FIVE POINTS:
I don't do supplements, I do Final Bills and give them to my customer to pay in full.
BECAUSE.....
In my personal Opinion:
Point - 1. The consumer has an agreement with the Repairer to repair their auto as discussed between the repairer and the car owner.
Point - 2. The consumer has an agreement with the Insurer that says the insurer will pay for any covered loss, minus any deductible if applicable.
Point - 3. The Repairer is not listed anywhere in the consumers Insurance Policy and has no rights or obligations with or to the consumer's insurer.
Point - 4 The Insurer is not listed anywhere in the consumers agreement of repair with the Repairer, leaving the repairer with no rights or obligations with or to the consumer's insurer.
Point - 5 The repairer has no automatic right discussing and/or modifying that repair agreement at the request of any third party, which would include (but not limited to) representatives from, insurance co.'s, bank's, law firm's, in-law's, grandma, etc.
So... lets see.
Who is my customer? The consumer.
Who's responsibility is it to pay me? The consumer.
If the actual repair is less than the estimate I wrote, who do I charge less? The consumer
If the actual repair is more than the estimate I wrote, who do I charge more? The consumer.
Just like most other businesses on the Planet..!
I'm NOT a Claims Handler, I Fix Cars. It really simplifies things.
Its not my insurance policy, and its not the insurance companies automobile.
FK
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 03:08 am Post Subject:
Not completely. In order to have a "final bill" the work would need to be completed before any amount was given. If a cost of repairs is given before work is done, it's an "estimate" not a "final bill". The person also mentions if the cost is higher, the customer pays the increase. Well, if an estimate was given, in order for the cost to be higher, then a supplement is written (same thing for a lower cost).
It's a little like asking if a box is a square. Without knowing anything behind the question, there are 2 of 2 correct answers.
But in the end, the comment has no context so not much can be said about it.
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 06:15 am Post Subject: a question
Hi tcope,
Would you kindly explain as to whether the gentleman is correct in stating that being a car-fixer his relationship with the consumer doesn't have a place for the insurance to interfere? Awaiting ur response!
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 06:24 am Post Subject:
But in the end, the comment has no context so not much can be said about it.
I believe thats precisely what has happened. You've asked some ethical questions without providing enough of the actual scenario. A code of ethics would hold good on a particular chain of events & may vary with the nature of events. Please open up a bit more. Melindablue
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 06:47 am Post Subject:
Would you kindly explain as to whether the gentleman is correct in stating that being a car-fixer his relationship with the consumer doesn't have a place for the insurance to interfere? Awaiting ur response!
What I'm saying is the answer depends on what the poster means by that. That is, the issue behind it.It's true that the repair company has no obligation to the insurance company (of course they would not0 but it's also true that if the repair company makes repairs that are not being paid by the carrier, then the vehicle owner will probably get stuck with the excess amount. In the real world the repair shop works together with the insurance company to make sure everything moves along smoothly.
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 07:38 pm Post Subject: Goes smoothly for who?
I concur with everything FK says.
If insurers would do what the business of insurance is, and that is to indemnify policyholders, then policy holder would have the funds necessary to properly repair their vehicles based on the repairer's invoice, estimate or handshake.
The insurance industry has taken on controling repairs based on their interpretation that the investigation of the claim involves dictating the repairs based on suppressed labor rate surveys, prevailing competive pricing instead of allowing the market place to set the rate.
Going along with some insurers means, accept their pricing because they say this is all we are allowed to pay, or we don't pay for that. If it is not specifically excluded in a policy, it is most likely owed.
Just yesterday, I had someone call to reach an agreed price with them on their investigation. The insurer (third party) never inspected the damage, but used their estimating platform and a bluff to attempt to get me to lower my price by 159.00. The desk appraiser attempts to convince me that this company never pays for clear coating. I said conversation over if this is your idea of reaching an agreed price. In insurance speak negotiating a repair often means, find a repairer that will complete the repairs based on the insurer's pricing.
The way that some have discussed here, what they call a smooth transition when filing a claim is when the shop owner conducts their business based on criteria set forth by the insurance industry which not to be confused with the collision repair industry.
Perhaps insurers should conduct their own post repair inspections to determine whether their partners are conducting business in an ethical matter. If a consumer feels they have been defrauded by an independent collision business, they could report that to the prosecuting attorney and they may invite the insurer into the investigation.
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:29 pm Post Subject:
Does this make sense??
NOPE not a bit...
I don't do supplements, I do Final Bills and give them to my customer to pay in full.
Allow me to define the word 'supplement for you...a quantity added (e.g. to make up for a deficiency
If your 'final bill' is different than the orginal it is a supplement, a supplement can also be a 'negative' supplement...
If you are saying that your poor customer comes to you with an estimate from their carrier and the draft for the amount of this estimate, then you go ahead and repair the vehicle however you want to repair it without regard to 'how' or 'what' they (the consumer) was paid and then at the end without discussing this with your cherished costumer you present that poor sap with your 'final bill' and say, 'here you go pay up'...You FK in my opinion are doing a dis-service not only to your customer but to your industry...How on earth can you think this is ethical? I'm not saying you can't do it you can...but what happened to all this 'open disclosure' you want your customer to have, yet you have to give them none? I'm personally appauled at YOUR business practices FK....and don't know how you can consider this the right thing to do! It's YOUR customer that you are hurting here...in an apparent effort to hurt the insurance carriers you don't get along with...or all of them...I don't know...are there ANY that you have a good working relationship with? Are YOU a DRP for ANYONE? Does ANY insurer or adjuster do the right thing in your opinion?
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:58 pm Post Subject:
Mike I agree 150% re: desk 'appraisers' who's apparent job is to call shops and get their estimate lowered just to lower it, there 'should be' a law...I'm not talking about an innocent mistake we all make them, like, 'hey mike wondering how come you have 10hours repair on this rock chip' to which mike replys, 'well crap, i meant to put one hour' those things happen, but I agree those companies that are to negotiabe agreed prices without even seeing the car, are a joke...
now on this
repairs based on suppressed labor rate surveys
I disagree, I used to do market surveys every year...and I would call atleast 20 shops, ask mike, 'hey what are your rates' mike says 48 an hour, then I call my friend FK, who says, '45 an hour' how on earth Mike am I supressing anything? I'm asking you guys and you are telling me your labor rates! Then they are averaged, I am only taking what comes from your own mouths...
The way that some have discussed here, what they call a smooth transition when filing a claim is when the shop owner conducts their business based on criteria set forth by the insurance industry which not to be confused with the collision repair industry.
What is should be about (and is in my position) is the proper way to repair the vehicle and that is it! period...not rocket science...the shops and the insurer should be of like mind re: their mutal customer...they say this is all we are allowed to pay, or we don't pay for that
This is purely individual and specific to each job..Now if a shop tells me they want to wet sand and buff the entire vehicle because they painted a bumper cover, and want paid for that. I'm not paying for that and wouldn't if I were paying for it out of my own pocket on my own car....RE: what is allowed/disallowed is in the policy or excluded, you're right but think we've already shown that the use of non-oem parts is clearly in the policy (the MO policy I have anyway)....so this isn't/shouldn't be of issue...that is not to say that I think non-oem is ALWAYS the way to go I'm not....and the company I work for (and I think all) have critera surrounding their use, for instance in mine, ZERO NO used suspensions AT ALL...NO a/m structure EVER...no a/m sheet metal on three year or newer or less than 36k miles....I think you surely must agree that there are times when non-oem part are a perfectly alternative...(wait that's a different thread isn't it...crap sorry :oops: )
Mike just want to say that I consider you an asset to this forum I appreciate the way that you are willing and capable of getting your points across (whether I agree or disagree) with both clarity and no personal insults....YOU my friend are a credit to your industry!
Allow me to ask you as I did FK, are there companies/adjusters that you get along with just fine? are you a DRP for ANY carriers and if so, why? Or do you agree there are some good programs out there? I'm not being sarcastic I really want to know from both you and FK , if you will agree that there are some companies, adjusters, drp programs that are fair and equitible...?
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 01:06 pm Post Subject:
I would hope that in any case my insurance company would step in and help me if they thought the bill was excessive. First off if I did not or the insurance company did not agree with the estimate from the beginning doesn't a second oppinion on costs or take it to another garage come into play here so that both the insurance company and the consumer is protected? I would only expect to pay my deductable after repairs. I would hope that my insurance company would be knowledge about what a fair cost is in repair, surley they have a formula on how to figure these things out, where the everyday consumer would not.
This is the way that I am interpreting this thread, hope it makes sense on the way that I understood the thread.
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 09:51 pm Post Subject: I am not a drp, never have , never will be.
Lori, this could be lengthy,
I have to disagree with you partially on the use of generic parts being in the policy allows you to write for them. I thought we discussed this, maybe it was on another forum.
This is taken from the Missouri Unfair Claims Practice Code of State Regulations 20 CSR 100-1.050
B. No insurer shall require the use of
after-market parts in the repair of an automobile
unless the after-market part is at least
equal in like, kind and quality to the original
part in terms of fit, quality and performance.
Insurers specifying the use of after-market
parts shall consider the cost of any modifications
which may become necessary when
making the repair; and
C. All after-market parts, which are
subject to this regulation and manufactured
after October 31, 1991, shall carry sufficient
permanent identification so as to identify its
manufacturer. This identification shall be
accessible to the extent possible after installation.
3. Definitions.
A. Insurer includes any person authorized
to represent the insurer with respect to
a claim and who is acting within the scope of
the person's authority.
B. After-market part, for purposes of
this regulation, means sheet metal or plastic
parts which generally constitute the exterior
of a motor vehicle, including inner and outer
panels, not made by the original equipment
manufacturer.
My understanding is that if a policy language is contrary to this code, then it is in violaton of the code of unfair claims practices. A policy provision does not supercede a state statute or provision in the code within the statute. So the consumer then has to prove that something that is not the same is different and not just like.
If a part is the same it's not different, if it's different in any way that is not as good as, then it is different or not like.
I currently have a customer that sent me a copy of the written estimate by an appraiser hired by the insurer. He wrote the estimate based on guidelines set forth by the insurer.
A 2005 Buick Reineer, still under warranty, with 9000 miles on it.
Two points actually on this estimate.
Point one, the parts were all a/m parts (generic) non oem. To the laymen, this means parts not made by Buick. A quick check to the CAPA web site reveals that there are no non oem parts available for this vehicle with regard to the parts on the estimate for which there is an equivalent part by CAPA standards. CAPA is an organization that claims that they can certify parts as to fit and quality as to be just like the original. I differ with that ability, but that is a different argument. If these parts aren't equivalent or are not proven to fit, then they are not just like, kind or quality. In my book they fail on the fact that they do not have galvanized corrosion protection among other things.
The insurer has specified parts that are critical to the vehicles safety such as the welded in radiator support that is made of an exotic high strength steel designated HSS. The qualities of this metal are such that they are stronger than your basic ferrous metal giving much more protection in a crush or absorbing impact, all of which, are designed to work in conjunction with your timing mechanism on your air bag.
So, why would an insurer indemnify a policyholder with parts that are not proven to be equivalent to those that were on his vehicle and not proven to be safe or crash tested. I can only surmize that it was a cost savings measure calculated to save the insurer money which, in my opinion, wouldn't have placed my contracted customer in a position of being made whole and decreased the value of his vehicle as a side note.
Some insurers state, as long as they are willing to guarantee the shop's work and those parts, you have to use them. Not so! Insurers can not guarantee any part nor can any shop guarantee those parts because they did not manufacture them. This is in the language of the Magnuson Moss Ferguson Trade Act. An insurer may elect to pay for any re-repair of your vehicle due to the defects of the part if you choose to use them or not challenge their LKQ designation. The insurer may not even be liable for the repair in any way, because they chose the pay for repair option and did not contractually repair the vehicle themselves or by their designated shop with whom they have an agreement or contract. Side note here, Some state associations such as the one in Illinois and Alabama are looking into these agreements as to the legality of them. Some attorney generals are beginning to scrutinize these agreements as possibly being detrimental to consumers.
Point Two.
Think of the direct repair shop, insurer, and policy holder relationship as a capital A. The insurer and direct repair shop are connected at the top and form the two legs of support. The policy holder is squeezed insignificantly at the lower bar that connect them to both legs of support but is dependent on both.
The letter H represents the relationship of the independent non drp shop and it's relationship to the policyholder or vehicle owner. Both legs are self supporting and independent of each other mutually supporting the policyholder/vehicle owner in the middle. The horizontal bar does not bind either leg to each other but they meet in the middle. The contract of repair between the policy holder and insurer is separate of the contract between the vehicle owner and the shop. No statute requires that that relationship has to be symbiotic or attached as in the A. Neither can interfere or be required to contract with each other's legally contracted relationship with the vehicle owner. If there is an inteference it could be considered tortious on either part.
This is the relationship that collision shop owners do not understand which allows the existence of DRP relationships which make them questionable. If they are partnerships, why are so many drp relationships going sour and why are some shops being thrown under the bus because they are no longer needed?
I do not have a contract with the insurer but I do have a contract with the vehicle owner. My bill for my services, like any other business, goes to the person who owns the vehicle including supplement to the insurer estimate if it is different than my final bill to the consumer. It is contractually up to the consumer to demand payment for the difference. I believe this to be the proper way to conduct business. I am in agreement with FK . I have no contractual duty to even discuss the claim with the insurer. If I do, am I practicing law by representing the vehicle owner? Maybe; this is currently another topic of discussion based on the fact that no person may settle a claim on behalf of a policy holder unless that person is an attorney, an adjuster, an appraiser under the employ of an insurer, or a licensed public adjuster (hired by the policyholder)who can not perform repairs on the property they are hired to adjust on behalf of the vehicle owner.
Almost every shop owner conducts business as usual by trying to negotiate on behalf of policy holders with insurers, but is this really ethical or legal? Shouldn't the shop be an advocate for the policy holder in helping them have their vehicle properly restored. How can a collision owner be an advocate for the consumer and at the same time be contracted or obligated to the insurer in terms of their separate agreement. The only state that I am aware of that requires the shop to negotiate with an insurer on behalf of consumers is Massachusetts. That does not mean the shop has to agree to the insurer offer. It means the shop must negotiate. Too often negotiating is interpretted as what the insurer is willing to pay based on their investigation.
This is how I operate my business. I write an estimate to the vehicle owner for what I feel is reasonable based on my experience or knowledge aided with data from a program that gives pricing for parts and labor. Until recently all programs use to state that they were to be used as guides meaning they were not the authority of final say on labor or procedural costs. They are merely suggesting One should consider extenuating circumstance and past experience and your knowledge to arrive at a price to accurately place a prelimenary value on the cost to repair.
The vehicle owner can then hand my estimate to the insurer and they may use it as a basis as the cost to repair or they may prepare their own as the state says as they have a right or duty to the contracted customer. (not a third party those are damages for a loss) They may conduct their own investigation and examine the damage as is their right. Most policies give the insurance company the right to examine this does not necessarily mean the insurer has the right to dictate, demand the shop halt all work for any additinal approval for repairs needed. I personally believe this is a form of abuse used to control the shop which is not again not contracted.
The policy holder and vehicle owner has the right to contract with any shop for any amount they agree to for the repairs to the car or they may contract to a shop based on the insurers estimate. if the shop chooses to agree. The insurer may disagree as to the final invoice and the policy holder has the right to the appraisal process or the right to sue their insurer if it can be proven the invoice was both reasonable and necessary to collect the difference or amount necessary to supplement the insurer estimate.
According to some scholarly attorneys that practice in this field and teach classes, namely Patrick McGuire of Illinois, the insurer can not say, well we could have had it repaired cheaper. They had that option with repect to election of options to repair, replace, or take control of the repair bearing all liability for that decision at the time they investigated the claim. They chose, however, to pay for the repairs in money. Based on court cases, when an insurer pays for a repair in money, they have to pay an amount that is both reasonable and necessary to make the vehicle owner or policy holder whole. Policy language has reverted from this type of written language in the policy and been changed to a paraphrased version because insurers were permitted to write the policy in a language that is more understandible to the policy holder. There is a disagreement on whether this has changed the obligation of the insurer to still pay for what can be proven is both reasonable and necessary.
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 05:34 am Post Subject:
Hi, Sorry about the late reply... I along with my wife have been down with a very Hard Hitting Flu that started Wednesday morning. I'm still a bit foggy but being stuck in the house for days is getting hard to handle.
Note: If I get more incoherent than usual... cut me a little slack... it could be from the dang stuffed head, sour stomach, etc. effect of this Flu :)
Anyway.
Lori,
From you response:
Lori Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: Does this make sense
Allow me to define the word 'supplement for you...
Quote:
a quantity added (e.g. to make up for a deficiency
If your 'final bill' is different than the orginal it is a supplement, a
supplement can also be a 'negative' supplement...
If you are saying that your poor customer comes to you with an estimate from
their carrier and the draft for the amount of this estimate, then you go
ahead and repair the vehicle however you want to repair it without regard to
'how' or 'what' they (the consumer) was paid and then at the end without
discussing this with your cherished costumer you present that poor sap with
your 'final bill' and say, 'here you go pay up'...You FK in my opinion are
doing a dis-service not only to your customer but to your industry...How on
earth can you think this is ethical? I'm not saying you can't do it you
can...but what happened to all this 'open disclosure' you want your customer
to have, yet you have to give them none? I'm personally appauled at YOUR
business practices FK....and don't know how you can consider this the right
thing to do! It's YOUR customer that you are hurting here...in an apparent
effort to hurt the insurance carriers you don't get along with...or all of
them...I don't know...are there ANY that you have a good working
relationship with? Are YOU a DRP for ANYONE? Does ANY insurer or adjuster do
the right thing in your opinion?
Wow, so many negative assumptions make your response a bit disappointing [and out of character]. Likely my fault... but lets move on.
Where to start??
Allow me to offer a Merriam-Webster definition of the word "Estimate" -- To give or form an approximation ( as of Value, Size, or Cost)
My *Estimate* is based on what the owner of the vehicle wants repaired. (being insurer paid, customer paid, or grandma paid, does not change the cost of repairs)
With the consumer at my side, I/we inspect the damage, open doors, hood, trunk, Lay on my back in a wet icy driveway to look for damage that may exist, whatever it takes to get my Estimate as complete and accurate as I can. While at the same time explain any reasonable repair/replacement alternatives along with any cost and/or quality advantage/disadvantage of each. At this point its my customers choice..! after all, it is their vehicle.
If the vehicle is un-drivable I [with the consumers authorization] move it inside and carefully disassemble as much as is needed to complete as accurate an estimate as I can. This greatly reduces Repair delays do to later discovery of additional damage, along with the wasted time of my customer, myself, and my vendors caused by placing a second or third order for additional parts.
Also the Labor times on My Estimate are based on my accumulated knowledge, ability, experience, shop design, tools, etc.in my shop and being performed by me while/after hanging around the body shop as a youngster followed by 40 years of full time autobody repair and painting as an adult. Believe me........ No computer or book could ever match that amount of personalized accuracy.
So the difference between MY estimate and My final bill is usually a very, very small percentage. Making it an adjustment from an estimate to the actual cost of repairing the automobile.
Although inherently (in-her-ent .. established as an essential part of something) many insurer estimates are truly *deficient* (deficient... lacking in something necessary, also, not up to a normal standard) so I can see why the insurance industry prefers the word Supplement.
To further answer your questions,
No Lori, My poor customer does not come to me with an estimate from their carrier. They take My repair estimate to their insurance Agent. What's interesting is that Many of my customers think its odd that insurer's assume they know more about how their auto should be repair and how long it will take *me* to repair it in my shop than I do??
I Don't think they are impressed by many insurers incomplete low ball estimating style, along with the neat clean adjuster not even looking very hard to get all the damage listed the first time??
As for "'how' or 'what' they (the consumer) was paid""
That is really none of my business. As stated in the 5 Points. I am not a part of the consumer insurance contract. It does not include or apply to me. My obligation/duty is to the owner of the automobile and our (shop & consumer) repair agreement. The only one in this Triangle developed by the insurance industry with more than one contract is the consumer. And I should add, the insurance industry has done a stellar job of blurring these Two distinctively different contracts into One that, low and behold... benefits the insurer?? By golly how the heck did that happen?
Continuing on
Why would you type something like this??
""and then at the end without discussing this with your cherished costumer you present that poor sap with your 'final bill' and say, 'here you go pay up'...
I'm going to assume you didn't mean to imply that insured's are "Poor Saps". It does not fit your established character. Maybe I'm reading it wrong??
As for that last part... ""you present that poor sap with your 'final bill' and say, 'here you go pay up'""
Give this some thought...
Lets say you take your car to a Sear's Auto Center and agree to have them repair the Brakes & Exhaust, Do an Oil Change & Tune-up, and maybe wash & wax. When you come to get your car after the works done wouldn't you expect them to hand you the final Bill and say...."'here you go pay up"?? Do you think they care how or where you got the money to pay the Bill??
Or how about that $35,000.oo Wedding? Wouldn't they hand you a Final Bill and expect to be paid??
Why do you expect a Collision Repair Shop to be any different. Like others, we provide a Professional Service and expect to paid the amount of the *FINAL BILL*....... Just like everyone else..!!
Why/How can you see this as being sooooo wrong??
Moving along...
Then you say:
""FK.. It's YOUR customer that you are hurting here...in an apparent effort to hurt the insurance carriers you don't get along with...or all of them...I don't know...are there ANY that you have a good working relationship with?""
No.... Lori, by now you should be considering that maybe, just maybe, its not FK that's hurting FK's customer, its FK's customer's insurer hurting their insured by manipulating the contract of insurance. While Forcefully, Authoritivly, and I might add Effectively spinning the accusing finger at the repair profession.
OPPs.. almost forgot...
""are there ANY that you have a good working relationship with?""
I need a little help here.... What in your opinion would a "good working relationship with" consist of?
Consider that a repairer's interest should be about giving the consumer the best repair they wish to pay for is automatically a direct conflict of interests with the insurer's interest being to keep claims costs as low as possible.
FK,
Add your comment