Check this out read from the bottom up ...Audatex at it's finest
Robert,
As bad as this vehicle is in your database I am absolutely amazed that this does not have far more urgency on it. I have been able to communicate almost daily with Chrysler and I have obtained an overwhelming amount of information regarding this issue. Your data is so skewered is could not even be classified as close. Your theory and process of establishing the data is even more concerning. This issue alone is costing claimants and insured thousands on each claim,
With all your credentials displayed so proudly on your signature it only concerns me more that this is not being expedited.
I anxiously await your resolution to this issue. I believe you will se how embarrassing this is especially for a provider like Audatex that develops its repair data from the inside out....
Sincerely,
Mark Cobb
Cobb's Inc D/B/A Cobb's Collision Center
Accident Inspection Services
7 Heathwood Drive
Windham, ME 04062
207-892-5795
207-892-5796 Fax
************************************************** **************
Please Note The information in this E-mail message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender. Thank you
************************************************** ***************
-----Original Message-----
From: AXUS RFR Group [Audatex - Americas] [mailto:RFRGroup@audatex.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:47 PM
To: Mcobb@accidentinspection.com
Subject: RE: Request for Review
Mark, To date we have been unable to obtain any information directly from Chrysler and are presently in process of locating a vehicle to perform a field audit on. We will reply back as soon as the audit is completed and any necessary adjustments have been made.
Robert C. Sandkaut
Manager Database U.S.
RFR Coordinator
ASE Master Collision Repair/Refinishing Technician
ASE Repair/Estimating Specialist
ASE Automobile Parts Specialist
I-CAR Platinum Individual
Audatex, a Solera Company
15030 Avenue of Science suite 100
San Diego CA, 92128
858 724 1600
www.audatex.us
Intelligence. Built In.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Cobb [mailto:Mcobb@accidentinspection.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:58 AM
To: AXUS RFR Group [Audatex - Americas]
Subject: RE: Request for Review
Dan,
Have you heard anything?
I am deep into this and can gaurantee you that Audatex has overlooked many items in this process.
Please let me know where this stands
Thanks
Mark Cobb
Cobb's Inc D/B/A Cobb's Collision Center
Accident Inspection Services
7 Heathwood Drive
Windham, ME 04062
207-892-5795
207-892-5796 Fax
************************************************** **************
Please Note The information in this E-mail message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender. Thank you
************************************************** ***************
-----Original Message-----
From: AXUS RFR Group [Audatex - Americas] [mailto:RFRGroup@audatex.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 11:40 AM
To: Mcobb@accidentinspection.com
Subject: RE: Request for Review
Mark,
If they send you any info, I would appreciate it if you can forward it to me, so I can compare what we get.
thanks,
Dan laurino
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Cobb [mailto:Mcobb@accidentinspection.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 6:37 AM
To: AXUS RFR Group [Audatex - Americas]
Subject: RE: Request for Review
Thanks Dan,
Chrysler says your information is way off. Sending me some information.
Mark Cobb
Cobb's Inc D/B/A Cobb's Collision Center
Accident Inspection Services
7 Heathwood Drive
Windham, ME 04062
207-892-5795
207-892-5796 Fax
************************************************** **************
Please Note The information in this E-mail message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender. Thank you
************************************************** ***************
-----Original Message-----
From: AXUS RFR Group [Audatex - Americas] [mailto:RFRGroup@audatex.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:30 AM
To: Mcobb@accidentinspection.com
Subject: RE: Request for Review
Mark,
Received your inquiry, assigned to a technician for resolution on RFR# 302987.
Thanks,
Dan Laurino
RFR Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Cobb [mailto:Mcobb@accidentinspection.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 10:43 AM
To: AXUS RFR Group [Audatex - Americas]
Subject: RE: Request for Review
Dan,
Attached is a photo of the "lower panel" or "Rear Body Panel Reinforcement" as Audatex references it. Can you tell me how the right and left ends of the panel are accessed without cutting the entire rear apart? I think you can see at least one end in the picture for reference. Inside of the panel the welded floor pan is within 2 inches of the panel.
I am not sure you and I are focused on the same situation and if you could call me or I could call you it might be better.
By the way I researched Chrysler and there are no OEM service procedures for this panel on their website.
Mark Cobb
Cobb's Inc D/B/A Cobb's Collision Center
Accident Inspection Services
7 Heathwood Drive
Windham, ME 04062
207-892-5795
207-892-5796 Fax
************************************************** **************
Please Note The information in this E-mail message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender. Thank you
************************************************** ***************
-----Original Message-----
From: AXUS RFR Group [Audatex - Americas] [mailto:RFRGroup@audatex.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 1:00 PM
To: Mcobb@accidentinspection.com
Subject: RE: Request for Review
Mark,
We have reviewed the OEM service procedure for rear body panel replacement of (g/n's 335/315) and according to the procedure we have
addressed all the required tasks necessary to complete the total operation. I have attached a labor report of theses two guide numbers which show the included task to remove the rear bumper assembly and allowing 4.9hrs of welding time for the two panels. At the present time based on this service
procedure we feel the labor time is sufficient. No other changes warranted at this time.
Thanks,
Dan Laurino
RFR Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mcobb@accidentinspection.com [mailto:Mcobb@accidentinspection.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:50 AM
To: AXUS RFR Group [Audatex - Americas]
Subject: Request for Review
Name/Contact: Mark Cobb
Phone Number: 207-892-5795
Client Name: Mark Cobb
Fax:
Street Address: 7 Heathwood Drive
City: Windham
State: ME
Zip: 04062
Client ID:
Supplier PXN ID:
Supplier Name:
Vehicle Year/Make/Model: 2009 Dodge Caravan
Audatex Vehicle ID and Options:
VIN: 2D8HN44E69R539258
Log number and Host:
CD Worksheet Date:
Insurance Company:
Op Code: 22 E
Guide Number: 335
Time on Estimate: 7.2
Reason For Request: This panel requires removal of other parts to complete. I would like to know if there has been a time study and what other parts need to be removed in order to complete this process
Op Code: 25 E
Guide Number: 315
Time on Estimate: 2.1
Reason For Request: This panel requires removal of other parts to complete. I would like to know if there has been a time study and what other parts need to be removed in order to complete this process this panel is actually in behind the 2 corner structures and the rear floor pan. Please advise as to what processes went into the 2.1 labor designation
Op Code:
Guide Number:
Time on Estimate:
Reason For Request:
Op Code:
Guide Number:
Time on Estimate:
Reason For Request:
Op Code:
Guide Number:
Time on Estimate:
Reason For Request:
General Comments or Request: I am requesting documentation for these 2 procedures. Please reply immediately Thank you
None of them deal with it accurately but....
only Audatex sells their system to work from the inside out. The other 2 do reference some additional items but I intend to do an inquiry to both to see how they respond........
Fact is that Chrysler is going to use the info to present to their engineers for the next model change due to the excessive labor needed to get to this part...
I would love to see this all put into a court room. These products are so flawed that any other item would result in product liability issues.....but again insurers have shielded themselves from consumers by pointing at shops as the ones that developed the costs.....But soon and I mean really soon these systems will be so integrated into the claims process that a good attorney could easily use them against an insurer in an action of fraudulently settling claims.....In my opinion of course.....
Go for it Wade....I have used that route
but have seen it also travel painfully slow......
It is way out of the box now.........But to be blunt and honest.....does anyone believe this was just ONE overlooked part?
In my case this was such a blatantly
obvious spot where these issues can be pointed out. I laugh when we see overlap everyday but we never see an addition for multiple panel replacement.
I love it when they put 2.0 here and 3.0 there but forget to add anything for the degree of difficulty when you are assembling multiple panels as opposed to the changing of that one panel...
For me it was just about the customer paying me correctly but what arose was a chance to see if any legal types might finally see what a product defect we have going..
And someday maybe they will realize how this product is being used to defraud the consumer and their right to recovery in a claim......
Oh by the way....the fact that these data providers do not have direct contact with manufacturers should be a telling sign don't you think......Are there any lawyers out there reading this stuff....that's right we have
DATA PROVIDERS THAT ARE DEVELOPING CLAIMS SETTLEMENT SOFTWARE BASED ON FICTIOUS DATA....................WAKE UP SOMEONE......
Mr. Cobb, your information
needs to be brought to the attention of Mr. Eric Holder. I understand he's very interested in these types of behaviors taking place within our industry.
Pardon my ignorance but although I recognize
the name I can't place the face. Can you give me some contact info....I am not sure that Mr. Holder or anyone at this point could handle the documentation I have on this issue. If Roy and others remember I have some pretty juicy stuff from Turri as well....And many of these inquries..or discussions in writing I might call them...
As for needing to be reminded or taught about these software programs be assured I have myself covered....but like Roy said if it was going to be done it would have been done by now.....I wish a few more other then the few I know would have stood up years ago......
But as they say you can lead them to water.....but drowning them might be easier then getting them to drink....
OK so I tossed you guys a bone
doesn't anyone have some more direct and personal contact info on Holder..........
Or are we not in that close of a relationship with him or his underlings yet????
Nobody said they were ever fair
My point about the time studies is that they went from very bad to even worse. Everybody knows the ridiculous fact that they allegedly disassembled/reassembled undamaged vehicles, now they don't even bother to either go through the motion or take the trouble to lie about it. Now we are being screwed in the missionary position instead of being assaulted from behind.
The data providers are clearly pandering to the insurance team and no longer feel the need to hide it.......afterall, what can we do about it? I was an advocate of dumping CCC enmasse when they were caught in bed with Nationwide, not because they were any worse than the others, but because it was an opportunity to ring their bell that we spend our money with them too and can make a difference to their bottom line if they think that only what the insurance industry wants matters.
The ambiguity of these programs is deliberate so that insurance adjusters can play the "stupid" game and isn't it amazing how every single one of them is Johnny on the spot when it comes to picking up on anything that creates a reduction in time but the same damned program can't figure out how to automatically add?
I took it to Mitchell and Motors today
Mitchells said 2.0 with upper panel removed......doesn't mention the other 8 panels that need to be removed to get to it....ongoing with them and should be interesting they too used the weld count line sheets to develop the numbers and as I was told the guy, yes one guy, that does the data entry and formulation of numbers must of used the Chrysler run sheets with all the hidden welds to develop those numbers....
I can tell you right now these companies are ripe for the picking...you can't make this stuff up......but they are....right from the seat of their pants.....Mark your calendar........they are ripe for the picking
Gee, where's the DEG when ya need them?
Isn't this the type of information they have requested? But then again, one look at how this group is structured and who funds them, makes one question their effectiveness.
http://degweb.org/Links.html
Wow, and take a look at this cast of characters:
http://degweb.org/Contact_Us.html
Now someone remind me how many years we've been trying to bring issues to their attention without any substantial success??? Heck, by now I'm thinking of retiring. And some of these people are much older than me. :D
Hadn't look lately....of course now I am more skeptical
then ever before.....Isn't that the ASA board? These guys ever have time to repair a car these days?
Who is Bud by the way? Anyone have any info on him?
I let Wade have the DEG...I am having too
much fun with the data providers directly....I sent off about 40 pictures today of the process......very detailed seems these data providers don't have a contact at any of the OEM's and one told me that "ONE" guy did their data figures.....each year...
SCRS is one of the sponsors of DEG...
...and what a surprise (for you Mark P.!) to see so many data providers listed as sponsors. So just how far would they EVER push any issues?
http://www.scrs.com/corporatemembers.htm
Gee, and our old industry friend Rick Turri is listed, and he's now with Audatex. It's a small world afterall! :D
Mitchell am I really hearing this correctly.....
This can't be real.......Body men out of the industry as late as 2 years ago looking at pictures and developing times........I need to start by saying that Greg was quick to respond and has told me they will be taking their note off the part and raising the time slightly......this is only a slight step in the right direction as I informed him that the part was far more labor intensive then they had addressed and that I was Master Certified so I might qualify as an "average technician".
But to go on and hear that they do not use any type of science and have no real direct contact with the OEM's minus going to their websites and seeing what they publish....and scary and sad.....
Using prior year models and similar vehicles is what I am told...no matter that they are not built the same and have no real bearing....
Lastly the discussion goes to the systems being used as a bible.....I am being told that is not Mitchell and they do not tell anyone that....This is a guide only....but I could not get a satisfactory answer why it was necessary to alert anyone when a "time" was changed....I said at least make it a user option to turn off and on...why do I care if I change a bogus time and make it right why should it have some big flag on it..........
Is anyone out there looking at these products? Roy after so many years you may have been right all along...maybe more from the quality of the product stand point more then anything but the key might just be in the companies.....
We need to contact John Disher....
..as he must have decades of information, documentation and communication during his many years regarding the fraud he uncovered by the data providers. Everyone could chip in on this effort, as it's certainly an issue which effects us all, including the CONSUMER!
Still waiting for Ron Pyle to respond to this issue, as he's listed on the DEG website, and his national association is one of the sponsors of DEG. But then there's that pesky conflict of interest between NACE and the data providers.
Time for transparency all the way around.
Mitchells written response
Mark, we have updated the labor time for the Lower Liftgate Opening Panel, per your input, and removed attached labor note as follows. User to refer to Labor General Information for operations not included in labor time.
Panel, Liftgate Opening
Lower.....3.5
https://www.mitchell.com/support/kb/.../NEWPPAGES.pdf
Labor General Information
LABOR TIMES: THE LABOR TIMES SHOWN IN THE GUIDE ARE IN HOURS AND TENTHS OF AN HOUR (6 MINUTES) AND ARE FOR REPLACEMENT WITH NEW, UNDAMAGED PARTS FROM THE VEHICLE MANUFACTURER ON A NEW, UNDAMAGED VEHICLE. Any additional time needed for collision DAMAGE ACCESS, ALIGNMENT PULLS, NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT or USED PARTS should be agreed upon by all parties. Times for some operations are applicable after necessary bolted, attached or related parts have been removed. Exceptional circumstances, including all the sub-operations or extra operations, are indicated as notes throughout the text or are identified in the Procedure Explanations. The actual time taken by individual repair facilities to replace collision damaged parts can be expected to vary due to severity of collision, vehicle condition, equipment used, etc.
LABOR CATEGORIES: The labor times shown in the Guide fall into various categories (for example: body, frame, mechanical) as determined by the repair facility's operating procedures. As a guide, components for which R&I or R&R is commonly considered to be a mechanical operation when performed in a collision repair environment are designated with the letter "m" in the text. These designations are only a guide. They are not necessarily all inclusive, nor do they suggest the application of a labor rate.
WELDED PANELS: Replacement labor times for new panels that are joined by welding include the necessary use of inserts and accepted sectioning guidelines developed by OEMs, I-CAR, and TECH-COR. The labor times for welded panels include grinding, filling and final sanding with up to 150 grit sandpaper to match the original panel contour. Labor times do Not-Include the Feather, Prime and Block refinish operation. See Feather, Prime and Block.
ADHESIVE PANEL BONDING: Replacement labor times for panel bonding include all necessary weld applications identified by adhesive material manufacturers and OEM guidelines. Users should reference best practices procedures from bonding material manufacturers and/ or OEM guidelines before selecting this replacement method option.
SHOP MATERIAL: The labor times shown in the Guide do not take into account the cost of any materials, or the cost of hazardous materials recycling or disposal.
DISABLE and ENABLE AIR BAG SYSTEM: The labor times shown in the guide represent the procedures necessary to disable and enable the air bag system in order to replace air bag system components and/or to perform repairs not related to the air bag system; e.g., welding. This procedure includes visually monitoring the air bag warning light to verify proper system functionality. The allowance does not include trouble shooting of the system if proper system functionality is not present.
DIAGNOSE AIR BAG SYSTEM: The labor times shown in the guide to diagnose air bag systems include system disable and enable, removal and installation of air bag module(s) (where required), installation of appropriate simulators, and retrieving and clearing of trouble codes. Time for specific troubleshooting of Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) is not included.
GLASS LABOR TIMES: The labor times shown in the Guide for glass listed with the NAGS part numbers are Mitchell times, not times from NAGS. Glass labor times are for remove and replace (R&R), i.e., removal of the existing glass and its replacement with new glass. Some glass labor times are also shown for removal and the later installation (R&I) of the same glass.
STRIPES, DECALS and OVERLAYS: The labor times shown in the Guide for these items refer to installation only.
TECH-COR REPAIR INFORMATION: The labor times shown in the Guide for TECH-COR repair procedures are supplied by Mitchell. TECH-COR does not endorse, sanction or otherwise approve such times. TECH-COR publications are copyrighted material. However, reproduction of TECH-COR bulletins is permitted as long as the bulletin is reproduced in its entirety, including source attribution. TECH-COR bulletins may be obtained be
contacting: TECH-COR, Inc., Technical Communications Dept., 100 East Palatine Road, Wheeling, IL 60090; Phone: 847-667-2341.
BASE MODEL VEHICLE: Vehicle with the minimal level of equipment available from the manufacturer.
TYPES OF VEHICLES: The types of vehicles covered are regular production models only.
COMPREHENSIVE LABOR TIME: While completeness is strived for in each Guide, there will be instances in which a labor time has not been established for an operation. If an item requires replacement and is being replaced as an individual item but shows no time, a time should be agreed upon among all parties and recorded on the damage report. It also should not be inferred that a component with no established Mitchell labor time has been included in another component's replacement allowance.
PROCEDURE REFERENCE: Throughout each vehicle "service'' there are Procedure Explanation reference notes located immediately following the main section headings. Example: BUMPER/FRONT PANEL is followed by, "Use Procedure Explanations 1, 3 and 28 with the following text.'' This indicates that the text portion and the Procedure Explanations for Front Bumper, Front Panel and Refinish should be used in conjunction with one another when writing a damage report. LABOR RELATED NOTES IN THE TEXT PORTION OVERRIDE THE PROCEDURE EXPLANATION PAGES.
PROCEDURES: The Procedure Explanations on the following pages outline the operations which are or are not included in the labor time listed in each vehicle "service.'' You are encouraged to become familiar with these procedure pages to be sure you have a thorough understanding of the Mitchell approach to collision estimating.
The left Included Operations column means that the labor time shown in the Mitchell Collision Estimating Guide text includes that particular operation or operations.
The right Not Included Operations column means that the labor time in the text does not include that particular operation or operations. Performance of one or more of these operations may or may not be necessary as determined by the individual job requirements. If an add-on time has been established for any of these operations it will be shown in the text. If a time has not been established or if the add-on time is dependent on conditions that vary due to collision damage (example: access time, free up parts), the additional time should be recorded on the damage report. Labor times relating to the repair of a damaged panel or the use of used parts would come under this category.
Additions to Labor Times
Due to the wide range of collision damage and vehicle conditions, labor times for the following operations are not included in the Guide.
* ACCESS TIME: Remove extensively damaged parts by cutting, pushing, pulling, etc.
* ANTI-CORROSION RUST RESISTANT MATERIAL: Remove and/or apply weldable zinc primers, wax, petroleum based coatings, undercoating or any type of added conditioning.
* BROKEN GLASS CLEAN UP
* DETAIL: Clean vehicle to pre-accident condition.
* DRAIN & REFILL: Fuel (see fuel tank)
* ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS:
* Time to remove and install as necessary, includes wiring and/or wiring harness and computer module.
* Time to reset memory code function (example: seat position, radio
presets) when battery has been disconnected to perform repairs.
* Time to complete computer relearn procedures for proper operation of vehicle systems (example: power sunroof, power window) when battery has been disconnected to perform repairs.
* FABRICATION: Fabrication of reinforcements or inserts (new component not cut or manufactured from existing or new part, but from raw stock).
* FREE UP PARTS: Time necessary to free up parts frozen by rust or corrosion.
* MEASURE AND IDENTIFY: Structural damage by comparing vehicle underbody, underhood, and upperbody reference points to accepted, OEM-based dimension specifications to identify damage to unibody vehicles.
* PLUG AND FINISH HOLES: Time to plug and finish unneeded holes on parts being installed.
* REPAIR OR ALIGN: Parts adjacent to parts being replaced.
* REWORK PARTS: To fit a particular year or model (example: cutting holes for lamps, modifying a radiator support).
* TAR AND GREASE: Removal of these or any other materials that would interfere with operation.
* TRANSFER TIME: For welded, riveted or bonded brackets, braces or reinforcements from old part to new part.
This might be the best one of all CCC....or at least to date...read carefully what
they wrote in the email to me...............I have had no calls, no correspondence with them other then my inquiry for them to research this...
CCC Information Services Inc. closed your Database Inquiry as detailed below.
Web Tracking Number: 15239722
Vehicle: DR3TE08 2008-2010 CHRY CARAVAN TOWN & COUNTRY
Inquiry: The database does not correctly identify the labor needed or the procedrues necessary to replace this panel. Please advise. How was the labor arrived at for this panel and what do you have to support that information.
Content Verification:
Estimated Release Date: Closed
Research Response: MOTOR stated:
'After review of the OEM replacement procedure for the Lower Panel, we have determined that the estimated work time of 1.5 hours applied to the Lower Panel is appropriate.
Please note that the ESTIMATED Work Times published by MOTOR for the 2009 Dodge Grand Caravan were compiled from several independent sources and internal processes. Those elements are then combined by the MOTOR Database Development staff and used to produce MOTOR Collision Estimating Data. Each MOTOR estimated time is the product of numerous sources. Source elements relied upon are: O.E.M. Warranty Times, Operation Procedural Analysis, Technician Operation Familiarity Analysis, MOTOR Historical Database Analysis, User Input and Operation Observance.
A detailed explanation of how we used source elements to arrive at the CED Estimated Work times for the 2009 Dodge Grand Caravan is considered proprietary information. An itemized list of procedures with correlating work times used to develop the Estimated Work Times for the 2009 Dodge Grand Caravan is considered proprietary information. No changes.'
Do not respond to this e-mail address. Please contact Technical Support with questions and comments.
The information contained here may reflect information that is provided subject to theCCC Information Services Inc. license agreement that governs the use of this data.Use of this information is intended for purposes of using estimates generated by CCCPathways® and CCC Comp-Est™ licensed users and others who are recipients of CCCPathways® and CCC Comp-Est™ estimates.
"proprietary information"
Their choice of using the phrase "proprietary information" in this situation is tantamount to an admission that they cannot defend their position.
Lets look at the CCC response that applies to all of them
[QUOTE=Mark Cobb -ME;2571]they wrote in the email to me...............I have had no calls, no correspondence with them other then my inquiry for them to research this...
From Websters: Estimate---an approximate judgment or opinion; calculate approximately; to form an opinion of; judge.
Webster's: Approximate--nearly exact; not perfectly accurate.
Webster's: Nearly--all but; almost; approximation; a nearly perfect likeness
Webster's: Guess---an opinion without sufficient evidence.
Webster's: Judgement--the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion or conclusion; form an opinion objectively or wisely.
Websters: Guide--to assist in reaching a destination; to force a person to take a certain path; to supply a person with advice or counsel. A book or pamphlet with information, instructions or advice.
But the one I use and like is "almost nearly, but not quite hardly".:D
Let's be clear here. There are two issues. One is absolutely definable; the other is judgmental. Content of the operation and labor.
Labor in a repeatable process (which doesn't include collision repair for many reasons) is an estimate,and the accuracy of the estimate is dependent upon a scientific approach analyzing every direct and indirect item that affects the production of the 'unit'. In a manufacturing operation, such a time would be a standard or a goal but recognizing there might be variances along the way. Variances would normally be measured in seconds and sometimes less than seconds. Normally a variance of 2% would be cause for another 'evaluation'. So labor time as defined by an estimating provider that varies in terms of 10, 30, 50 or 80% of what it should be, is NOT a guide, nor even a good guess, and does not meet the definition of estimate or guide. And in this business because you MUST use the estimating platform in order to deal with insurers, it is a STANDARD, or a directed amount.
Now, as for content of operations that is a horse of a different color. An operation leave no room for any judgment from a technical basis on what has to be replaced..the parts. If an operation for a structure replacement, it is fixed with the best source being how it was done by, or recommended by the factory. If the estimating system does not include all the operations, it is a fraud, regardless of any excuse the estimating provider may come up with since Cobbs example is not an isolated case; the majority follow the same pattern of omission.
As for proprietary, probably what they intend to mean is to not let their competitors know. Another would be, hey, we get some of the information from insurers!
Lets face it folks, you are getting screwed twice, at least. Once, not enough operations; twice, the time is inaccurate AND NEVER WILL BE accurate regardless of how many operations are included, or not. Of course there are a couple of other screwings you get in terms of calculations on paint and materials and who knows what. I definitely don't want to get into paint, paint materials.
So just what is an estimating system? And why is it the way it is...what is the purpose?
These guys make it all possible........
Of course, I don't know anything for sure. Just an estimate like their's.
Lets simplify things further for your notebook
It is impossible to replace this said part without removing the following parts.
Outer rear body panel
Left Trough
Right Trough
Rear body opening panel
Right rear body opening panel extension
Left rear body opening panel extension
Left rear body upper reinforcement
Right rear body upper reinforcement
Right quarter panel outer
Left quarter panel outer
Rear body MPM Laminate metal tub
No discussion.....no debate, Chrysler verified and actual hands on verified.
Therefore any company...any company..yes I said any company that writes a labor process to settle a claim has a duty to include the complete costs to do this. None...yes I said none have done so. They have all only included the actual time to replace this said panel and that is greatly deficient and this goes for their entire product when any item cannot be changed singularly by itself....on any car...
Therefore consumers are being defrauded of their right to recovery for their damage anytime this panel is determined to need replacement and this complete "time" is not included. Every time .........especially any time they don't actually have their vehicle repaired and insurers set that settlement amount...
Insured's company is paying loss at fault company
has refused to inspect the vehcle claiming they saw all they needed to see in the initial inspection. Difference between both companies claim amount is approximately $5000.00
How about just a software program
that told you what panels needed to be removed to replace any one panel. I don't care about times or accuracy of times....that is up to me to develop a cost of repairs I just want data that is correct and inclusive of all panels when one needs to be replaced.
I am not looking either at anything that gives me someones opinion or opinion of what they feel needs to be done to change that panel. I have the OEM's for that.........
I want a scientific approach to a software program that tells me what parts are covered by what other parts then I can do the rest...parts prices are nice of course also...