by Guest » Tue Aug 05, 2008 09:36 pm
Okay, went and got an estimate from a Geico express site today for a 2008 Toyota Matrix. The car is about 5 months old and has 5,000 miles. They want to give me aftermarket parts on a practically new car. Even worse, the shop that's attached to the Geico Auto Repair Express site is a certified Toyota repair shop.
1. Isn't a 5 month old car new enough to get certified parts?
2. Doesn't a certified shop have to use certified parts?
3. Do I have any recourse here? Is there any sort of leverage when dealing with a Geico adjuster? Does the lawyer card work? How about mentioning that I work for a local newspaper?
1. Isn't a 5 month old car new enough to get certified parts?
2. Doesn't a certified shop have to use certified parts?
3. Do I have any recourse here? Is there any sort of leverage when dealing with a Geico adjuster? Does the lawyer card work? How about mentioning that I work for a local newspaper?
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 05:09 pm Post Subject:
Interesting. I've attempted to read more on this case but cannot find much information on the actual complaint online. The premise of the case is mentioned but not the actual facts.
I suspect that AmFam has already changed the wording of their policy as most other carriers already have in order to allow for the use of AM parts. As Missouri state law allows these parts to be used by insurance companies (this case was really for breach of contract).
It will be interesting to see what AmFam does. State Farm has been successful on appeal in these cases. Also, this does very little in the way of stopping carriers from using AM parts... as, mentioned above, they will simply need to change the wording of their policy. This is not a court ruling stating that AM parts cannot be considered by carriers in the repairs of vehicles. My guess is that they will settle out of court.
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 09:20 pm Post Subject:
I especially liked this part
The three-judge appellate panel disagreed, however, saying the plaintiffs "presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude that aftermarket parts are not of like kind and quality to (original manufacturer) parts
There is a full discussion and report over at dubya dubya dubya Insurance Journal dot com.
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 09:46 pm Post Subject:
Thanks. I was able to find links to the Complaint. But the complaint is _not_ that AM parts should not be used or that they were not "Like, Kind and Quality" (a vague and broad reaching definition at best) but rather that there was a breach of contract. The breach was that AmFam's policy states it will put the vehicle back into the same condition it was prior to the accident. USAA, Nationwide and a host of other carriers went through this same thing many years ago. The courts ruled that the use of AM parts in place of OEM did not meet the terms of the contract to put the vehicle back in the "same" condition (I'm assuming this is what the AmFam policy states). Are the parts the same? Probably not. Are they just as good? I've venture to say on 95% or so of the time, yes.
But I just wanted to make it clear that Missouri is not ruling as to if insurance companies can allow for AM parts or not, it's already a fact that they can.
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 12:31 am Post Subject:
But I just wanted to make it clear that Missouri is not ruling as to if insurance companies can allow for AM parts or not, it's already a fact that they can.
You are correct, that is if they meet the criteria established in the state statutes that they are like, kind, and quality. The court ruled that a/m parts did not meet that definition. Just because an insurance backed certifying entity claims they are does not make them so. If that were true, the two certified headlamp mounting panels that are to be picked up by the aftermarket vendor because neither fit should have fit because someone certified them. Who ceritfies the certifyers?
Two simple panels made of fibreglass sheet moulding that they can't even duplicate. One day rental expense added to the cost of the repair and I'll get a credit from the company that claims they should fit for three installations of the same part. Twice with their certified parts and once with the oem part. The owner refused to drive down the road with the composite headlites bouncing and dancing because the a/m manufacturer can't even get a hole diameter and thickness accurate in plastic, and we trust them with sheet metal? The difference in the a/m part and the original was less than forty dollars.
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 12:53 am Post Subject:
You are correct, that is if they meet the criteria established in the state statutes that they are like, kind, and quality. The court ruled that a/m parts did not meet that definition.
Not exactly, as I saw it. From what I saw it was the same point other courts have made, that non-OEM parts are not OEM parts. It's not a question of how close they are in this case. I'm guessing that the AmFam policy was written as others had been, that the insurance company would put the vehicle back in the same condition. AM parts are not the "same"... never claimed to be. They claimed to be of the same _kind and quality_. So the courts are not ruling on the quality of the AM parts, only that they cannot be the "same" as OEM so the insurance company is not fulfilling their part of the _contract_.Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 04:34 pm Post Subject:
The insurance company want to use aftermarket parts on my 2008 Toyota Corolla. Their reasoning is that the car has over 12000 miles. Is that a good reason?
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 08:26 pm Post Subject:
Is that a good reason?
Either that or because it's 2 years old (depending on the parts that are used), yes.It appears that this carrier is pretty aggressive on using AM parts as many companies will avoid them on 1-2 year old vehicles. Are you sure they are not salvage (LKQ) parts and not AM?
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 04:56 am Post Subject:
Is that a good reason?
Doesn't the policy document state anything about the use of AME parts in repairing the car?
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 05:00 pm Post Subject:
Rich Girl, is this a first party or third party claim. You are not bound by the terms and conditions of a contract of insurance to which you are not a party if this is the other person's insurance.
Your insurance company may use aftermarket parts in most states IF they meet the definition of Like, Kind, and Quality. In my professional opinion as a repairer and shop owner, they do not. In a recent case in Kansas City, MO, a jury came to the same conclusion when provided with documentation and examples. Imitation, alternative, substitute, and a myriad of other names they are called by, must meet all three conditions. Imitation plastics are more brittle and not as pliable, and the sheetmetal is made from molds that use reverse engineering which do not provide identical parts in terms of fit. The only way to obtain oem parts is to prove that aftermarket parts are not LKQ. That would require that the insurer and shop install the imititation parts and then show how they fail to measure up in the quality department as far as fit and function. If you use an insurance preferred shop, it is highly unlikely that they will assist you in this endeavor. They would not want to offend the hand that feeds them so to speak.
Your insurance company is bound by the terms and condition contained in the policy of insurance. One of those requirements is to restore your vehicle to as near as pre loss as humanly possibly. Some shops use a hold harmless agreement when installing imitation parts and used parts if the insurer sourced and specified their use and place the liability back onto the party that insisted on their use. Sometimes insurers get to pay twice for installing the same parts. Once for imitation and once for original equipment parts that do fit.
If the loss is a third party loss or if you live in Kansas, Georgia, or North Carolina, do not forget to insist on the loss that they never mention to you. That would be the loss in value due to the accident history. That loss is greater when imitation parts are used as the public perception is that they are inferior and insurers only use them to control costs and not quality.
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 02:47 am Post Subject: A/m parts void the warranty.
Per the act of Congress the
"Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act" states implicitly
Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.
Add your comment