Posted on 08/23/2005 5:52:06 AM PDT by OESY
1. The replacement parts issue can be analyzed usefully by reducing the argument to an absurdity. If State Farm were replacing OEM body parts with paper ones, the deficiency of their replacements, and of their argument, would be obvious. They have an obligation to replace damaged parts with parts that at least bear close comparison with the the originals.
2. Many body parts offered in the insurance-repair trade are markedly inferior in the gauge, fit, quality, and rustproofing of the metal. This last is a material difference in a northern climate like Illinois, where road salt is a significant hazard to paint and finish.
The story's statement of the losing party's argument is oversimplified and misrepresented. What is really at issue is the ability of insurance companies to meet their obligations by substituting shoddy products for good ones and calling that a settlement.
There was an interesting article in Consumer Reports on this very subject a few years ago. Some of the non-oem parts were horribly shoddy.
My father got a personal example of what can happen. His Toyota Camry was in an accident (a Pennsylvania deer tried bumper-jumping) and had to have both front fenders replaced.
In Pennsylvania, land of rust, the replacement fenders rusted through in two years - although the rest of the original Toyota parts were still in perfect condition.
What happened? The non-OEM parts weren't galvanized or rustproofed. They were pieces of thin tin waiting for a chance to rust through... and they did.
His choice - pay to replace the fenders after two years because of the rust, or have the value of his car fall to essentially zero.
Lawsuits and government rules are not the answer to this dispute. State Farm should be entitled to sell whatever policy it wants. No one requires you to buy state farm's policy. If people paid a cheaper premium, they got what they bargained for when they used the insurance.
1. Buy a policy that specifies OEM parts.
or
2. Pay out of pocket the difference between the non-OEM and OEM parts.
When drivers are required to have insurance, they become a captive audience, often nervously and frantically searching for policies. Since insurance companies are being handed a boondoggle by the States, the companies should have an obligation to explain their policies in laymen's plain terms - wording the policies to the lowest common denominator.
I have no sympathy for a company that tries to hide sub-standard practices in legalese to prey on old ladies, etc.
Paying the difference is a perfectly good idea. Right now my homeowners' insurer (USAA) is essentially redoing my basement because the main septic outfall clogged, causing a fecal geyser in the downstairs toilet. The downstairs john had a vinyl tile floor, USAA's paying to replace the vinyl tiles, and I'm pitching in the extra money necessary to upgrade to ceramic tiles.
Caveat emptor. Ignorance is not an excuse. I believe even if it were explained to people what the difference is between after market and oem parts most would opt to save money by accepting the after market ones. I do believe, however that ins companies should issue documentation that explains the difference even if it doesn't offer a choice.
Just had a claim and asked before making it, will my rates go up or will this hurt my relationship with State Farm. (having to ask this question irked me because I PAY for insurance to be there when I NEED it, not to worry about if the relationship will be hurt by cancellation or higher premiums when i need them.)Anyway, I was told that my loss was a covered loss and there would be no negative reprocussions. Within a week of getting my settlement check I was sent a form letter telling me that I am now a high risk, my deductable was tripling and I may lose my car insurance.
I've had 5 claims in 20 years, the total of which is no more than $7000, TOTAL!! I argued with my agent and he said I should have NEVER MADE THOSE CLAIMS!!! He says they are not supposed to advise their insured on whether or not to make a claim, but had I called HIM instead of State Farm directly, he would have advised against it.
I can't begin to express how angry I am that I am now "high risk" for using a service I have paid DEARLY for over the last 20 years. He says I now have a pattern of making claims and as a high risk, I must have a "clean record" for three years to get some of these off the list and get back to low risk. (funny how it only takes 3 years to "get off the list" but they are now lookin gback 10 years to make me high risk. )
State Farm and all the others can bite me!!
BTW my claims were 2 wrecks, my fault 2yr apart, one was backing into a pole in a parking lot, a tornado,minor damage to my home,not my fault, lightening strike, fried ac unit, and my car getting broken into this past month, $900.
I've paid them $36,000 in car insurance alone over the past 20 years!! And they havent made enough off my money to repay me 1/5 of it for claims, not to mention what I've given them for 15 years of homeowners policy payments!!??
Just had a claim and asked before making it, will my rates go up or will this hurt my relationship with State Farm. (having to ask this question irked me because I PAY for insurance to be there when I NEED it, not to worry about if the relationship will be hurt by cancellation or higher premiums when i need them.)Anyway, I was told that my loss was a covered loss and there would be no negative reprocussions. Within a week of getting my settlement check I was sent a form letter telling me that I am now a high risk, my deductable was tripling and I may lose my car insurance.
I've had 5 claims in 20 years, the total of which is no more than $7000, TOTAL!! I argued with my agent and he said I should have NEVER MADE THOSE CLAIMS!!! He says they are not supposed to advise their insured on whether or not to make a claim, but had I called HIM instead of State Farm directly, he would have advised against it.
I can't begin to express how angry I am that I am now "high risk" for using a service I have paid DEARLY for over the last 20 years. He says I now have a pattern of making claims and as a high risk, I must have a "clean record" for three years to get some of these off the list and get back to low risk. (funny how it only takes 3 years to "get off the list" but they are now lookin gback 10 years to make me high risk. )
State Farm and all the others can bite me!!
BTW my claims were 2 wrecks, my fault 2yr apart, one was backing into a pole in a parking lot, a tornado,minor damage to my home,not my fault, lightening strike, fried ac unit, and my car getting broken into this past month, $900.
I've paid them $36,000 in car insurance alone over the past 20 years!! And they havent made enough off my money to repay me 1/5 of it for claims, not to mention what I've given them for 15 years of homeowners policy payments!!??
If you're going to disagree with me, disagree with what I said as a whole, in the context of the argument I was making.
"When drivers are required to have insurance.."
We, as in We the people, do not need mandated insurance. State government committs a crime every day that they regulate the insurance industry and they do not have a "No Fault" insurance option.
When government is involved, people assume the state is watching out for them and that the fine print doesn't matter. When you remove or reduce individual accountability and turn authority over to government, you are abdicating your responsibility as an individual to government. Each time it happens, you become more of serf and not worthy of claiming the right to complain. If you want to be a serf and think like a serf, become a Democrat.
Don't take your car to a shop that uses crapy, low quality OEM parts. Take it to a shop that uses quality OEM or quality aftermarket parts.
Good repair shops know how to make insurance companies pay for quality parts. Disreputable ones try and increase their profit margins by using crapy parts on which they make a higher profit margin.
Hot-dipping and quality prepping sheet metal body parts is really a must in some parts of the country. Even fine-quality cars have had rusting problems in the past. Ferraris from the early 70's are known rusters, which is a shame given the otherwise fine coachwork, fit and finish on those cars. Period Maseratis almost all have lead work in their fenders and rocker panels, it's a given. Hondas used to have the same weakness in the 70's, and the marque didn't step up to the front line of Japanese imports until they adopted hot-dipping -- ironically, about the same time Maserati did (for the Biturbo and later models).
Remember what a land-office business Ziebart and Rusty Jones did back in the 70's and 80's? Owners who cared took their cars to be treated right from the showroom.
That would be true if auto insurors gave the policyholder a choice. On this issue, I don't think they do, and I think "they're all in it together." It wouldn't be the first time insurance companies banded together to take a "line" with the public, and went to state government to make it stick. Several years ago, even against long odds, GEICO went to the Maryland legislature to try to get radar detectors banned as a public nuisance. They got some state officials to sing from their hymnal to the legislative committees, but they were laughed out of the room. Their supporting data consisted of a "study" by some very compliant academic grantsmen and the choirboy testimony of a few insurance-friendly safety officials (who probably had cushy VP jobs waiting for them -- oh, wait, did I say that?!). The legislators looked at their watches and told GEICO and their "citizen" pressure group, GUARD ("Group United Against Radar Detectors", modelled on MADD and SADD) to take a hike.
The way they like to handle "problems" like this is through what amounts to private-purchase ..... errrr, purpose legislation. You'll never catch the Wall Street Journal complaining about that.
Sorry, but the WSJ sometimes is just a cheerleader for vested interests and sleazy businesses, and insurance is one of the wormier businesses around.
So what do you do when your insurance company tells you to take your damaged car to a body shop that's "on their list"? How do you know they don't have a prearranged deal with those shops?
At least when you're taking bids for your insurance company (ones that let you do that) you get to pick shops that use good-quality parts for your own list of bidders.
And the insurance companies can "handle" your repair by saying, "OK, our estimators came up with this number" -- and base the number on cheapie, substandard parts. If that's what they'll pay, that's what they'll pay, and it doesn't matter what parts you have put on your car, their loss is limited by incorporating the cost of Taiwanese or Brazilian parts into their settlement offer.
It's nice to have a cop around sometimes. It isn't pro-business and it doesn't boost the economy, if you have to treat every transaction like it was a drug deal in Cutthroat Alley.
Good business requires fair markets require plenty of honest policemen. The first thing bankers and insurance companies try to do is reduce the police force and then buy the remaining policemen.
Honestly, of course. With "campaign contributions" and job offers later on.
Tell them it's ILLEGAL to steer you ANYWHERE. You have the right to go to the SHOP of YOUR choice...and that you want their "list" in writing so you can take it to the State's Attorney General...also get the agent's name and employee #...
That gets their attention fast!
Precisely why your first sentence is absurd.
By way of example: In my youth, I told an older and wiser colleague that the war on drugs was essential. His reply was that I was wrong and he proceeded to show me the fallacy of my thinking with a parable.
Consider yourself a customs agent in NY. One night you get a call from a stranger who proceeds to tell you that the following day, a man wearing a blue pin stripe suit carrying a doll will be coming through his checkpoint; the doll is filled with heroin. If you let him walk through unmolested, we have already deposited $10,000 in a numbered Swiss account and will send you the numbers. We will leave the money in the account for exactly one year. If you have not claimed the money yourself, we will reclaim it after the year has passed.
On the other hand, you have a lovely three year old daughter. What a tragedy it would be if something awful happened to her like a terrorist disfiguring her face with acid for example.
The guy is trapped. If he claims the money, he is theirs for life. He knows that he, nor the police can protect his daughter, and he knows that if something happens to his daughter and the guy who works in the checkpoint next to him gets a similar call the following day, that the doll is going through.
Government and the police do not prevent crime and corruption. Morality and free markets do. Government is not the chicken or the egg, only the butcher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.