by Guest » Sun Jun 27, 2010 03:25 pm
I was in an auto accident in 2006 and was not at-fault. When the at-fault drivers carrier (Progressive) came to estimate the damages on my vehicle, I received 2 checks. One for the body shop to get the car repaired and a 2nd one for the re-sale value depreciation due to the car being in an accident and it being reported to 'carfax'. That check was written to me personally.
With that said, both me and my husband were in an accident just yesterday and again, to no-fault of ours. The at-fault drivers carrier is, again, Progressive. The Progressive adjuster is going to call me Monday to hopefully set up a time to come out and give and estimate so I can get the car in the body shop (and the car is brand new and we have had it for only 2 months). When he calls me, should I tell him I am expecting 2 checks? One for the cost of repairs and the other one written out to the car owner (my husband) for the depreciation of the car's resale value due to it now being reported as being in an accident? I am also going to tell the adjuster that I bought that car with "GENUINE" parts and want it fixed with "GENUINE" parts, not aftermarket.
All replies are appreciated :)
With that said, both me and my husband were in an accident just yesterday and again, to no-fault of ours. The at-fault drivers carrier is, again, Progressive. The Progressive adjuster is going to call me Monday to hopefully set up a time to come out and give and estimate so I can get the car in the body shop (and the car is brand new and we have had it for only 2 months). When he calls me, should I tell him I am expecting 2 checks? One for the cost of repairs and the other one written out to the car owner (my husband) for the depreciation of the car's resale value due to it now being reported as being in an accident? I am also going to tell the adjuster that I bought that car with "GENUINE" parts and want it fixed with "GENUINE" parts, not aftermarket.
All replies are appreciated :)
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 05:19 pm Post Subject:
Quote:
A person is free to specify the use of whatever parts he prefers. This does not necessarily obligate the insurer to pay for them. Some states do not allow insurance companies to require the use of non-factory supplied parts. This is not the same as allowing insurance companies to "force (the use of) aftermarket parts".
Sorry, I thought I was logged in.....
I see your point. However, I have vehicle owners bring in insurer prepared estimates with the alternative parts language and when consumers demand oem, they are told "our policy and state statutes dictate that we are only obligated to pay for a/m parts." What they fail to finish telling consumers is that they may prepare an estimate of the loss with the use of non oem parts "if" those parts meet the like, kind, and quality criteria and have a permanent stamp that is readily visible. That is the language in Missouri and many states. I see a/m parts on insurer prepared estimates routinely with parts that are not capa certified (industry certification that the parts have been tested to meet oem standards, fit, and quality.)
Also many insurers are still preparing estimates with structural impact beams and radiator supports that are not made with original oem types of ultra high strength steel and instead are made of standard low carbon steel. None of these parts meet the LKQ standard nor have passed critical tests by independent testing fascility and Ford themselves. Many manufacturers are coming out with statements saying these parts should not be used in the repair of their vehicles and there is much controversy at the present time on many of these parts.
Ford specifically tested multiple bumper safety impact beams and bumper braces and found them to be defective and stated that they were a hazard to the vehicle owners in the event of an impact where the air bags were deployed. Critical timing mechanisms incorporated into the design with specific boron content steels would be compromised if a/m parts were used in place of the oem parts. Even with these manufacturer position statements and tests, some insurers are specifying their use with their payments for losses and criteria for their direct repair programs.
Add your comment