+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6
1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: Whoa Biggsy, you done stepped in it…AGAIN!

  1. Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    248

    Whoa Biggsy, you done stepped in it…AGAIN!

    To quote you:


    “The strategy we suggested is still advisable except the DRP's have all evolved into cost containment systems and have obviouosly (sic) stepped over the line from a customer service program in the mid 1990 (sic) to unfair trade practices and blatant violations of consumer protection laws today.”



    I think we can all agree with the underlined part. However, shouldn’t it follow that any shop participating in a DRP today may be guilty of stepping “over the line from a customer service program… to unfair trade practices and blatant violations of consumer protection laws”?

    Furthermore, wouldn’t it likewise follow that any self-professed “consumer-oriented” network of repair facilities wouldn’t allow DRPs as members or affiliates? After all, a network service can’t be “consumer-oriented” if it knowingly solicits participating shops from businesses that routinely step “over the line from a customer service program… to unfair trade practices and blatant violations of consumer protection laws”, can it?

    In fact, wouldn’t a self-proclaimed “consumer-oriented” network of repair facilities have a duty to ensure that no DRPs were servicing the consumers that relied upon its assertion of being “consumer-oriented”? And if this “consumer-oriented” network of repair facilities ignored this “duty”, wouldn’t it likewise be stepping “over the line from a customer service program… to unfair trade practices and blatant violations of consumer protection laws”?

    Hey, just askin’…


    "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." - J. Robert Oppenheimer 1945

  2. Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    112

    LOL, That has to sting... LOL

  3. Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    182

    Right now feels like the moment that a cartoon character realizes he was standing on the branch he just sawed through.

  4. Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    196

    Biggsie has two heads or two mouths you pick

    People never cease to amaze me.
    "If Discussions with one's enemies could be worthwhile banks would invite robbers and burglers to their association meetings to discuss security"
    Jim Lynas

  5. Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    16

    Quote Originally Posted by Advocate View Post
    To quote you:

    [B] "However, shouldn’t it follow that any shop participating in a DRP today may be guilty of stepping “over the line from a customer service program… to unfair trade practices and blatant violations of consumer protection laws”?

    Nope. You are wrong about that. One can and should accept consumers from any source. To do so, does not make me guilty of anything but being customer responsive. HOWEVER, if I agree to repair for less, or perform repairs without the full disclosure and agreement of the vehicle owner, they may have violated a law.

    This is the dangerous area that too many shops of all kinds are dancing around. Shops that are not party to a DRP agreement can also be guilty of a bunch of interpretations of the law, too regarding their pricing practices. Unfortunately, these need to be spelled out, but each time a legislative body tries, they get twisted in the direction of the insurers. Perhaps it needs to be decided by lawsuit and case law instead.

    Our position is like when you asked your wife to marry you. You were asking what she was willing to do from that day forward, not what she had done in the past. Like our relationship with the shop, it is pro-active not retro-active. Our designation pertains to what they are willing to do not what they have been forced to do to survive.

    I will reveal some more of my politics here and now. I don't believe we should sue gun companies for the crimes committed with the guns they manufacture. In my opinion, people kill people not guns! The bartender and bar does not create alcoholics! On the other hand, when one become addicted to smoking because the makers secretly added addictive agents, I would definitely find them guilty and the addicted smoker not! Just stuid for ever smoking in the first place.

    DRP's adverse affects are pinpointed in the 14 points of Insurance Unfair Trade Practice reform we are proposing. Fix these and keep everyone within the laws regardless of the name DRP.

    -Next point: Shops that are agreeing to the demands and not demanding the insurers comply to legal business practices, etc are guilty of stupidity. I am not sure what else they may be guilty of. That is someone else's job. I will not throw the first or last stone related to this unless it is to build a bridge to get out of this mess. You can and are.

    However, having said that, I could not be more opposed and adverse than I am to those consolidators that have and continue to pandered to the insurers and given them the knife to cut the industry's throat. They are the guilty parties of conspiracy even if they will never be convicted by any existing laws. The shops that paid off Gil Palmer and participated in the slimy schemes are the one I would flip the switch on. They should be tangling from hooks.

    The others that go along to get along are only as guilty as the German people were for the Nazi's. My focus in on the sin, not the sinner.

    Trust me that I get it when I say, I could be naive and a fool on this. Regardless, I will continue to assist those that want a better way of doing business find that better way and not damned them for what they may have been a party too by weakness of character or unknowingly getting trapped.

    Standing in judgment and criticizing someone does not seem to be getting us better results or a different solution.

    As the marketing aspects of our network begins to work and more and more people begin to make the right choices as informed consumers, shops will have a choice other than to go along to get along and stay alive for another day. As 20 million consumers begin to have another choice, insurers will have to change their business practices or they will lose market share and money.

    It is working extremely well so far where we have tested and rolled it out. Hell, it just might work, but even if it doesn't, at least we are trying to build something .. .as Sam Rayburn once said, “Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one”

  6. Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    193

    Biggs,

    Bartenders, Nazis, barns and casting stones!?!?!

    If Bullshit was music, you'd be the biggest brass band in the industry!



  7. Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    823

    Biggs? You quoted:

    “Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one”


    Have you been spending too much time with old Heffy? This is straight out of his playbook. How many times has he said this?

    I'll have you know that every time we have attempted to "build" a better barn, either members of the insurance industry, or our supposed colleagues from our own industry, have moved heaven and earth in order to stop any significant successes. This allegation can be substantiated.

    But I do have to give you credit for accepting the challenge to stand up and speak your mind openly.

  8. Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    248

    Your first paragraph sums up the fallacy of your position…

    Let’s take it apart one cogent thought at a time, shall we?

    “Nope. You are wrong about that.”

    I am wrong about what? That many DRPs are guilty of stepping “over the line from a customer service program… to unfair trade practices and blatant violations of consumer protection laws”? Hell man, those are your words, I simply agreed with you. Furthermore, in your response you again all but admit that DRPs continue to commit unfair trade practices and blatant violations of consumer protection laws” with this comment:

    “DRP's adverse affects are pinpointed in the 14 points of Insurance Unfair Trade Practice reform we are proposing. Fix these and keep everyone within the laws regardless of the name DRP.”

    If many DRPs weren’t continually guilty of stepping “over the line from a customer service program… to unfair trade practices and blatant violations of consumer protection laws”, why would there be a need for your 14 point proposal? The past is the past right? Oh wait, if there is still a need for your 14 point proposal that must mean that many DRPs continue to step “over the line from a customer service program… to unfair trade practices and blatant violations of consumer protection laws”, right?


    Then you offer this thought:

    “One can and should accept consumers from any source. To do so, does not make me guilty of anything but being customer responsive.”

    You NAZI analogy seems appropriate here. I believe you have simply re-stated the Nuremburg defense: “We was just following orders” (("Befehl ist Befehl)" Sorry pal, this argument didn’t work then, and it doesn’t work now. To knowingly accept a referral as a DRP (or to refer an unsuspecting consumer to a supposedly “consumer-oriented” network of shops made up of DRPS) and then process their business as specified by a secret DRP arrangement is the epitome of stepping “over the line from a customer service program… to unfair trade practices and blatant violations of consumer protection laws”. And no one can argue that many DRPS do this every day, even those that are APN members.


    Finally, you end up with this:

    “HOWEVER, if I agree to repair for less, or perform repairs without the full disclosure and agreement of the vehicle owner, they may have violated a law.”

    “Full disclosure”, huh? Tell me Biggsy, how many of your DRP APN members offer full disclosure to their clients? Specifically, how many provide copies of the DRP Agreements they signed to vehicle owners? I’ll tell how many, NONE!!

    So, where does this leave us? Right back to where we started:

    [W]ouldn’t a self-proclaimed “consumer-oriented” network of repair facilities have a duty to ensure that no DRPs were servicing the consumers that relied upon its assertion of being “consumer-oriented”? And if this “consumer-oriented” network of repair facilities ignored this “duty”, wouldn’t it likewise be stepping “over the line from a customer service program… to unfair trade practices and blatant violations of consumer protection laws”?

    Oh, and one other thing, stop already with the “sinners” analogy. Not even GOD can eliminate “sin”, HE can only forgive the repentant “sinner”. A repentant sinner is one who turns away from the “sin”. So tell us Biggsy, how many of your members are willing to repent from DRPs? I am not talking about eliminating some of the “sin”, a la Leader Lee, but a total repent. How many are willing to relinquish all their DRPs today, right now? In fact, since many DRPS continue to step “over the line from a customer service program… to unfair trade practices and blatant violations of consumer protection laws”, how soon can we count on APN to eliminate all DRPs from its self proclaimed “consumer-oriented” network of repair facilities?

    I can probably answer this last question for you. As Sam Rayburn also said. “When you get too big a majority, you're immediately in trouble.” Your DRP buddies are in a world of hurt. And there is nothing you or they can do about it.

    Then again, I don't know nuthin'...

    (P.S. - Funny post Raul; loved it.)


    "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." - J. Robert Oppenheimer 1945

  9. Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    823

    Advocate, the year IS early....but

    I must say this is one of your best, if not THE best, posts you have ever contributed to this site.

    Our issue is really very simple, isn't it? But others have continued to make it more difficult than it really is. And why is that? Why can't they admit the truth?

    DRPs can never undo the past, nor remove themselves from the roles they played in the demise of our industry. But if some of them wish to step forward and provide remorse...but so far that hasn't happened either. Instead they continue to "negotiate" and "engage" in practices which are beyond our roles as shop owners. Both Patrick McGuire and Erica Eversman stated many years ago that this was unethical, and could also be illegal. But did any of them listen? Did any of these leaders make a point of furthering lines of communications with these attorneys who were willing to help our industry? Very few did.

  10. Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    823

    Erica said it best here:

    Also, a repairer’s act of “negotiating” the repair with an insurer is construed as the unauthorized practice of law. In February 1981, the Alabama Attorney General’s office stated that the representation of an insured by a person not licensed as an attorney-at-law appeared to be a violation of the Alabama Code. In a letter from the Alabama Department of Insurance’s legal department dated February 25, 2004, the Insurance Department opined that, “[t]he Alabama State Bar has taken the position that representation of an insured by an individual who is not licensed as an attorney-at-law would be in violation of Section 34-3-6, Code of Alabama 1975. The contacting of an insurance company on behalf of an insured would constitute the unauthorized and unlicensed practice of law.”
    Therefore, any attempts by an insurance company to draw the collision repairer into discussing, negotiating or changing the blueprint for repair compromises the customer’s claim and subjects the repairer to charges of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.


    http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/Arti...al_primer.aspx

    But for some reason ASA's Bob Redding, also an attorney, can't seem to grasp this. But he did just say this in ABRN (pg. 18) regarding am-parts:

    "Our members want to do quality repairs with quality parts," he says. "We would like to hear more discussion about educating the consumer, and how we can make these parts better since they are being pushed to use them by the insurance companies."

    So, suddenly ASA and Redding care about "educating the consumer"? Since when? Why haven't they contacted either Erica or Patrick then? What have they been waiting for? I have many years of e-mails and letters where he, Pyle or ASA collision leaders could have cared less. And if their leadership shops had any backbone, they would have learned long ago who the repair professional is, and who chooses the proper parts.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts