car was rearend and now

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:40 pm Post Subject:

Every state is going to have case law on this. My guess is if your carrier and the other person's carrier state that they only need to consider Like, Kind and Quality parts, that it's allowed. What you mention about not being whole is really an issue of diminished value. This varies from state to state.

Max is going to know what that is in CA.

When you buy a car do you ask if every part on the car is OEM? What about filters, tires, shocks, etc? That is, who really made the fenders on your vehicle... the manufacture or some other factory?

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 01:51 pm Post Subject:

There is legislation pending in CA concerning this. The new law would require insurers refrain from demanding non-OEM parts be used. Even if adopted into law, it would probably not apply to your claim ex post facto.

Currently, you have the right to demand factory OEM parts, but can be required to pay the difference between those and the non-OEM parts. In many cases, the price differential is not all that much more, so you may want to pay that additional expense if having OEM is important.

Either way, you can turn right around and file a diminished value claim, because the one thing to remember is that, even with OEM parts, your vehicle has been in a collision -- a fact that will follow the vehicle to the junkyard. And the OEM parts cannot make up for shoddy workmanship.

tcope is also correct -- a factory-new vehicle is a collection of parts that come from a variety of subcontractors, not one central factory.

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 05:40 pm Post Subject:

well the car was certified when i bought it also have the car fax at the time i bought the car , factory warranty is in effect of the car , in the warranty booklet it states non oem parts will avoid my warranty so im stuck on this one . i will be trying to find some one who can file for the dimisioning value as quickly , as the car goes in next week for repairs , after chrysler corp takes a look at it. which is monday, as for the insurance doesnt matter since his insurance is taking responsiblity i did not sign a contract with them so they must use oem parts ,as the auto repair shop stated , so they are on the hook for orginal parts , thank you all for youre help

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 04:12 am Post Subject:

in the warranty booklet it states non oem parts will avoid my warranty so im stuck on this one

as for the insurance doesnt matter since his insurance is taking responsiblity i did not sign a contract with them so they must use oem parts

however both his insurance and my insurance both say they have the right to use what ever parts they want

Currently, you have the right to demand factory OEM parts, but can be required to pay the difference between those and the non-OEM parts

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 06:20 pm Post Subject:

when i made the statement on both my insurance and his insurance at the time , wasnt sure if his insurance was going to take responsiblity , which they did , so this leaves my insurance out, since i did not sign the contract with his insurance company , by law they must use what i request , this is after talking to a attorney, since i did not buy thier insurance , the one who took responsiblty , so they must repair the car the way i want oem parts , not used , not after market , but what i require ,within my rights, now if i went with my insurance company yes they have the right to use what ever parts they want , i get it , but since its not my insurance company who is fixing it they have to fix it the way it was with oem parts , sorry but the attorney says so,at no cost to me since one it wasnt my fault two it is be pre accident conditon which even after fixing it wont be pre accident , so its a battle im willing to fight as it wont make me whole again , so thanks for the advice but i did go seek a attorney who gave me legal advice and my rights

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 04:17 pm Post Subject:

The manufacture of the non-OEM parts offers their own warranty... same as you had before (probably better).

i did go seek a attorney who gave me legal advice and my rights

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 10:22 pm Post Subject:

since i did not sign the contract with his insurance company , by law they must use what i request , this is after talking to a attorney

sorry but the attorney says so

so thanks for the advice but i did go seek a attorney who gave me legal advice and my rights

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 02:42 am Post Subject:

Your attorney may very well be correct.
There was a court case in California that did successfully challenge an insurer on the use of a/m imitation parts. Just as in Missouri Smith vs American Family Insurance, American Family lost the case after appeals where expert testimony from engineers proved unequivocably that a/m parts were reverse engineered and failed in corrosion protection in tests. As a result of that decision, case law in Missouri set a precedent that where the Like, Kind, and Quality code or statutory requirement existed, a/m part were proven not to be equivalent. As a result of the precedent, it applies to all Missouri insurers where mandating a/m parts conflict with the LKQ code. We will soon be testing this in court. When I have provided vehicle owners with the information to present to their insurer, they have backed down from a/m parts and went out of their way to find any used part available if they could.

I am trying to get the name of the court case in California for you and will post it as soon as I can find it. Your attorney is likely correct. As I recall one of the parties in the case was Librella.

Offering lifetime warranties on parts do not make them equivalent and insurers can only guarantee that you will be satisfied with the fit. HUGE difference. Magnusson Moss Ferguson applies to warranties on parts and only the manufacturer can warranty or guarantee the part.

You could always repair the vehicle and pay the bill. The third party insurer would then have no say in what they were willing to pay for the repair as the invoice is the only thing that the court will recognize. Just because an insurer may claim that they could have had the repairs done cheaper and with a/m parts does not make what you paid for repairs unreasonable in the courts judgement.

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 04:37 am Post Subject:

How about this one from just a little while ago:

http://arav3.timberlakepublishing.com/blog_home.asp?Display=1489

"Manassas, VA - Last week a California federal court dismissed the Perez et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al case in which plaintiffs claimed that insurance companies had violated California’s antitrust statute and unfair competition. Of particular concern in the case, the plaintiffs' expert witness stated in submitted documents that with regards to six categories of aftermarket parts and four categories of salvage [recycled] parts there is at least a 25% probability that the use of these parts 'will lessen the quality of the automobile's repair as to safety, fit, structural integrity or mechanical functioning than [sic] would be experienced over the life of a high-quality OEM repair part"."

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 05:14 am Post Subject:

I have to chime in on this, because tcope's excerpt tells only one aspect of the story (and it's not really the correct one). The very next paragraph completely overturns what tcope has put forth -- one of the problems we all face when we don't take the time to read an entire article or court opinion:

The court dismissed the case on procedural grounds and noted that the plaintiffs’ expert testimony lacked an "articulated methodology for choosing which sources to rely upon" and was "particularly troubling, in light of evidence that the sources consulted may have been systematically skewed towards demonstrating non-OEM inferiority". The Court further noted that the expert witness "did not make any effort to seek out sources that would support a contrary view". The Court went on to find that this is precisely the type of methodology that is "biased toward a particular conclusion" and therefore "does not comport [ ] with dictates of good science".

For almost 70 years, ARA has represented an industry dedicated to the efficient removal and reuse of “green” automotive parts, and the proper recycling of inoperable motor vehicles. ARA members provide consumers with quality, environmentally friendly, low-cost alternatives for vehicle replacement parts. Today, ARA represents the interests of over 4,500 auto recycling facilities in the United States and fourteen other countries around the world.