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: Sun Sep 20, 2009 02:47 pm Post Subject:
Wow, sorry to hear about this. This was and still is one the hot topics that gets me upset. You got snookered. In the case of the insurance company, it IS their responsibility to disclose this information to you before settling your claim. The shop isn't totally off the hook, but it's not their job. Their job is to only preform the repairs, not get involved with your claim. However, most reputable shops will either write their own estimate (report) regardless of what the insurance company's estimate says or go over the insurance estimate and point out things like this. At that point, the shop would have gone over the parts being replaced and would have pointed out that the insurance company was only reiumbursing you for altenative parts (parts not made by the original manufacture of your car). However, many shops just collect the customers insurance estimate and order parts. After all, you met with the company. The shop assumes you were okay with these substandard parts.
If all the insurance company wants to do at this point is point fingers as to whose to blame, and because as you say "no one" explained the use of alternative parts, that you gave no one permission to use them, then you can file a complaint with DOI (Department of Insurance) in your state. In most cases if their is evidence of non-disclosure or deceit, the DOI takes that very seriously.
The insurance company has no authority on how your vehicle is repaired or what parts are to be used or who repairs it. You own the vehicle and have the upper hand. They may use phrases like "you can get new parts, but you will have to pay the difference", they use that as a "shoot you down" technique in order to control the repair and the overall cost of the repair, don't give in. They may even through in the; "for your own best interest, to lower the cost of the repair", the only interest they are protecting are themselves. To many insurance employee appraisers think that it's their money, nothing could be further from the truth.
Pursue this no to end. It maybe difficult, but it can be made right. I have seen many owners in the past that put the pressure on the insurer and the claim was made right. Let us know how things go and come back for help!
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 04:52 pm Post Subject:
What do I tell the doi? I don't understand when you say they don't have the okay to use the parts and that its my money?
The other guys ins is paying for it. A friend told me that these parts can make my car worth les is that true?
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 05:05 pm Post Subject:
Poster, you are not bound by the terms and conditions of an insurance policy that you are not a party to. They may dictate or take options to control the quality and extent of the repair with their own policyholders but not you. You are entitled by law to be made whole, your contract of repairs should have been with the repair shop. It is they who you should hold liable for the quality of the repairs for which you contracted. If they negotiated the claim on your behalf (possibly a violation of the unauthorized practice of law because they represented your interests on your behalf to the insurer), you may have remedies both with the shop and the party that caused your damages. The insurer only intercedes on behalf of the at fault party, by virtue of their contract of insurance, to settle with you for the least amount as they have no contractual obligation to make you whole.
If you are unable to find satisfaction with remedying your sitution, the department of insurance most likely can not assist you, because they do not intercede on behalf of third party claimants. They generally only settle disputes between polciy holders and their insurers.
If you find the shop and the insurer seem to be siding against you, seek an independent pro consumer shop to perform a post repair inspection of your vehicle and prepare an estimate of repairs for the costs to restore your vehicle to pre loss condition. You are under no obligation to use the shop that boogered your repairs and devalued your vehicle with cheap fast repairs. The insurer guaranty of repairs will only be as good as the arrangement or agreements they had with the shop that failed to restore your vehicle to pre loss conditon. All they can do is to lean on the shop and threaten to remove them form their preferred lists. Insurers pay for repairs they do not repair cars.
The shop that peformed the poor repairs may be on the hook as well as the insurer for failing to get you back to where you were prior to the loss along with your inconvenience (rental). It is entirely possible the cost to re-repair, the loss in value of the car due to poor repairs, and the stigma of the accident could combine to entice the insurer to buy back your wreck and pay you for the acv amount prior to the loss simply to settle the matter.
Believe it or not, there are shops that will work on your behalf and not on behalf of the insurer's interest. Those that choose this path are often ostracized by insurers as policy holders along with claimants are heavily steered to shops that tend to conform to the strong will of insurers to pay for the least amount possible to settle the claim, use cheaper parts, perform questionable repairs and give discounts to the insurer all for being the beneficiary of the work being referred to them.
Google diminished value or post repair inspections and look for an independent inspector in your area to assist you in your situation if the insurer and the shop refuse to cooperate to make you whole.
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 05:25 pm Post Subject:
and because as you say "no one" explained the use of alternative parts, that you gave no one permission to use them, then you can file a complaint with DOI (Department of Insurance) in your state. In most cases if their is evidence of non-disclosure or deceit, the DOI takes that very seriously.
From the OP:
Now the insurance company is saying it's really my fault because I didn't read the report before I left...
They may use phrases like "you can get new parts, but you will have to pay the difference", they use that as a "shoot you down" technique in order to control the repair and the overall cost of the repair, don't give in.
The issue of LKQ and AM parts has really been discussed to death. Bottom line, they are used if the state allows it. That is, if its legal. The flip side is that the OP is getting a brand new part where there was a used one on the vehicle. I guess its okay when the person gets more then what they had prior to the accident... as long as someone else is paying the bill.I agree that AM parts on a 2008 vehicle should probably not be done. While the company I work for does not use AM parts, the rule on LKQ is 2 year or older. In this case the OPs vehicle is 2 years old.
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 05:55 pm Post Subject:
What do I tell the doi? I don't understand when you say they don't have the okay to use the parts and that its my money?
The other guys ins is paying for it. A friend told me that these parts can make my car worth les is that true?
Before you contact the DOI, I would see what you can do to resolve it on your own. Make sure you have everything documented and just stick with what you know.
What I meant by it's your money, is the money issued by the insurer when they accepted liability as settlement. The insurance company didn't pay for your repairs, you did. The difference is, the insurance company took away your options and controll over the repair and gave it to themselves and a shop. You did not say if you were the one that chose the shop, did you? Many times insurers just give you a list or tell you to go to a certain repairer. This process is known as "steering". It allows the insurer to controll the cost of the repair (in your case, they chose to only reiumburse you for altenative instead of new parts) by having a shop that they have a contract with to repair it. Its known as a DRP (direct repair program). The program is an agreement between a repairer and insurer. The shop agrees to repair the vehicle or use the process to controlled by the insurer.
A process like Mike has pointed out that may be in practice of many violations.
Yes your vehicle's value can be worth less. Example, would you pay the same amount for a vehicle that first of all has been in an accident, repaired and had parts replaced that were either used or made by someone other than the original manufacturer? Of course you wouldn't.
Other than that, please don't consider that your vehicle was repaired incorrectly. You can still use these parts, and still recieve a respectful repair. However, there are consequences with alternative parts. You have no idea what the condition of the vehicle is that these parts came from. The aftermarket parts are still in debate and the jury is still out. Some of these parts are made with inferior materials and only resemble their true counterparts.
Like Mike stated, find a shop or an independent like myself that can do a post inspection and help you with your options. Good luck
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 06:09 pm Post Subject:
The issue of LKQ and AM parts has really been discussed to death. Bottom line, they are used if the state allows it. That is, if its legal. The flip side is that the OP is getting a brand new part where there was a used one on the vehicle. I guess its okay when the person gets more then what they had prior to the accident... as long as someone else is paying the bill.
just because the state "allows" it and it's legal says nothing about how the OP explained his experiance. This happens far to often, and the practice of steering throws any regard to the consumer out the window. Just because there are used parts availible doesn't mean that the owner should not have the choice not purchasing them. And saying that a person is getting more by using new parts other than the alternative is highly debateable. It's not changing anything. And the only person paying the bill would be non other than the vehicle owner.
While the company I work for does not use AM parts, the rule on LKQ is 2 year or older
This was one reason I passed on working for an insurer. I couldn't stand the practice while on the shop level.
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 06:20 pm Post Subject:
And saying that a person is getting more by using new parts other than the alternative is highly debateable. It's not changing anything.
So, getting 2008 parts on a 2008 vehicle is getting less yet getting 2010 part in place of 2008 parts is not getting more? Odd. I guess you can have your cake and eat it too.[/quote]This happens far to often, and the practice of steering throws any regard to the consumer out the window.[/quote]Sorry, I missed the part where the OP said the shop they used was recommended by the insurance company. Actually I think someone else just mentioned that out of the blue.And the only person paying the bill would be non other than the vehicle owner.
Correct... the insurance company is paid what is legally owed by their insured. The OP can do anything with the money he wants. The repairs the OP wants or has done does not affect what the insurance company owes.Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 06:34 pm Post Subject:
So, getting 2008 parts on a 2008 vehicle is getting less yet getting 2010 part in place of 2008 parts is not getting more
If the 2008 part was a recycled part, then yes it would be, in my opinion. It's not the same in anyway shape or form as the part that came off the vehicle. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with used parts, as long as their bolt on and not welded and the owner is ok with using them. I find it odd that someone would think that a same year, make and model part would be the same as it's counter part. I have tried to understand this, and no one hase ever been able to explain it. Since I don't work for an insurer, I will inform my client that their insured or claimant does not want alternative parts and I will write an estimate with OEM only. I'll leave that between the the two of them.
Sorry, I missed the part where the OP said the shop they used was recommended by the insurance company. Actually I think someone else just mentioned that out of the blue.
You are right. He never stated that he did. I just asked him.
Correct... the insurance company is paid what is legally owed by their insured. The OP can do anything with the money he wants. The repairs the OP wants or has done does not affect what the insurance company owes.
I agree
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 06:58 pm Post Subject:
If the 2008 part was a recycled part, then yes it would be, in my opinion. It's not the same in anyway shape or form as the part that came off the vehicle
Huh? Actually it's _exactly_ the same shape and form as he part it's replacing. A recycled part is an OEM part of another 2008 vehicle.Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with used parts, as long as their bolt on and not welded and the owner is ok with using them.
What is the difference in a welded part? A new OEM part is going to be welded on just the same as a used part. The owner being "okay" with the part does not enter the equation. As an owner of a 2008 vehicle with a fender damaged in an accident I'd want a 2010 replacement vehicle. The issue is, what is owed.I find it odd that someone would think that a same year, make and model part would be the same as it's counter part. I have tried to understand this, and no one hase ever been able to explain it
I'm not sure where the confusion lies... thousands of the same parts roll off an assembly line... some are put on vehicles, some are put on other vehicles.Since I don't work for an insurer, I will inform my client that their insured or claimant does not want alternative parts and I will write an estimate with OEM only.
A recycled (LKQ) part is different then an "alternative part" (though "alternative part" is not really a good term as it's seldom used. It usually means an aftermarket part). I really don't feel like starting up the debate of OEM vs AM parts in general again... it's been discussed to death. In the OPs case, LKQ and AM appear to be allowed. If the OP does not want them on his vehicle it does not change what is owed.But I certainly agree that using AM parts on a 2008 vehicle is not the best course of action. I say that 2008 LKQ parts is more in line.
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 08:56 pm Post Subject:
Huh? Actually it's _exactly_ the same shape and form as he part it's replacing. A recycled part is an OEM part of another 2008 vehicle.
I am not saying you are wrong, you are entitled to your opinion. 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. The part is no longer considered OEM, it's now a salavaged part. It has no warranty backed by the manufacturer. Now if this was an older car, the damage severity of the donor vehicle might still be there, but there is no warranty backed by the manufacturer. In a case like that, then I would agree that the owner maybe held to pay the difference, maybe.
What is the difference in a welded part? A new OEM part is going to be welded on just the same as a used part. The owner being "okay" with the part does not enter the equation. As an owner of a 2008 vehicle with a fender damaged in an accident I'd want a 2010 replacement vehicle. The issue is, what is owed.
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. Secondly, is the over all cost. Replacing such items usually far out exceeds that of an OEM "new" panel. Most insurance companies and shops use the computer database's recycled section to estimate the cost/operation. 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.
I don't understand your last part about 2008 and 2010.
I'm not sure where the confusion lies... thousands of the same parts roll off an assembly line... some are put on vehicles, some are put on other vehicles.
Of those parts, how many of them were installed on a vehicle that was involved in a accident? Zero. Thats the point.
A recycled (LKQ) part is different then an "alternative part" (though "alternative part" is not really a good term as it's seldom used.
Niether is ther term "LKQ", which is an insurer created term. Alternative stands more to distinguish a product that is no longer or ever will be endorsed by the original manufacturer.
In the OPs case, LKQ and AM appear to be allowed. If the OP does not want them on his vehicle it does not change what is owed.
But in his/her case, it doesn't sound like there was ever an option for him/her to authorize the use of them. But you are right, it does not change what it owed.
I am with you on the debate. I however think an insurer, more so their staff should be more careful with their selection and discloser. I see so many overwritten estimates written by either lazy or under trained insurance appraisers. Most of them see a front end hit or rear end and just write up used assemblies. 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.
Add your comment