I agree with Gil – as long as the vehicle comes back looking and working well what is the big deal? I benefit when they replace a fender or bumper or other body part that is aftermarket (not necessarily a used part). Gil’s right – the cost of OEM parts is a huge ripoff. If you tried to built a car from OEM parts, a sedan might cost almost $100,000 (or so I read several years ago). Don’t seem right for them to rip us off and cause an increase in my auto premiums.
1st I’m not a big SF fan, but before you besmerch a judge you might want to remmember that the suppose SF loss was in the “Judicial Hellhole” where all the trial lawyers pay big donations to all their favorite judges and appeals judges for their election campaigns.
2nd, the individual plainiff’s get only slightly more than nothing in the case of a win on one of these. The only winners are the attorney’s for both sides.
3rd, Most carriers provide a notice with their policies regarding after market parts, etc.. Those get read about as often as the actual policies, which means about never.
Finally, Not all aftermarket parts are sub-standard, nor are EOM parts always better (a lot of those are assembly line rejects). If your 85 Celebrity is in a wreck in 2005, it doesn’t matter if you put aftermarket or EOM the car is the same crud it was before the accident.
It was revealed in Avery that insurers base their actuarial analyses on potential losses using new OE parts.
Consequently premium rates are based on the same. Thereby – any savings based on repair choices belong to the vehicle owner/policy holder/premium payer – directly.
To provide less to insureds is fraud in my opinion and apparently the opinion of the courts as well.
Shall we discuss insurers’ influence over third party losses?
If your policy pays for repairs made with mud and sticks and you hit me – what right do you / your insurer have to dictate the terms of my repair, i.e. that my repairs are to be affected by application of mud and sticks? The answer is: none.
These cars are made up of an amalgam of nano engineered – complex formulae and exotic materials. This ain’t your Uncle Chuck’s Chop Shop anymore. In fact – it has not been that in a very long time.
Anyone who thinks any differently, has as much business repairing passenger vehicles as do Cavemen and Gekkos.
Before anyone should be able to comment on the use of a/m parts, they should have at least some experience in attempting to make these parts fit and and being able to tell (with a straight face) those who’s vehicle that they contract to repair, “oh yeah, these parts are equal to the original parts made by the manufacturer of your vehicle”.
If it were not for insurers forcing and mandating the use of these parts, the only people using them would be rebuilders and people who do not consider value in the repair and restoration of a collision damaged vehicle.
I am sure anyone that ever lost a valuable item, such as a diamond that was covered by insurance, would be completely satisfied in the replacement of it with a zirconium one that looked just like, appeared to be just like, might even fit the ring mount occassionally, but would never have the value of the original diamond, NOT!
Part of what indemnification was originally intended to cover was replacing the value in a loss. You simply devalue a vehicle when it is repaired with a/m parts. Let’s just be frank and state the obvious. A/M parts are a cost savings meausure benefiting only insurers, and they really do not care about the value of restoring your vehicle in my opinion.
How is it fraud when it is a part of the contract? You know, contractually agreed upon by both parties? If the nasty old insurance company enjoys a one or two percent increase in profits due to the use of aftermarket parts, it is remedied at the next rate change cycle with the insurance commissioner. That occurs every 12 to 24 months. Isn’t that quick enough for you?
Just out of curiosity, is my local attorney overcharging me for postage? Reproduction costs? Is he adding dollars per hour for the secretary to my fee?
Don’t know what state you are in, but can you cite even ONE instance where there was a rate REDUCTION? Your belief that this actually occurs at the DOI level is pure folly.
I must concur w/Wade and Scott here. When was the last time the policyholder got a rate reduction from the stealing that insurers do? Never.
Just ask the State Farm policyholders who now have to accept non-loggo’d (Chinese crap) automotive glass as replacement glass for their damaged windshields. Will they receive a rate reduction when the cost of their policies were based upon OEM glass? No, not ever.
The insurance industry is a continuing criminal enterprise exempt from any real scrutiny and it will remain that way until consumers force them to sell products that are worth the paper they are printed on.
This “insurance journal” site is a joke with regard to understanding any real indemnification that was sold as bait and then switched at the time of a claim.
I’m no attorney but you don’t have to be Melvin Belli to recognize the defensive and evasive ramblings of an insurance guy. I pity most an insurance guy who is afraid to even use his real name. But I digress.
Yup. Fraud for Profit, Theft by Deception, Larceny by Trick. It has become institutionalized. Just like the Contingent Commissions, Credit Default Swaps and Title Washing to which insurance companies are apparently serially prone.
In this case – the intentional misrepresentation of the condition or quality of goods as something they are not.
Let’s forget “good” versus “bad” and make it more simple. The parts are different. As in “not the same”. Yet they are “sold” as “the same” and sometimes even “better than”. It is a lie.
No amount of words can make them the same, nor make calling them the same – not a lie.
To quote my favorite Republican:
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
– A. Lincoln
Let’s be honest, when is the last time any of you traded in a car more than two or three years old and the fact that it was repaired with OEM or Aftermarket parts played any part in the trade in value?
If the car has been in an accident, then there MIGHT be a difference in the trade-in, but I have never seen it happen where the type of repair part has made a difference.
The contract calls for indemnification, not a shell game to short the original intent and common understand of the purpose of coverage.
It is ludicrous to replace readily available, identical parts with cheap reproductions just to circumvent the contract for financial gain. NCOIL spent a couple of years looking at the possibility of sanctioning aftermarket body parts in various states. The project was quickly abandoned when the issue of “who would take responsibility for the equivalence to OEM?”. The state would not take it, the shops certainly would and interestingly, insurers backed off at that point also.
Point being, knowingly replacing damaged items with poor imitations is fraud… whether we’re talking a TV, diamond ring or fender.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I agree with Gil – as long as the vehicle comes back looking and working well what is the big deal? I benefit when they replace a fender or bumper or other body part that is aftermarket (not necessarily a used part). Gil’s right – the cost of OEM parts is a huge ripoff. If you tried to built a car from OEM parts, a sedan might cost almost $100,000 (or so I read several years ago). Don’t seem right for them to rip us off and cause an increase in my auto premiums.
Mike,
1st I’m not a big SF fan, but before you besmerch a judge you might want to remmember that the suppose SF loss was in the “Judicial Hellhole” where all the trial lawyers pay big donations to all their favorite judges and appeals judges for their election campaigns.
2nd, the individual plainiff’s get only slightly more than nothing in the case of a win on one of these. The only winners are the attorney’s for both sides.
3rd, Most carriers provide a notice with their policies regarding after market parts, etc.. Those get read about as often as the actual policies, which means about never.
Finally, Not all aftermarket parts are sub-standard, nor are EOM parts always better (a lot of those are assembly line rejects). If your 85 Celebrity is in a wreck in 2005, it doesn’t matter if you put aftermarket or EOM the car is the same crud it was before the accident.
It was revealed in Avery that insurers base their actuarial analyses on potential losses using new OE parts.
Consequently premium rates are based on the same. Thereby – any savings based on repair choices belong to the vehicle owner/policy holder/premium payer – directly.
To provide less to insureds is fraud in my opinion and apparently the opinion of the courts as well.
Shall we discuss insurers’ influence over third party losses?
If your policy pays for repairs made with mud and sticks and you hit me – what right do you / your insurer have to dictate the terms of my repair, i.e. that my repairs are to be affected by application of mud and sticks? The answer is: none.
These cars are made up of an amalgam of nano engineered – complex formulae and exotic materials. This ain’t your Uncle Chuck’s Chop Shop anymore. In fact – it has not been that in a very long time.
Anyone who thinks any differently, has as much business repairing passenger vehicles as do Cavemen and Gekkos.
Before anyone should be able to comment on the use of a/m parts, they should have at least some experience in attempting to make these parts fit and and being able to tell (with a straight face) those who’s vehicle that they contract to repair, “oh yeah, these parts are equal to the original parts made by the manufacturer of your vehicle”.
If it were not for insurers forcing and mandating the use of these parts, the only people using them would be rebuilders and people who do not consider value in the repair and restoration of a collision damaged vehicle.
I am sure anyone that ever lost a valuable item, such as a diamond that was covered by insurance, would be completely satisfied in the replacement of it with a zirconium one that looked just like, appeared to be just like, might even fit the ring mount occassionally, but would never have the value of the original diamond, NOT!
Part of what indemnification was originally intended to cover was replacing the value in a loss. You simply devalue a vehicle when it is repaired with a/m parts. Let’s just be frank and state the obvious. A/M parts are a cost savings meausure benefiting only insurers, and they really do not care about the value of restoring your vehicle in my opinion.
How is it fraud when it is a part of the contract? You know, contractually agreed upon by both parties? If the nasty old insurance company enjoys a one or two percent increase in profits due to the use of aftermarket parts, it is remedied at the next rate change cycle with the insurance commissioner. That occurs every 12 to 24 months. Isn’t that quick enough for you?
Just out of curiosity, is my local attorney overcharging me for postage? Reproduction costs? Is he adding dollars per hour for the secretary to my fee?
Gill:
Don’t know what state you are in, but can you cite even ONE instance where there was a rate REDUCTION? Your belief that this actually occurs at the DOI level is pure folly.
I must concur w/Wade and Scott here. When was the last time the policyholder got a rate reduction from the stealing that insurers do? Never.
Just ask the State Farm policyholders who now have to accept non-loggo’d (Chinese crap) automotive glass as replacement glass for their damaged windshields. Will they receive a rate reduction when the cost of their policies were based upon OEM glass? No, not ever.
The insurance industry is a continuing criminal enterprise exempt from any real scrutiny and it will remain that way until consumers force them to sell products that are worth the paper they are printed on.
This “insurance journal” site is a joke with regard to understanding any real indemnification that was sold as bait and then switched at the time of a claim.
I’m no attorney but you don’t have to be Melvin Belli to recognize the defensive and evasive ramblings of an insurance guy. I pity most an insurance guy who is afraid to even use his real name. But I digress.
Yup. Fraud for Profit, Theft by Deception, Larceny by Trick. It has become institutionalized. Just like the Contingent Commissions, Credit Default Swaps and Title Washing to which insurance companies are apparently serially prone.
In this case – the intentional misrepresentation of the condition or quality of goods as something they are not.
Let’s forget “good” versus “bad” and make it more simple. The parts are different. As in “not the same”. Yet they are “sold” as “the same” and sometimes even “better than”. It is a lie.
No amount of words can make them the same, nor make calling them the same – not a lie.
To quote my favorite Republican:
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
– A. Lincoln
Let’s be honest, when is the last time any of you traded in a car more than two or three years old and the fact that it was repaired with OEM or Aftermarket parts played any part in the trade in value?
If the car has been in an accident, then there MIGHT be a difference in the trade-in, but I have never seen it happen where the type of repair part has made a difference.
The contract calls for indemnification, not a shell game to short the original intent and common understand of the purpose of coverage.
It is ludicrous to replace readily available, identical parts with cheap reproductions just to circumvent the contract for financial gain. NCOIL spent a couple of years looking at the possibility of sanctioning aftermarket body parts in various states. The project was quickly abandoned when the issue of “who would take responsibility for the equivalence to OEM?”. The state would not take it, the shops certainly would and interestingly, insurers backed off at that point also.
Point being, knowingly replacing damaged items with poor imitations is fraud… whether we’re talking a TV, diamond ring or fender.