by Lori » Mon Mar 16, 2009 01:05 pm
Hello Lori,I am an independent glass shop owner and I have to say, the banner waving for the large glass chains is not respectful of family businesses that rely on customer satisfaction. We have to go above and beyond the larger chains because we don't have network dominance and steering to do the relations part of our business. Every customer that we service, we need to satisfy to ensure longevity. I hope you will give your local family businesses the chance to service your clientele and to show you that with the larger chains, you loose some of the personable aspects.
The above was left in my quick message...(maybe in everyones I don't know) by a poster calling themselves 'interested'
In response to this...I don't banner wave any glass company...the company I work for has a price set with safelite...therefore that is where I source the replaced glass..if a shop choses to use another glass company that is their option...I cannot however pay more than the safelite quote...nor will my company warrant that glass...the shop will have to do that thru their chosen vendor.
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:33 am Post Subject:
What's funny about family businesses is that some are much more competitively priced due to the fact that they have lower overhead than some of the large companies. However, most are more expensive and while they sometimes offer better customer service...value doesn't always matter. If a body shop was much more expensive, but did beautiful work, they would be much more likely to solicit most of their business from car collectors (NOT INSURANCE COMPANIES).
Insurance companies are a business, and as such it is their duty to handle claims at the lowest possible cost.
In no way am I "slamming" family businesses, but they need to find a way to remain competitive. It sounds like a better target market for this independent glass shop owner would be private paying customers that would better appreciate the customer service (without simply looking at price). To ask an insurance company to do this simply isn't reasonable!
AND not to mention the fact that as Lori has mentioned...if a shop would like to use another glass company because they are simply the best thing since sliced bread...they may do so! (But it will cost them!)
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:57 am Post Subject:
I just can't ''help'' myself and must tell a 'glass' story...One particular shop, that does marginal work, and has well a 'shady' at best manager (a dealership no less)...well this manager insists upon using his own vendor for glass, fine with me, I've told him this a million times. I've worked with this shop ten years (thru about 5 managers :roll: ). There is no question in 'my' mind this shop manager is getting 'something' out of the arrangement...
Let me say first that I have worked closely with two other 'mom and pop' glass shops for over twenty years and NEVER had an issue or problem...this is unique to this glass guy...
ok, on to the claim...(actually I could tell three about this shop/vendor but this one is the best)..I think a tree limb (or something) fell and we repaired a roof, replaced a windshield and hood maybe...this was a brand new vehicle purchased at this dealership with less than 1k miles...shop has 'his guy' put the windshield in the vehicle. All is well I hear nothing until about 6weeks post delivery from the shop manager...seems glass guy has put a total (so far) of three windshields in the vehicle...and manager thinks the insured is being ''too picky''...I call the insured to see what the issue is...well she says, glass #1 had a scratch in it, and #'s 2 and 3 have chips....I ask where her vehicle is so I can come and look at it...I go to her work, find her 'brand new car' and sure enough, not only is there a chip, the entire glass is pitted...(#3 glass was put in THE day prior)....I call the shop and tell them I am having safelite put a new glass in and he will owe for it...(remember I've already paid him for this 6wks ago)...shop was pissed but had NO footing, he HAS to back his sublet work...now had I sourced used glass, and this happened, would be all on me (the ins company)...or had safelite put it in they would've been back to do it again, without charge....This glass guy actually thought he should be paid for three installations! I did some research with the numbers stamped on the glass, thru the manufactor of the glass...turns out shops 'guy' had put in a used glass...(remember the carrier PAID for new)...so someone either the shop or this glass guy, went in the whole big on this one....of course I followed up with the insured and new glass was fine...
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 04:02 pm Post Subject: Whoops!
Insurance companies are a business, and as such it is their duty to handle claims at the lowest possible cost.
I guess a lot problems could be avoided if the carriers would just convey this in their advertising instead of asking "Are you in good hands?"or using similar slogans.
Corruption is rampant in the property and casualty industry, all you have to do is read the posts here to see a fraction of what is happening.
Chris, I guess I could state the equivalent by saying that I don't know why anyone would buy a policy through an agent, when they could buy one for less online.
Most adjusters that I talk to anymore know that consumers are getting hosed, but they feel powerless to do anything about it. Body shops who work for insurance companies instead of consumers are just the raw sewage that money floats on IMO.
Lori, that's too funny. Sounds like another deductible savin' backyarder story.
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 04:34 pm Post Subject:
Boulderdash! Horsepucky! and Bull Patties! Just my non legal opinion.
Insurance companies are a business, and as such it is their duty to handle claims at the lowest possible cost.
The business of insurance is to indemnify policy holders on losses and to pay for losses as a result of a tort by the negligence of their insured. The third party is in no way bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance investigation for payment of the tort damage. I find it amazing how insurers have been allowed to change the language in policies that stray from the original intent in a cash value policy. Original language gave insurers three options 1. to take control of the repair, 2. pay for the repair in money, or 3. Total the vehicle and pay for the fair market value of the loss. The original language was that the insurer must pay for any reasonable and necessary repair to restore the vehicle to pre-loss condition.
The language of today's policies comingle options 1 & 2. In the previous policy language case law was clear who's liablity was at stake in the choosing of the options. To take control of the repair by the insurer meant that they were fully liable for the repairs and had to warrant them. (Avery vs State Farm). When selecting option 2 where the insurer paid for repairs based on an actual invoice that was found to be reasonable and necessary the repairer was liable.
Today's policies are written in a way that allows an insurer to pay for a loss based on repair data that is manipulated to suit them and allows them to determine the prevailing rate (the lowest amount paid rather than the true meaning of prevailing which is the most a willing person would pay). Today's policy language states something to the effect, we will pay for a loss based on our investigation for an amount we determine using industry accepted manuals and data, and based on the prevailing rate that we have determined in the area in which the repair is to be performed. Usual and customary terminology (ppo or hospital plan language not an acv policy language) has replaced reasonable and necessary.
You see if insurers can hold prices down to preserve low costs to consumers and less expenses for insurers, shareholders gain and policy holders lose. As long as usual and customary language is preserved, you can apply the lowest quality of industry accepted standards which are determined by insurers instead of providing quality repairs that restore value and function as determined by market conditions.
Since the business of insurance is to insure risk, when did it ever become the business of insurance to tell repair experts how to repair cars and by what methodology and by the sourcing of parts. This practice borders on price fixing arrangements. In any other industry this would not be allowed saved for the business of insurance where attorney generals look the other way by allowing secretive agreements with insurers and shops which could impair settlements both first and third party. Since when did it become the business of the collision industry to aid insurers by negotiating on behalf of consumers and agreeing to prices without advocacy for the consumer via Direct repair agreements. If you look at any state's unauthorized practice of law, it strictly forbids anyone but an attorney or public adjuster in representing anyone settling a claim or tort.
In the scenario mentioned in this thread, if the shop was a perferred shop and signed agreements with the insurer to repair based on the insurer estimate of record, then I agree with Lori, she can come down with the almighty hand of insurance justice on the shop that fraudulently strayed from an agreement.
In the same scenario, if the policy holder directed the repair and installation of a used glass contrary to the insurers indemnification for a new one and that shop had no agreements with the insurer on how the repair was to be made, then it is the policy holder's dilemma. If the shop invoiced for new but installed a used then that is fraud on the shop in my opinion and can only be charged with fraud by the vehicle owner with the encouragement of the insurer if the contract of repairs was with the vehicle owner and the shop and the shop agreed to use the insurer estimate as a basis for invoicing.
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:18 pm Post Subject:
Insurance companies are a business, and as such it is their duty to handle claims at the lowest possible cost.
Boulderdash! Horsepucky! and Bull Patties! Just my non legal opinion.
I then read the entire post and not only did it not contradict Dave's statement, much of it agreed with it.The business of insurance is to indemnify policy holders on losses and to pay for losses as a result of a tort by the negligence of their insured. The third party is in no way bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance investigation for payment of the tort damage. I find it amazing how insurers have been allowed to change the language in policies that stray from the original intent in a cash value policy.
This basically covered the entire post and no where does is disagree that insurance companies can handle claims with the lowest possible cost.Question... is there a business around without this same philosophy? Of course not... this is true, and has always been true, of every company. There is also nothing wrong with it.
Since the business of insurance is to insure risk, when did it ever become the business of insurance to tell repair experts how to repair cars and by what methodology and by the sourcing of parts.
Since the day the first claim was handled by an insurance company. Have you ever heard of an insurance just handing over a blank check? When an insurance company states that they will pay for the cost of repairs they never state that they will pay _any_ cost. It only makes sense to obtain quality work for a reasonable price. Mike, when you pay people in your business do you try to get the best price possible for what you want or do you just automatically pay whatever the person asks for? Why should an insurance company be any different?Personally, I've never told anyone how to repair a vehicle. I've written up appraisals and submitted it to shops for their review. If they have an issue with it, we discuss it and come to some kind of resolution. Actually just a few weeks ago I had a shop call me as they charged $120/hour for mechanical work. I think allow around $65/hour. Mike, I think we can all agree $120/hour for mechanical labor is just stupidity. Would you pay this out of your pocket or would you go to the 400 other repair shops that charge 1/2 of that?
Mike, I can certainly understand your point of view but your bottom line in this whole issue is that the insurance company pays the amount of the loss and that should be their full involvement of the claim. But that is simply not even close to being reality. That would mean that the insurance company should just hand out blank checks and allow other people to write in the "amount of the loss". When you have service done on your car do you hand over a blank check? So, what constitutes the amount of a loss to a vehicle? Its the _reasonable_ expense to repair or replace. We see that the courts have _always_ ruled that this is the case. I'll still _gladly_ allow you to charge whatever you want to charge but, even as you admit, the insurance company is not bound to pay their insured or 3rd party what you are charging. So why do you also think an insurance company can't come up with their own determination on what something costs to repair? In the case of vehicle damage if I can prove that 400 other qualified repair shops would repair the vehicle for the amount I'm paying, does that not satisfy the following wording you posted, "2. pay for the repair in money"?
Do I think you should try to get paid as much for your work as possible? Yup! Do I think a company is entitled to keep their expenses as low as possible? Yup! Do I also think all companies should be allowed to return a profit? YUP!
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:33 pm Post Subject:
Chris Bantly,
One of your comments:
Insurance companies are a business, and as such it is their duty to handle claims at the lowest possible cost.
If that's the case... why not just Deny any & all claims..! One can't get any lower than that. Just think of all the money they could save their insurance customers. That would really keep premiums down.
I digress, and do believe there is more to an Insurer's Duties & Obligations than "the lowest possible cost".
You also state:
It sounds like a better target market for this independent glass shop owner would be private paying customers that would better appreciate the customer service (without simply looking at price). To ask an insurance company to do this simply isn't reasonable!
Really... Why wouldn't it be reasonable ? ¿
When willing reasonable consumers are paying the amounts charged by independent glass shop owners would that not qualify their pricing as Fair & Reasonable. And when one of their [the glass shop] customers Authorizes the repair (being that only the car owner can authorize the repair) is it not the Duty of the insurer to PAY those Fair & Reasonable expenses??
It would seem that Not paying would be in the direction of Bad Faith toward the consumer and Tortuous Interference toward the Repairer.
Just My Thoughts.
FK
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 02:08 pm Post Subject:
Mike, I can certainly understand your point of view but your bottom line in this whole issue is that the insurance company pays the amount of the loss and that should be their full involvement of the claim. But that is simply not even close to being reality. That would mean that the insurance company should just hand out blank checks and allow other people to write in the "amount of the loss".
If state auditors or local independent accounting firms were given the task of determining prevailing rates instead of allowing insurers to interpret what they determine to be the prevailing rates forced through coercion and intimidation and refusal to pay for procedures that are not included operations, a more free market would surface not restrained from outside influences that steer the market to a suppressed labor rate. this is what insurers fear most, losing control of manipulating the market.
They have even written in their policies that they can determine what the prevailing rates are but will not share their findings and the methodology they used claiming it is proprietary information. Why is it that some insurers pay insureds for certain procedures and various markup pricing claiming this is all we pay when the prevailing rates are higher. They are simply controling the market by implying they have surveyed the market prices when they haven't and imposing what they wish to pay. Prevailing rates are not defined as the lowest rate an person will pay for a product or service, the true meaning of prevailing rate is one in which a willing buyer of services is willling to pay.
credit anology to David T. a poster on another forum
Does anyone else enjoy the irony.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that Mr. Liddy of AIG is now dealing with third party interference in his insurance business. I wonder if in meetings he shrugs his shoulders and says the US government is writing the checks so we have to do what they want.
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 08:54 pm Post Subject:
? ¿
Hey Fred...how'd you do that? :?Duty of the insurer to PAY those Fair & Reasonable expenses??
Just a little fyi..('course can only speak to how "I" and the co I work for handle it)...there are area's that 'safelite' or some other glass giant do not operate..(rural mostly)...we then do quote 'fair and reasonable'...the thing is Fred...and this is the truth I know you don't want to admit it, because it hurts some of your arguement...but please try to 'give me' this...Knowing that the economy sucks, and no body has any extra money laying around...let's say no comp coverage on the vehicle...you call and get quotes to replace your busted w/s. (used is not being considered)..who you gonna' pick? the cheapest most of the time, and if they just happen to be a huge company, that will come to your house/work and put it in and give you a life time warranty all the better! Ins. companys do the same thing...and there is just nothing at all wrong with that...no different that if the big grocery chain has milk for a buck a gallon and I use a lot of milk, and mom and pop have it for 2 bucks a gallon...nothing personal I (as a consumer or ins company) have to save a buck where I can.....If state auditors or local independent accounting firms were given the task of determining prevailing rates instead of allowing insurers to interpret what they determine to be the prevailing rates forced through coercion and intimidation and refusal to pay for procedures that are not included operations, a more free market would surface not restrained from outside influences that steer the market to a suppressed labor rate. this is what insurers fear most, losing control of manipulating the market.
Oh my gosh Mike, did you do that without even taking one breath? Seriously Mike, you know how 'fair and customary' rates are set...someone at all the ins companys calls a bunch of shops in a given area asks, 'hey what are your body/frame/mech/and refinish rates? and what about paint and material' then they are averaged...bing bang bomb! that's the rate...Now realistically given the shape of the economy what do you think would (truely) be a fair rate? and what do you charge? I personally think I'm worth about a hundred bucks an hour, but no body is gonna' be fool enough to pay me that...so I get what an average adjuster with my experience in my area gets paid...same as you...Why is it that some insurers pay insureds for certain procedures and various markup pricing claiming this is all we pay when the prevailing rates are higher
What do you mean? all carriers don't pay the same, usually within a few bucks...is that what you mean? all carriers do 'rate surveys' at different times...and then change their rates accordingly...at that time...so one carrier could be ahead or behind another...if you are talking about a huge difference, please explain a little more for this old broad...by implying they have surveyed the market prices when they haven't and imposing what they wish to pay.
Mike this isn't true....There is no implication, it's done Mike...When I worked for Shelter (1987-97)...I did it myself once a year, and the rates (for the branch I was in) were changed if the ''survey says'' bump it up...With the employer I'm with now, when I see or hear we need to look at the rates, I forward this info on to the 'powers that be'...for them to get it moved...(fyi just got mech bumped in my area by bugging the crap out of them)... :roll:Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 02:15 pm Post Subject:
Lori,
Part of Your comment:
I personally think I'm worth about a hundred bucks an hour, but no body is gonna' be fool enough to pay me that...so I get what an average adjuster with _my experience_ in my area gets paid...same as you...
There in may lie a large part of the Rub..!
So tell me, when you survey an area do you calculate different rates for different classes of Repairers?
Does your company Include the lowest paid adjusters (those with little experience and/or education) when they calculate your Pay?
Just wondering.
FK,
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:54 am Post Subject:
So tell me, when you survey an area do you calculate different rates for different classes of Repairers?
nope..(remembering I don't do that anymore)..just called every single body shop in the phone book for the operating city..Does your company Include the lowest paid adjusters (those with little experience and/or education) when they calculate your Pay?
no I don't think so, and of course with tenue your salary increases..but you want to know what most big companys do-do that really stinks..let's say as an example...zero qualified new adjuster 10 years ago was paid a base starting salary of 25k...ten years later that same base starting pay is 35k..when the starting pay goes up, everyone that's already there doesn't get a 'bump' in pay...There in may lie a large part of the Rub..!
When you want to use a scale to grade, ''this shop is better so they deserve 50 bucks an hour, and this hole in the wall shop pretty much sucks so they only get 25 bucks an hour' you have to then decide, just who makes the call re: quality equals higher pay? hmmmmmm...bet my bottom dollar every single shop owner in the country 'thinks' they do the very best work in town...and we all know that's not the case...so who fred makes that determination?Just wondering.
me too..you tell me..Add your comment