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

Rear body panel


Take a look at this list and tell me you can do this welded on panel in 5.1 hours.

Removal and reinstall of below is required:
Rear bumper cover
Rear bumper absorber
Rear bumper impact bar
Rear seat to remove both trim panels
Necessary seat belts to remove seat and panels
Right rear interior trim panel
Left rear interior trim panel
Rear body interior luggage storage box left
Rear body interior luggage storage box right
Rear body interior storage box center
Rear body tonneau cover
Spare tire
Rear body floor cover
Right rear taillamp
Left rear taillamp
Wiring rear body
Rear body panel


Motors sure doesn't agree with Audatex....nor do I...

Interesting that all this combined labor seems to make it easier to reduce the total a little here and a little there.....

Still waiting on the Lexus and of course any reply on the incomplete Caravan response....but that shouldn't surprise anyone.....

Audatex my documentation from Chrysler as they say they can't be thorough with out all the information. I already sent pictures that completey dispute their theory....This is on the 2009 Caravan....

My reply was I would be happy to supply them if they would also supply me with theirs as to why they were not considering the removal of the quarters for this process as well as how they developed their theory of repair to being with..

The response I got back is that Audatex has a contract with the OEMS that does not allow them to give out that information. Remember in all this I was told Audatex does not have a communication link with Chrysler...even though I was talking to them hourly at one time......

Now I am being told that Chrysler is preventing them from showing me how Audatex came up with the numbers they did......What a bunch of bull......

I told them that the legal inquiries I was getting about my documentation were probably a safer bet for really making a change and unless they showed me theirs I would hold onto mine and get them to someone that could make a difference.....

But remember I produced pictures that showed exactly why the quarters needed to be removed...as well as other panels......but I guess Audatex can't find anymore 2009 Dodge Caravans out there.........

Keep going.......

...can you imagine how far our industry would have come by this time? Too bad Pyle didn't read and offer his commentary on your efforts and documention. After all, he's involved in the DEG, as well as President of the ASA.

Where are all the industry writers on this? Must still all be recovering frm NACE. As if!

and their getting sloppy with the answers. I've heard they do time studies, and they don't. They use OEM data, and they don't. They build different versions of a program, and they don't.

The data providers have been in a superposition of states for decades and now that Cobb guy wants to "open the box" and collapse the wave function.

http://www.brainofshawn.com/wp-conte...ers-lolcat.jpg

Mark, you are doing it all wrong!

According to Mitchell International's "Content Concierge Service" all you have to do to get OEM repair guide lines, is to access their site and they will get back to you in abiout an hour.

I don't have their service, so I will check bact in with you in about an hour for the proper way to do the rear body panel. :D :confused: :p

at the http://www.nastf.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1 site you can pay for a day or a year for whatever brand you want and get it right from the manufacturer...................but this one won't be there......

Same as Alldata etc they only have a portion of the info....all of it is here if the manufacturer has posted any........

I find paying on an as needed basis is allot cheaper then buying any of those partial services....

Audatex on the right rear rail extension that supposedly includes everything including the removal of the rear suspension and fuel ....the part pays 4.2 and the rear suspension removal 3.8................do that math...

This system is truly funky......had an independent appraiser tell me today he has to overwrite all kinds of things.....said he just did a 08 Corolla with sway shop wanted to remove a fender for some pull....Hood without hinges was 1.7 each hinge added .3 and get this says includes removal of the fender....Fender shows 2.3 on its own......make that math work for you....

Everytime the Allstate appraiser added a part today it reduced the labor.....he left with a minu and 20 more lines...

The owner was all over him...saw what it was doing.........

Really and the appraiser couldn't answer how a bumper at 1 and a fender at 2.0 could go to 1.0 total when you do both of them.......

The system is really working against the repairer.......

I can't take anymore supplements from an insurer using Audatex they cost me too much when they pay them......lol

I went back to Audatex after a year with CCC (Ultramate is out of the question) and have experienced just the opposite of what you are seeing. There is an insurance company that I do work for that runs all my estimates through CCC, which is their provider of choice. They do this because, while I am not a DRP shop for them, they convert what I have written on Audatex to CCC for internal tracking purposes.
They copy my estimates line for line, item by item, and their "converted" estimate always comes up short of mine. I have also taken a number of Mitchell estimates and done some converting myself and the same estimate written on Audatex is generally higher.
I wonder if we are seeing the results of a "manipulated" program, which is not always clearly recognizeable.

I wonder if we are seeing the results of a "manipulated" program.

Don't we all.

I have Mithcell and Adp. The Adp estimates always are a little higher than Ultramate. The same estimate written by the ins co in CCC is ALWAYS the lowest. I beleive that all three are insurance whores and that CCC spends the most time in bed with them.

I would be interested to see the content of both just for the education of it...

No harm intended just interested what I might learn......

I am expecting one back today that was an 8k sheet.

Great news Mark!

Your inquiry was submitted to Audatex by the DEG and we have been able to assist with a resolution. After researching the inquiry and corresponding with your Information Provider, Audatex has proposed the resolution listed below which is scheduled to be added to the January 2010 update. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact the DEG at admin@degweb.org.

Resolution:

We have reviewed the current OEM service procedure for the replacement of the PNL, WHEELHOUSE OUTER (GN 0441,0442). The labor allowance has been updated from 19.1hours and 17.9 hours to 22.9 hours and 21.8 hours to reflect the current OEM procedure.


The change will appear on the January 2010 release.

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

what the hell Mark? That ain't much....and I bet it is still way short.

I may be the only one, but again you the subscriber gets no respect but this 'agency' is able to get it how quick? Something doesn't smell right.

On the other hand another smelley...now where have I heard that before?.....thing is by going to the DEG and providing them with what they need to function...a request....is this helping them cement their "place" in the industry?

Very smelley.....I wonder what and who is really behind the DEG....it sure ain't altruistic Sue.

On the other hand, is this a way to show "the industry" is working together to make the system dejour.....the estimating thingy, worthwhile and just "little" errors that "hey, we fix em when we find em"?

I think the whole thing should be thrown out, and the sooner the better for everyone.

Competition is the best determinant of price. Not a system that is under such rigorous control that it takes 8 years to correct an error which is probably symptomatic of every operation on every car, and initiated by a user? Fits hand in glove with the insurer determining the cost of repairs before the fact, an impossible task, and an illegal one when they force the use of an impossibly flawed data provider industry that can never provide a useable price matrix, a force backed by the real threat of lost business. You use my beer, or I breaka your legs. Someone tell me there is a difference.

In my opinion, of course.

Roy Smalley

have a few savvy wordsmiths too.

"We have reviewed the current OEM service procedure for the replacement of the PNL, WHEELHOUSE OUTER (GN 0441,0442). The labor allowance has been updated from 19.1hours and 17.9 hours to 22.9 hours and 21.8 hours to reflect the current OEM procedure."

Is it just me, or does the use of the word "current" destroy the "eight years to fix" argument. Just my thoughts.

and complete product. Their premise that they conduct "time studies" puts this square into their lap......

Besides they would have to prove as well that Lexus just released a new procedure to replace this same wheel house that has been produced for 8 or 9 years now...as even a partial arguement but then again...you have those hands on "time studies" that trump it every time....

Nice try but only an OEM could get away with that....lol

I wonder what ever happened on this?

Roy

Collision Industry Conference

Anti-Fraud Committee

www.ciclink.com

Contact:

Gary Wano Jr.
GW & Son’s Auto Body
P.O. Box 13036,
Oklahoma City, OK 73113
405-751-1337
garywano@gwandson.com

or

Bill Garoutte
Elite Dent Alliance
2272 South Celebration Avenue
Springfield, MO 65809
(866) 332-4245
billg@elitedent.com


October 26, 2006


Study: Insurers’ Lowball Estimates Cost Consumers, Government Millions of Dollars

Consumers and the government are being cheated out of millions of dollars that is rightfully theirs because of underwritten insurance estimates on collision-damaged vehicles, the anti-fraud committee of the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) has discovered.

Members of the anti-fraud committee will present their findings at a press conference at 12 noon at the Mandalay Bay Conference Center, conference room, Islander F/G, in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 31, 2006.

In its research, the anti-fraud committee collected 726 estimates written by a variety of insurance companies from 10 states (Arizona, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, and Virginia). The average estimate was $2,498.20. The average final invoice was $5,048.47, meaning the average supplement was $2550.26—more money, in other words, than the original estimate.

But what, exactly, is the problem?

First, not all consumers bother to have their damaged vehicles repaired. In fact, between 33 and 54 percent of consumers who have been in an accident accept a check from the insurer based on the insurer’s initial damage assessment. If that estimate is short by an average of $2550.26, this represents a huge amount of money the consumer was owed but didn’t receive. All told, it amounts to millions of dollars a year in consumer fraud.

Second, if consumers manage to find a repair facility or are steered to a repair facility by an insurance carrier that will do the work for the amount of the original estimate, their chance of driving off with a vehicle that wasn’t repaired safely increases dramatically, as those shops will have to take shortcuts in the repair work in order to bring down the cost of the repair. Because of this, thousands of less-than-adequately repaired vehicles may be on the road—and may represent a real danger to the motoring public.

Third, if a consumer takes the insurance company estimate to a collision repair business and is told that the amount of the estimate isn’t enough to repair the vehicle safely and properly, the consumer’s perception is that the repair facility is overcharging. In fact, the insurance company’s initial estimate is deficient, by an average of 100%.

Fourth, insurers’ lowball estimates tend to create animosity between collision repairers who want to repair the vehicle correctly (and want to be paid accordingly) and insurers who are looking to have the work done at their bargain-basement price. Collision repairers who persist in demanding to be paid fairly for their work often end up blackballed by insurers. The consumer, stuck in the middle, often loses.

Fifth, insurers’ less-than-adequate repair estimates shortchange state governments out of much needed tax revenue. Based on an average tax of 7.59 percent, states lose $193.74 in tax revenue for each damaged vehicle because of insurance efforts to keep repair estimates artificially low. This adds up to tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue across the nation each year.

“Either insurers are intentionally underwriting the estimates of the damage to the vehicles or there is a lack of knowledge on the insurance carrier’s part on how to write a good analysis of damage,” said anti-fraud committee member Bob Smith. “Either way, something is seriously wrong and needs to be addressed immediately.”

* * *

The Collision Industry Conference (CIC) is a forum for the discussion of national issues affecting the various segments involved in the auto collision repair industry. It meets four times a year to discuss issues affecting the auto collision insurance claims process. The Anti-Fraud Committee is charged with defining and exposing fraud in the collision repair industry and related businesses.

-#-

changed is the supplemental amount is now 2 or 3 times their estimate.

I have the proof to back that up......

It has gotten greater and greater and appraisers are now even admiting the companies don't want them to right for instance R&I's if the vehicle owner has not named a shop heard that just last weel.....

Great news Mark!

Your inquiry was submitted to Audatex by the DEG and we have been able to assist with a resolution. After researching the inquiry and corresponding with your Information Provider, Audatex has proposed the resolution listed below which is scheduled to be added to the January 2010 update. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact the DEG at admin@degweb.org.



Resolution:

The PANEL,REAR BODY (GN 0509) labor allowance has changed from 5.1 hours to 9.9

hours before option conditioning or overlap considerations. The change will appear on theJanuary 2010 release.

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

What is the car information?

in the body of this thread.....2006 Scion Tc

I am computer illiterate....

is, again, only off about 100%. Now I won't get into the obvious cost to both the collision industry and the consumer, you know that common good that is the defense for antitrust behavior. What is intriguing is the idea that it is the repairers place to correct and thereby justify the data as a competent source for ANYTHING! IS THIS IDIOTIC OR WHAT??????????

Here we have repairers that are supposed to price their own work and rather than do that, take the data that is essentially worthless to develop a cost, and then correct it for the data providers who sure as heck don't want to????? And KEEP on complaining about how bad the data is???

By using the data, repairers are not only kicking their own butts, but providing the size 14 foot.

I know your deal is different, but here we have three or four associations sitting up the DEG....has anyone thought this through? Are they supporting a notion that the data is kinda ok with a few errors or what? Or do they think something else? I hope. In any case they would have been better off spending the money, and marching to the DOJ and asking for an injunction against the interstate sale of the data until the data providers can show some level of acceptable accuracy, absence of third party influence as well as address the insurer's reqirement that the data be used. Oh, that's too direct and too confrontational. I forgot. Got plenty of time to incrementalize....:rolleyes:

I've never truly understood how anyone can write a repair estimate in a field that has constantly (by the second) changing variables. Many of these variables can not even be predicted. The weather can change costs for goodness sake.

Repairs should be documented and billed by the hour. Period.

Then insurance companies would have to pay what it REALLY costs to fix wrecks. They might even have to pay for all the materials too. Surely you don't think that's going to happen after all the hard work they have put in seeing to it that they don't.
I'm thinking of declaring my business a non-profit organization. With all the help we are getting, it is beginning to be just that.

something about this for the last 20 years but instead like you said they just follow the leader........


Can you imagine how many of these I could expose...This could be an epidemic if ever really measured.....

Bill you still liking Audatex? Not that the others are any better...

I was going to send you the estimate we were talking about that was converted from ADP to CCC and for the first time I can remember, they wound up being within 6 dollars of each other. I will dig through some of my completed files and find some that aren't so close.
As for me liking ADP, I don't know that the word "like" applies. It has deficiencies, just like the other two, I just distrust ADP less. I have found that when the phone is ringing off the wall, the front door is fanning and the help is worrying the s*#t out of me, all while I am trying to write an estimate. ADP is much more intuitive than the other two and requires far less attention to detail as far as remembering all the manual additions. I can write a much more comprehensive estimate more quickly with the distractions we typically have in the office. With the other two, God help you if you aren't totally focused, you forget anything that has to be manually added or if you don't examine your own estimate when you print it to look for the things the software took it upon itself to "correct".
All of them are deficient, as has been identified and discussed here, but I trust ADP more for not deleting entries I have made from the final estimate, calculating overlap where none applies, and being more aware of and calculating needed R&I operations without having to manually enter all of them. Is it slanted in favor of the insurance side just like the other two? Of course. Just to a lesser degree, in my opinion. I had a hard time paying CCC twice what I pay ADP. If I am going to get screwed by my software provider, it makes no sense to pay twice the price for the same priveledge. Ultramate isn't even under consideration. In my opinion, they started this mess. I went to Ultramate school when the program first came out and vowed I would never use it. I never will.

an insurers estimate and the front to rear of the car is all out of order....now if you think about this a bit and the software is automatic in that manner you can then begin to think

Has the data provider given that insurer a magic software package.......did they customize the program to the extent that this feature doesn't not work in their software....

LOL makes one wonder........doesn't it.....

I pitched a flippin' ass fit when I returned to ADP and could not override the 2.5 hour cap on the clearcoat operation. I called tech support and they made the mistake of telling me that all insurance companies utilized that limit.
I pointed out that an insurance company was not paying for this P.O.S. program and I didn't give one fat s*#t what an insurance company did or did not want. If they could not remove the 2.5 limit from my program, they either needed to find an insurance company to send by monthly bill to or I would be cancelling my contract with them. Amazingly, they figured out how to do the undoable and remove the limit from my program. I have been reasonably happy since.

Mark C must have wore out one of the CCC guys in New England.

Posted in Collision Hub email a list of job openings. By the way what is a posistion?


New Job Postings:

CCC Information Services: Account Manger/ Client Consultant 2 posistions
New England and FL


Esurance

Field Appraiser- Los Angeles, CA
Re-inspector -San Francisco Bay Area

banner advertising tell me what you think...

I don't think that this is anyplace for advertising....in fact look at the air bag one.........WOW

Bad enough having to allow sponsorship to fund it but probably have to do some of that to keep it alive.....

If it serves the right purpose..

Maybe I am all wet here maybe they should allow advertising and no sponsorship.......might be the better disconnect.....

Any way here is this weeks latest submission...there is more on this car as well lets see how Mitchell does

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 Mitchell to identify a resolution to this issue. You will receive a seperate e-mail confirming that the inquiry has been submitted to Mitchell. 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



Inquiry Tracking Number: 1858

Information Provider: Mitchell

Vehicle Description: 2006 Scion Tc 2Dr Hatchback JTKDE177460090704

Inquiry Recap:

IssueSummary
Right rear body floor support 57615-21902 the labor time in not sufficient to perform the operation.


SuggestedAction
Add more time

Has the DEG made available stats from all the data they are collecting?

Things like:

Number of complaints
Percent resolved with higher labor hours
Number resolved with no change
Percent resolved with lower labor time
Highest increase
Average increase
Percent complaint by vehicle
Complaints by type (paint, body, frame)
Etc, etc, etc

They are sorting and analyzing it I hope

take a look

Not sure if you could get the info in any other format.......

when the data providers were first coming on stream moving from hard books to internet, one of the first things that raised a furor as well as a question as to who the data providers were serving, was the automatic selection of aftermarket prices in the parts list before OEM.

That and the kind of issues you describe that have been going on a very long time, exposes their intentions regardless of their protestations that they don't favor....insurers. Only a fool or a bought soul would believe that their data is to "help" repairers in any way.

Data providers are a living example of the 'big lie'. And in many ways their affect is like a drug addiction. You pay big bucks for a promise and a hope that kicks your ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill

I pitched a flippin' ass fit when I returned to ADP and could not override the 2.5 hour cap on the clearcoat operation. I called tech support and they made the mistake of telling me that all insurance companies utilized that limit.
I pointed out that an insurance company was not paying for this P.O.S. program and I didn't give one fat s*#t what an insurance company did or did not want. If they could not remove the 2.5 limit from my program, they either needed to find an insurance company to send by monthly bill to or I would be cancelling my contract with them. Amazingly, they figured out how to do the undoable and remove the limit from my program. I have been reasonably happy since.

---

Has anyone else wondered why these issues aren't garnering any widespread attention, especially from industry writers/journalists? I understand John Yoswick did mention Cobb's efforts in CRASH. Did anyone see this?

Am I the "only one" contacting industry writers and collision repair industry trade publications and their staff and directing them to this thread? Well if so, it's time for all the rest of you to do likewise, or this will never get any further attention. God knows industry leadership has blown this off, even though ASA's Ron Pyle and Darrell Amberson are listed on the DEG contact page. Their silence is deeply disturbing. Are they concerned about alientating the data providers and what this could potentially mean to the next NACE? Or perhaps fear of insurer payback is playing a role?

Time to light a fire under anyone and everyone you can think of related to our industry. As brother-Wade always says, it's time to drag them kicking and screaming into this mess of an industry. :eek:

It is in fact CCC my error in reading an attachment

Great news Mark!

Your inquiry was re-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 resolution listed below which is scheduled to be added to the January 2010 DVD update. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact the DEG at admin@degweb.org.

Proposed Resolution: MOTOR stated:

'After review, the following changes have been made:

1. The component description has been adjusted to “Rear Body Reinforcement” from “Lower Panel.”

2. The estimated work time applied to the Rear Body Reinforcement has been adjusted to 20.7 hours from 1.5 hours.
3. A footnote has been applied to the Rear Body Reinforcement that states: 'LABOR:

Time includes R&R rear body panel, sill panel, sleeves, rear floor pan and cutting lower portion of pillar reinforcement to access OEM spot weld locations. Time is for complete part replacement at OEM seam joint locations, as outlined in OEM service manual.''

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

In that no one else seems to be either having the success that Cobb is yet, or putting forth the effort that Cobb is yet, I have to ask a simple question based on his apparant success with the DEG:

Cobb, why don't you stop fixing cars, and charge a nominal fee to submit these screw-ups to the DEG FOR shops, and do it "wholesale"? (quantiy wise, not price wise)

It may not ever be as big as the "at home medical claims processing" biz, but HEY...you seem to have their attention, and "respect".

The mistakes are undeniable; what are they going to do? Stop agreeing with your "blinding light of day revelations" to them about the data errors?

I'm guessing, but with a staff of 6, processing 12 requests per day, (grabbing my calculator......) you should have a sound career for at least the next century.

And HEY, they keep making NEW car models... with NEW data errors...so hold on, this may be something you could hand down to your great, great, great grandkids!

What shall we call your new biz?

The Data Busters?

Man, can I think of a logo or two for that!

:D:D

one or two of these a week for a while......The proof would be overwhelming.....

Do I think we should have to ....no but the evidence that we would build might create an action we would all like to see....

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 Mitchell to identify a resolution to this issue. You will receive a seperate e-mail confirming that the inquiry has been submitted to Mitchell. 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



Inquiry Tracking Number: 1865

Information Provider: Mitchell

Vehicle Description: 2006 Scion Tc 2Dr Hatchback JTKDE177460090704

Inquiry Recap:

IssueSummary
R UPR FRONT BODY BRACE LABOR NOT ADEQUATE


ProcedureSteps
After removal of radiator and condenser and upper radiator support the part still has extensive amounts of welds and access is restricted by at least two other parts that lay over the part and must be drilled and at the least possibly partially moved to access the welds of this part.


ActualTime
2.5


SuggestedAction
Increase the labor for this part after bolt on parts are removed

How about submitting them to the DOJ, FBI, AG, and whomever else we can think of? These examples point to direct knowledge of widespread conspiracy and attempts to correct/cover evidence that is finally being brought to light.

Cobb, you're on to something. Something huge.

Too bad industry writers/journalists don't comprehend the gravity of this. But I may know someone. ;)