PDA

View Full Version : Blood has shot from my eyes



Bill
04-01-2009, 02:39 PM
I have been arguing via e-mail with a so called "expert" who happens to be a claims manager with his company and believes that color tinting and color blending are an either/or proposition and that if you do one, then the other isn't necessary. He has instructed all his subordinates to only pay one or the other but not both.
I began my argument with this nitwit last week by referring to the "P" page explanation of both processes as outlined in Mitchell, his company's software provider of choice and pointed out that both are listed as separate operations and not synonymous. I went on to explain that the color must first be tinted to an acceptable color match BEFORE the blending operation is undertaken and that both are necessary components of the repair process, for which I deserve to be compensated.
This idiot responds by quoting the explanation that some underside colors, for which no formulas exist, "may need tinting" thereby in his mind removing the need. He got his butt up when I pointed out that what he was quoting had no relevance in our debate and we needed to focus on OUTSIDE surfaces.
All this deteriorated to "you're the only one in the whole state that is asking for this", "the two people I have talked to at Mitchell support my position", and "we will address this on a case by case basis", B.S., B.S and more B.S.
I contacted Mitchell International and got the confirmation I needed that I was correct and forwarded all the contact information to the "expert" and suggested that he contact the division manager himself, as I did to put this matter to bed. His response was to tell me that he wasn't calling anybody, restating that I am "the only one", "his" interpretation of the "P" page explanation was all he needed, and "he was done discussing this issue".
Here's where the blood shooting out of my eyes came in:
I start gathering all the e-mail addresses I can get for all the shops in my state so I can forward copies of this e-mail exchange to them to get their input and support, since "I'm the only one". I was amazed to hear more than one shop owner say, "I'm not going to piss off an insurance company over something as trivial as a half hour." I asked one guy how many cars he supposed he repaired per year and he said he figured around 2,000. I pointed out that each half hour of paint time given up cost him $40 and asked him to do the math and see if he would be willing to take a chance on pissing somebody off over $80,000 in lost profit. His answer was an astounding, "I have better things to do than get involved in an argument like this."
No wonder our industry is in the shape that it is; nitwits negotiating with other nitwits. God help us all.

Truman
04-01-2009, 03:08 PM
http://www.i-car.com/pdf/program_support/advantage/1988/mayjun88.PDF

Bill,

I've used this I-Car brochure against them for years now. In fact they don't even bother any longer arguing over something they know is a lie.

Read the bottom left of page 6 and enjoy.


T3

Dave/HI
04-01-2009, 05:09 PM
Ask the owner if he would like the tinting operation done. If he does, have him pay for it and collect from his Ins co. Once he pays for it the insurance company needs to reimburse him.

Aloha
Dave

Bill
04-01-2009, 05:54 PM
All the things that you guys frequently discuss about how to avoid arguing with insurance companies because they aren't the "real" customer, the way policies are written, etc. don't fly in the glorious state of Mississippi because it appears some insurance executive was sitting in the lap of a politician when the laws were written in my state regarding the collision repair business. Or maybe the politicians were so busy counting their money that it was representatives of the insurance industry who actually drafted these laws. The saying that the DOI is simply the insurance industry's lap dog must surely have originated here.
At any rate the law rambles on and on as laws tend to do but has a little caveat that says that an insurance company is not compelled to pay more than what is "customary" in any given market area, customary being defined by what "everybody else" is doing and what they charge. After banging my head against the wall with my state's DOI over issues like price fixing, short paying, steering, material caps, and database manipulation to the extent of being fraudulent, the final answer is always the same, " These are industry issues. If you don't like the way a company does business, don't do it." (To hell with the consumer)
I am forced to use the e-mail communications I gather against the company just as I will in this instance. I will submit a request for supplement on EVERY job that comes into my shop that involves this company asking for time to tint the color. I will then have them determine in writing that it isn't necessary from 200 miles away and after providing the I-CAR information Truman so kindly put in my hands as well as the communications between the insurance company and myself, and the "P" page explanation, I then put all this information in the hands of the customer and let them make the decision whether they join me in twisting the arm of the bully, pay it themselves, or understand that the color on their vehicle will likely be compromised because of the necessity to perform this operation. The strategy is a pain in the neck but works quite well and I don't usually have to do it but a couple of times for the bully to realize I won't cave in and they will quietly agree to pay.
As I always say, "Find a way to turn a problem around and drop it in the lap of the horse's ass that created it and it will be resloved."

Truman
04-02-2009, 09:18 AM
Ask the owner if he would like the tinting operation done. If he does, have him pay for it and collect from his Ins co. Once he pays for it the insurance company needs to reimburse him.

Aloha
Dave

Furthermore, if the customer refuses, then have them sign an hold harmless agreement and tell them to send a copy of this agreement to the insurer to be held in permanent record placing the liability for not "indemnifying" and "restoring the vehicle to pre-loss condition" squarely on the insurer's head.

The only person that promises a pre loss condition repair is the insurer's contract. Use that against them. :D