Check this out read from the bottom up ...Audatex at it's finest

surprising isn't it ....me with a thought....

Anyway we talked about you trying the DEG on this whole issue and it occurred to me.........................you know a flash bulb went off....a brain cramp and all.


Why would the DEG get any different response then I would from the providers???

Think about it......I would love to know the answer........I am sure many inquiring minds would as well...

Let me know...........get back to work

develop this software and sell it, they might actually find a product they can make a profit with......Boy would that block the insurers in their efforts to control the collision industry or what????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Cobb -ME

surprising isn't it ....me with a thought....

Anyway we talked about you trying the DEG on this whole issue and it occurred to me.........................you know a flash bulb went off....a brain cramp and all.


Why would the DEG get any different response then I would from the providers???

Think about it......I would love to know the answer........I am sure many inquiring minds would as well...

Let me know...........get back to work

---

Well Mark - that is exactly the point - isn't it? Now that you have it all meted out and are completely familiar with the issue - wouldn't it be interesting to see a different response to the DEG? Frankly - I don't have the familiarity with the issue to do it properly. And have too many other things to catch up on to be timely about it. I know you have wrung this issue out and no one would blame you if you quit with it now -but do us all a favor...

but that was my question though is why should the DEG get any different answer then I. If you don't have the time I will give it a shot. Like you it is a bit crazy but we may as well see how this industry "tool" will work on this one.

I have utilized it before but not to any satisfactory level..

By they way look through their database and pay close attention to the real in depth inquiries. The ones that require some real knowledge of a vehicle and repair...

I found it interesting.....to say the least.....

I intend on seeing where this all goes then on to the next step

Thank you Mark Cobb

We have received your inquiry and appreciate your dedication and energy to help improve collision estimating data.

The DEG will research your inquiry and will work with Audatex to identify a resolution to this issue. You will receive a seperate e-mail confirming that the inquiry has been submitted to Audatex. If the DEG Administration requires additional information regarding this operation, you may receive a follow up contact first to clarify any open items. If you would like to track the status of this update, feel free to log on to the DEG database at www.degweb.org. If you have questions regarding this inquiry, please feel free to contact DEG Administration at admin@degweb.org , and reference your inquiry via the tracking number listed below.

Sincerely,

The Database Enhancement Gateway

Today I was speaking with those involved with this issue and the discussion came around to the fact that this was a 2009 vehicle and I was told that the data providers can only then request a time study and go with the OEM data as no one has time studied the process to date.

Then discussion turned to the fact that ALL of these data providers were producing fictitious bogs data each year as no study had been done when published.

This then led to a discussion that all the data is bogus until it is studied.

So all those 2003 times.....unsubstantiated unless studied.....that means most if not all...Same for 2004 same for 1999 and so on and so on...

Think about it for a minute it is a software program based upon completely made up information.......and has been since it's inception...

Ken Klein always said that they would print the books on friday, and if no one complained on monday, the times must be ok.

the curtain on that one but it has been repeated all over the country over time...


It just needs to be really thought about. I think it is easy to say yes I knew that but take a minute and think about all the consumers that their claims are being paid with the use of these instruments that are never having their vehicles repaired. How much are consumers being defrauded with the use of this 3rd party tool???????

John Disher making one too many inquiries, so they flew him out to California, and wined and dined him.

Then shortly thereafter the rep he met with was mysteriously fired from the company.

Another Illinois shop had a similar experience with their data company years ago. Things were going well, and their issues were actually getting attention. Then one day they called an were told the man they had been communicating with was no longer with the company.

No explanations were ever given, and their issues were never addressed again. There is MAJOR fraud here. But who really cares and who is willing to stand up and take it to the next level.

One man cannot do this alone.

Many have worked on this, including you and Mark, now at least it is documented for all the world to see and so long as this site stays up it always will be........

Someone needs take it and run in the legal arena....I just hope it is in my lifetime.....


Today I got the insurers initial offer for payment to my customer...

Still missing paint on many parts ...because bogus database excludes it.......and no payment for all that diagnosis I had to do....too bad another consumer is going to be out of pocket on his claim......

off to the vehicle owner outlining those things for which he was not being paid for including my diagnositcs...he forwarded it to his insurer asking why with such bogus information from the data providers would they deny his complete amount of his claim..

Things seemed to move into overdrrive.....one call after another and all of the sudden someone is singing a different tune...more to come will let you know the outcome...

By the way still nothing from Audatex on this whole issue.......

Does anyone know how to get this topic to Erica Eversman?

Go to file, hit send either link or page, your email message pops up and put her email address and send.

Today is October 7th 2009 and no resolution. In fact not even an admission of error.

How many of these vehicles have been involved in a loss since that date...

Here's another good one....those in the know have told me that many of the Chrysler rear body panels are buried like this one...go figure common engineer, common platform ......I wonder if any ANY yes ANY of these have ever been studied and if so do those that are "making" the times have the expertise to realize this could be brand wide?????????????????

I bet they do and ...... again I say and does that make them culpable to this huge underpayment to insureds....

By the way if they don't have the expertise to realize that would they be in there position?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Cobb -ME

Today is October 7th 2009 and no resolution. In fact not even an admission of error.

How many of these vehicles have been involved in a loss since that date...

Here's another good one....those in the know have told me that many of the Chrysler rear body panels are buried like this one...go figure common engineer, common platform ......I wonder if any ANY yes ANY of these have ever been studied and if so do those that are "making" the times have the expertise to realize this could be brand wide?????????????????

I bet they do and ...... again I say and does that make them culpable to this huge underpayment to insureds....

By the way if they don't have the expertise to realize that would they be in there position?????

---

The most profound point that Mark makes is "I wonder if ANY... yes ANY of these have ever been studied...?" You would think that a few of the hundreds of DRP shops would have run into this Chrysler rear body/floor welded panel configuration and SHOULD have said something or made a similar inquiry to the info. providers. This leads me to believe that these parts were "saved" and never replaced (even when they obviously required replacement).

Low level representatives of the company will do absolutely nothing with this information. How about these directors? If the directors ignore the information, then turn to the investors. I guarantee you they will care.

http://ir.solerainc.com/phoenix.zhtm...=irol-govBoard

There are also SEC filings listed. Wonder what the SEC would think of your information Mark?

Exactly. Apply Occam's Razor - or if you like "The Law of Parsimony" (same thing). Egghead way to say "when there are two options at the truth - the most simple one is generally correct."

They call themselves the "Investor's Advocate"

http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml

of the data providers, I am locked in mortal combat with Nationwide over figuring blend time on a damaged panel. According to them, they do this on panels with less than 4 hours damage and justify it by reasoning that since color doesn'r have to be applied to the ENTIRE panel, then it is "blended", hence blend time.
I asked this silly SOB how a blend panel only takes half as much time as fully refinishing and if he really believes it takes an additional hour and a half to apply color to to the remaining area of the panel. His response? "As long as the data providers say that it takes half as much time to blend a panel, that's what we're going with."
It ended with me telling him he would be "going with" this vehicle, too, as in "Get it off my lot. I ain't doin it." They want to defend bullshit with bullshit. What sort of world do we live in?

but if you read where any of them mention blend you will see it says on undamaged panels....

At least throw their own book back at them.....

It's not like they don't know they are screwing us. It is complete waste of time trying to prove our case to many of these idiots. They don't want to hear it, be bothered with it, or respond to any evidence we may provide to support our argument. "Get this car off my lot and pay me for my time you have wasted" is much easier.
If the guy was really stupid enough to believe that it takes and additional hour and a half to apply color to the rest of a panel, he would never have been able to find his way here to begin with. It's all about "take it or leave it" power and telling the customer how unreasonable and greedy we are. If there is any evidence to present or any argument to advance, I do it with the customer. It's amazing how quickly they understand and they don't do this ever day and they actually interpret what we read exactly the same way that we do.
It's not really about the idiot I am dealing with or the idiot that he works for that probably used to be a lawyer the way they twist words around to make them conform to what they want and how they look at you when you are talking like you are speaking some language other than English. It's about the data providers that continue to advance this ridiculous concept at all. There is no magic that makes a panel take only half as much time to refinish, damaged or not. It's about pandering to the insurance side at our expense. The insurance companies want it to stay that way, so stay that way it does.
We are all aware of the studies that have been done on the subject that expose the time reduction for the fraud that it is. It isn't a stretch to believe that the software providers have seen the same studies and have ignored them? There is an ongoing conspiracy to commit fraud and we and the consumer are the victims of it, plain and simple.

Extortion be the name.

even getting a response to my emails. I have been simply asking if there have been any changes in the status of the review and it has now been 2 days no response...

I wonder what the DEG will get from them.....by the way not sure I posted this before but the DEG thought he had a similar review already come through like this a few months ago......

Mark,

Your inquiry was submitted to CCC by the DEG and we have been able to assist with a resolution. After researching the inquiry and corresponding with your Information Provider, CCC has proposed the following response. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact the DEG at admin@degweb.org.

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.'

Once again, we would like to thank you for taking the time to bring this inquiry to our attention and would like you to know that your efforts to help improve the collision estimating data are very much appreciated. We hope you will choose to continue to use www.degweb.org for any inquiries you may have in the future.

Sincerely,
Database Enhancement Gateway

Bud Center Jr.

DEG Administration



302-423-0207

302-450-7214 Fax

admin@degweb.org

www.degweb.org



"Advocates for Accurate Collision Data"

Love the whole propriety information thing, which means that our partners state that this is all we want to pay. Funny how they state the time but cant back it up with any proof.

And we are using their software .... why???? We have not developed our own.....why? Oh yeah...no unity in this business. Much like most of the problems facing this country....this one can be solved with unity. However, there is NO greater attack on the American people than that which divides us. We just don't see it because we are too busy looking at ALL our differences. Kind of like "term limits".....can we ask for any more proof as to how stupid the American people are, than to save us from ourselves?

DEG email to me....


Mark, I received a request from Audatex this afternoon for a copy of the Audatex repair estimate for this vehicle along with any additional photos and/or documentation to support your inquiry.



I understand, from our conversations on this inquiry, your reluctance to share copies of your e-mail with your contact at Chrysler but if you could provide a copy of the estimate, any additional photos you have available, and any additional supporting documentation you are comfortable sharing it would be very helpful.


My response....

Bud,

Attached is a copy of the estimate, this information is private and I would expect all parties would keep it so. Also there are 3 more pictures of the area with all panels removed. As for sharing my emails as I stated before these were private messages between myself and Chrysler and above all it is my feeling that Audatex SHOULD have established contacts with Chrysler and if in fact they do not and are not able to easily get this information then the consumers of their products should know this information.


Thank you


Mark Cobb

Cobb's Inc D/B/A Cobb's Collision Center

Accident Inspection Services

7 Heathwood Drive

Windham, ME 04062

on these issues and your responses thus far? I did send Pyle the link to this thread, and copied both you and Wade as he's still President of the AASPI. Did Pyle ever respond to you as he's listed on the DEG website, as are some of his ASA collision leadership?

http://degweb.org/Contact_Us.html

This is more troubling than we first believed. Where are the leaders on this subject, as it is something each and every collision repairer should get behind, regardless of their DRP affilliations. Consider how long this has been going on? And why should one lone shop owner out in the state of Maine be expected to spend this amount of time and effort to get answers for all of us when paid industry leaders should be running with this info????

Disgusting. Is Pyle afraid to alienate the info-providers by pressing them fearing they would no longer support NACE? Whose side are our actual leaders on?

nothing from anyone else and he is really just getting the same response as I am......

No one is stepping into the middle of this....it might ruffle some feathers......

Their contact info is listed on the DEG. Then also copy John Yoswick and Joel Gausten. I understand industry writers are busy preparing for NACE, but this goes above and beyond any convention. These are issues that require examination and addressing....YESTERDAY!

Will forward contact info you may need. But obviously they don't care to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. Totally not acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pam

Their contact info is listed on the DEG. Then also copy John Yoswick and Joel Gausten. I understand industry writers are busy preparing for NACE, but this goes above and beyond any convention. These are issues that require examination and addressing....YESTERDAY!

Will forward contact info you may need. But obviously they don't care to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. Totally not acceptable.

---

Mark if I print this whole string - would I have the whole story? Can the documents and pictures be compiled so I can drop them on somebody in a room full of folks in Vegas? I have a board meeting where we will hear from the DEG. I'd like to sit down with them and have it explained to me. If there is a Chrysler van on display am I going to be able to open the liftgate and see the issue?

in wah format?

As for seeing it...no that is the problem.......it is buried so deep in the vehicle that the hors given are not even realistic.....


Let me know I can start emailing you what Chrysler and the data providers have for photos....

Wed, 14 Oct 2009

OUR STORY COLLISIONWEEK FEATURE


Lawsuit Alleges Conspiracy Between Insurers and Estimating System Provider
California court case describes pressure from insurers to intentionally understate repair costs, along with allegations of price fixing using shop EMS data without permission, and even cost-cutting that led to accidental death of unsuspecting motorists.
More of Today's Headlines Below


That's all I can give you, the rest of the story has to be paid for...but I will pull the court filing for you so you can get the details....................................

the case involving Paramount Autobody, Mitchell, State Fraud, Repressive, AAA, and a large number of other co-conspirators? My bet is this case will never see the light of day. With someone on the inside at Mitchell participating who can name names and provide details, the guilty parties will pay millions to keep the facts from ever coming out.

The case approach is very complicated in a legal sense that will leave everyone shaking their heads and unfortunately, wrong headed for a number of reasons....suing because he has been deprived of DRP directed business? How stupid is this?

The most compelling parts are the underlying issues that are clear to me that his lawyer staff missed entirely if the snippets I have read are an accurate accounting. I can’t tell what the firm is after but man, talk about a total lack of understanding of what is really going on? (but of course, once an attorney sees those potential dollar signs, he knows it all and needs no help from the great unwashed, right Pierson?)

First is the fact he was a DRP that was involved in an adhesion contract with an insurer, an agreement that is illegal because it, as a practical matter, infringes on the rights of a consumer. But the agreement did provide him with a continual flow of work from the insurer apparently since he thinks he has damages. So he is suing because he has been deprived of business guaranteed by a contract that was illegal since the aim was to put him in a position to adjust the claim to fit the insurer demands, plus it is illegal because it restrains trade.

The second, he is suing his very own co conspirator in that scheme, who by the way has every right to sell or not sell the product anytime they wish. So his main complaint is without merit for any number of reasons.

I might add, he has no damages. In fact, he is suing because he hasn’t received his “cut” of the scheme. He is no longer a made man.

The most important thing is that this case is very useful and one I have anticipated as the best course for a long time. An actual DRP suing a party in the scheme is a huge deal even if the case is no good. It has opened in a public discourse, the exact method used by insurers to control price which is their only aim. Their specific aim is not to own shops, control shops or estimating providers or anyone else. They are merely the tools necessary to control price which is the only thing an insurer wants, using these fools as applicators and shields. But nothing could be better than a partner in crime suing another to expose the underbelly of the scheme.

In my opinion of course, not an attorney. Fortuitous and funny as hell...


Roy Smalley

Read from bottom to top again.....



Don't get me wrong I didn't find the article "significant"....amusing and relevant but not significant...

If you find a public court filing to be of such a value so be it....

It all gets out..By the way never presume anything when it involves me...you would be wrong

Keep doing what you are doing and you will keep getting what you are getting........



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

************************************************** ***************





I am very sorry you feel that way, however we are obligated to protect our subscribers.

We do not sell advertising, and it is the money from our subscribers that pays for the research and time it takes to produce this work. You must agree that it would be unfair to them if others are permitted to read for free, what they had to pay for.

It is difficult to understand how you can find our work of significant enough value that you would recommend that others read it (by posting), yet at the same time feel it is not worth contributing to our work through the purchase of a subscription.

Worse yet, you wish to "pass along information about this exchange [to those interested]" (presumably to discourage their support as well), when what we are trying to do is protect the interests of those very subscribers who paid to produce the work that you found so valuable in the first place.

Has anyone else covered this story? You can see that without CollisionWeek subscribers, you would have had no article to post.

It puts us in a difficult position I am sure you can appreciate.

Thank you for modifying your post.





-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Cobb [mailto:Mcobb@accidentinspection.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:58 AM
To: administrator@collisionweek.com
Subject: RE: Copyright Violation Notice

Unfortunately this experience has turned me off to ever purchasing a subscription. I will be sure to pass along information about this exchange to those in the industry with interest in it...




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: CollisionWeek Administrator [mailto:administrator@collisionweek.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:48 AM
To: Mcobb@accidentinspection.com
Subject: RE: Copyright Violation Notice


How you obtained the information has no bearing. If you are unsure of the origin, then to be safe you should not post it until you can verify where it came from.

But that is in a perfect world, and I can understand your error.

For your future reference, the burden of authentication falls on you, and you are held responsible for the unlawful distribution of copyrighted material no matter how you came across it. As the poster, the responsibility falls squarely on you to ensure that any material you choose to post in the public domain is free from copyright claims and represents your work.

We thank you for removing this post immediately.

For your reference you may visit www.collisionweek.com to see the original story headline, however, only Web site subscribers are able to access the full text.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Cobb [mailto:Mcobb@accidentinspection.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:53 AM
To: administrator@collisionweek.com
Subject: RE: Copyright Violation Notice

administrator@collisionweek.com,


The story was emailed to me anonymously .....no identifying information was included can you please provide me with some authentication of your copyright on this story?


Thank you




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: CollisionWeek Administrator [mailto:administrator@collisionweek.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:39 AM
To: Mcobb@accidentinspection.com
Subject: Copyright Violation Notice



Mr Cobb,

Please immediately remove your post on the pro-discussions board that contains a copy of our copyrighted article published on October 14

Our article:
Lawsuit Alleges Conspiracy Between Insurers and Estimating System Provider

Your post:
Mark Cobb -ME 10-15-2009 06:58 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Interesting timing wouldn't you say.......
Lawsuit Alleges Conspiracy Between Insurers and Estimating System Provider

Mark:

Their "selective" enforcement of "copyright privileges" is almost comical. If they stopped for two seconds to think about it, offering an article to non-subscribers has far more opportunity to turn them into future subscribers; assuming readers find the article informative and timely. The heavy-handed
approach has far more potential to not only turn off "prosective" subscribers; but to also cost them existing subscribers who will choose not to renew. Great job, CollisionWeek!

Instead of the guy at CollusionWeek having a fit, insisting that if he ain't makin' money, he doesn't want any information he may have published to be shared, he could have taken credit for the information and suggested that if folks wanted to get the scoop first hand instead of by way of hearsay, they could subscribe to his rag. That would certainly pique my interest.
I heard about it and told someone else about it, so do the folks who read about it have to agree to keep it secret? If so, how long is something like this supposed to remain a secret?

is no better than its sources. I find it interesting that the Collisionweek folks find it important to visit ProD on a frequent basis... are they looking for copyright violations or stories?

Hey! Thrall, here is a lead that may interest you.
Something for Russell :D

Roy... If I lived another 100 years, I don't think I could have heard a better analysis of this debacle. Amen, touche, and point blank reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admin

The case approach is very complicated in a legal sense that will leave everyone shaking their heads and unfortunately, wrong headed for a number of reasons....suing because he has been deprived of DRP directed business? How stupid is this?

The most compelling parts are the underlying issues that are clear to me that his lawyer staff missed entirely if the snippets I have read are an accurate accounting. I can’t tell what the firm is after but man, talk about a total lack of understanding of what is really going on? (but of course, once an attorney sees those potential dollar signs, he knows it all and needs no help from the great unwashed, right Pierson?)

First is the fact he was a DRP that was involved in an adhesion contract with an insurer, an agreement that is illegal because it, as a practical matter, infringes on the rights of a consumer. But the agreement did provide him with a continual flow of work from the insurer apparently since he thinks he has damages. So he is suing because he has been deprived of business guaranteed by a contract that was illegal since the aim was to put him in a position to adjust the claim to fit the insurer demands, plus it is illegal because it restrains trade.

The second, he is suing his very own co conspirator in that scheme, who by the way has every right to sell or not sell the product anytime they wish. So his main complaint is without merit for any number of reasons.

I might add, he has no damages. In fact, he is suing because he hasn’t received his “cut” of the scheme. He is no longer a made man.

The most important thing is that this case is very useful and one I have anticipated as the best course for a long time. An actual DRP suing a party in the scheme is a huge deal even if the case is no good. It has opened in a public discourse, the exact method used by insurers to control price which is their only aim. Their specific aim is not to own shops, control shops or estimating providers or anyone else. They are merely the tools necessary to control price which is the only thing an insurer wants, using these fools as applicators and shields. But nothing could be better than a partner in crime suing another to expose the underbelly of the scheme.

In my opinion of course, not an attorney. Fortuitous and funny as hell...


Roy Smalley

---