send me the supplements and I pay them as they are written. I spend about 5 seconds looking at them and then just pay them. But in my case no one is looking at what I'm paying so I can do that. I also seldom use LKQ parts unless it's an older vehicle and/or in poor condition. But I know this is not the norm.
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 08:35 am Post Subject:
That is a fair statement tscope. And I respect your opinion and thoughts. I on the hand will call out someone pointing out non-related damage and other "hogwash" :lol:. My clients expect me to handle a claim and make a decision whether it's in their favor or not. I don't have the luxury of getting paid for supplements (do you?) because I charge by the hour and I have a minimum charge for writing appraisals that will include a supplement(s). But basically this came from working in shops where I was always thorough, which has led being as thorpugh as possible on other claims besides auto. Auto damage appraising pays very little, but I enjoy it more than climbing on roofs or anything else :lol: .
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:30 am Post Subject: accident
OP....I have a question for you. Did the OTHER drivers Insurance Company NOT give you a choice of what garage you could use? You DO have that right..ya know. The can recommend all they want, but, it's YOUR decision who you use.
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:31 pm Post Subject:
wow guys that is a lot of info! Mike and Trench I wish more people contained the knowledge that
you guys have. I had no idea that it was complicated as that, and that I have or had a choice. I take
care of my vehicles and I really feel I am being punished for this, maybe not but that how they
make me feel. I see what point tsc makes, but my car is probably better taken care of than anything
you see day to day. But giving me a used door is uncalled for and I don't see how it is the same. Maybe
If my car was a P.O.S then a junk yard part would be the same? Is that fair? I really feel that the reason
the guy who looked at it was afraid to tell me about the parts since then he keeps saying talk to the
shop. I did chose the shop from a list that the company told me over the phone. Do you think it was one
of the shops owned by the insurance company? If so I have learned my lesson and won't let shop like that
near my car. I live in n california. Anyone know of someone who could help me?
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 01:00 pm Post Subject:
First thing, your welcome and thank you for the kind words. I don't want you to get side ways about the shop. It sounds to me like the insurer gave you a list of shops close to where you live. Those shops are not owned by the insurance company (technically, but sometimes I wonder :lol: ) they are direct repair shops as explained earlier. Don't get sideways about a DRP shop. There are many out there that can still produce a high quality repair for your vehicle, even if that means they give what we call concessions (discounts or lower rates to the insurance companies) and utlize used or aftermarket parts. I was a manager of Ford body shop for a few years. We had many contracts with insurers, but we produced high quality work. You just have to be selective and ask questions. Go to a shop and tour their facility and ask to see some of their work. If they are reputable, then they will be more than happy to show off what they can do for you. Like the old saying, you can't judge a book by it's cover. The same can go for DRP shop, just be careful. Overall, besides the paint peeling, how was the rest of the repair?
Don't get the wrong idea from people like tscope and myself. Although there are many insurance employees out there that are directed to intentually minimize your claim and some are just plain rude or not trained very well. Our job is to settle the claim, insurers are like anyone else they want to save money, there is no harm in that. We are here to help and answer questions that others may not answer. However, from what you have posted it sounds to me like both parties had no intention of treating you fairly. I don't know the laws in CA, but they do have some of the most strict that goes with collision repair. It seems to me that I read or someone mentioned on another forum, that CA has a parts discloser agreement that the vehicle owner signs or acknoledges. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
You maybe correct in saying that the person who wrote your estimate was afraid to tell you about the alternative parts. The bottom line is this; if the insurer refuses to reiumburse you for new parts and you agree to the alternative, it now goes to the repairer. A reputable shop will inspect those parts to make sure that they are free of defects and will be a quality replacement. You door may very well have been inspected, it just was not prepped correctly before it was painted. Remember that the insurance estimate really means nothing, as would be a shop estimate. The final bill is what matters most, and only you are responsible for that.
I am sorry I do not know anyone in CA that can help you, but I am sure someone here can.
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 05:45 am Post Subject:
Do you think it was one
of the shops owned by the insurance company?
I don't think it's a shop owned by the company. I guess the carrier has an agreement with a network of shops belonging to different areas where they choose to operate.
Add your comment